How much wood?

[BarstowRat]

So I have been wondering about how much wood is used in a log cabin vs. a stick built home? From that, is a log cabin actually more "green" then a standard 2X4 built home? So a standard size cabin uses 'X' amount of trees from floor to roof, how much does an exual size 'house' with 2X4, plywood and such. I know that with a cabin there are virtually no bad chemicals used in construction like there are in things like plywood (glues, binders, etc), and such making it more green, also I imagine there is very little waste material, sawdust for compost, end cuts for fire wood. Having never built either I rely on those who have to help ease my brain knot.

[loghousenut]

How green is my house...


If you are only counting board feet, my place is gonna be an ecological disaster... But there's more than board feet in your question.

My ridgepole probably has enough potential lumber in it to frame and maybe supply siding for a comparable stick house. But then my ridgepole is a big 'ole Ponderosa Pine that has too much taper and a ton of large, ugly knots and was worth very little on the lumber market.

My wall logs also are Ponderosa Pine and just as ugly as the ridgepole was. They also are probably not worth what it would cost to haul them. They're not great firewood and you couldn't make legal studs out of them. Most log house builders would say you couldn't make a log house out of them but, using the LHBA system it is a breeze.

So I took a bunch of trees that are no benefit to the job market, and I suppose they would have helped the environment if they coulda lived and died in the woods. I cut them down and paid a guy to haul them to my place. I (and my Family) are turning them into a home that will still be solid, useful, comfortable, and stylish 5 generations from now. It will be strong, beautiful, safe, and really cool. Cool matters.

I'm not superstitious but it's still kinda weird to say this. I truly believe that this home will stand long after those of us who are building it are dust. The ecology of the whole thing is kinda secondary to me.


http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t55/loghousenut/Wow/Rafters9-2010441.jpg

[Scoutman]

Yeah LHN. Those sure are some ugly logs! LOVE IT! Hope mine is just as "ugly"!

[loghousenut]

Yeah LHN. Those sure are some ugly logs! LOVE IT! Hope mine is just as "ugly"!


Scoutman, Your home will be as ugly as a well used violin. I guarantee it.

Now's the time for all you "engineer" types to fall in line with the numbers to back up the ecology of an LHBA home.

[rckclmbr428]

when you start to talk about "green" buildings, people seem to associate it with some rather narrow parameters. I will try and explain as to why I feel my homes are light years ahead of the vast majority of advertised "green" homes. First, to address your concern about wood usage, first off, wood is a renewable resource, it is better to use more of something that is renewable and less of something that isnt. a standard stick built home has 2x4's and other dimensional lumber that was logged somewhere far away, with large diesel machines (non renewable resource, aka nrr) put on large diesel trucks,(nrr) and trucked to the nearest mill, where they are milled into roughcut lumber, using electricity, which in this country, the vast amount of is generated by Coal.(nrr) then sent to a kiln, which again generates heat from either burning wood, (more green) or more likely by pulling power or natural gas off a grid (nrr) then put on another diesel truck (nrr) to go to a finishing mill to be planed by electric or diesel run mills (nrr) then put on another diesel truck, (nrr) and trucked to a lowes near you. now its unloaded and stored indoors in a climate controlled and well lit indoor lumber yard, which is sucking power off the grid, more coal (nrr) now you can get in your gas or diesel burning car, drive to lowes, and spend an afternoon picking through the pile trying to find the ones that are relatively straight to build with (straight is a relative term with dimensional lumber at Lowes, at least my lowes) now you get to pay your green for it, load up, and burn some more fuel to the job site.(nrr) now you are ready to build with your 2x4 at your job site.
I think I am going to go ahead and share a pet peave of mine, the vast majority of lumber in the stores comes from either tree farms, which are vast tracts of land that have been clear cut and planted in specific fast growing trees that maximize ROI, or from clear cuts in standard deciduous type forests. Foresters definition of a "healthy" forest is one that is producing the maximum amount of board feet per year, they manage forests for production, not habitat, biodiversity, etc. an extremely old large tree is just taking up valuable sunlight that could be shining down on little trees to help them make more 2x4's. so in a foresters mind, it needs to go. but the raccoon, squirrels, birds, and deer that depend on its acorn forage each fall would really like for it to stay around, I have had many arguements with foresters claiming the forest isnt "healthy" because there are lots of old trees. and that they are going to help the forest be healthy by cutting all the trees down. enough of that, I fear I might incite a riot and am bordering political talk. so I digress.

now, lets compare how the 2x4 makes it to the job site, with how my logs make it to the job site. I use a local horse logging company, that select cuts White Pine off of private, local land owners property, the horses skid them out of the woods, then they are loaded on a Diesel truck (nrr) and driven to my job site (typically less then 50 miles) and offloaded with my diesel forklift (nrr) now I have my building material on site, and am ready to build, see the difference in the cumulative impact between just getting the building material to the home sites? Which is more green? and I have built cabins with logs directly off the land, no trucks at all, just skid them directly to the build site.

now, lets talk life expectancy of the structure, our homes are built to last 300+ years, and if a good roof is kept on it, possibly even longer. most standard stick built homes are designed for a 60-70yr life expectancy., so lets say every 75 years, someone is tearing down the stick built home, and putting it in a landfill, and then starting the whole process over again. a stick built home will be built, torn down and buried in a landfill 4 times in the time mine is still standing, which is more green?
I typically use 60-70 trees per home, and each are normally around 60ish years old (average) so when my home is not even into 1/4 of its life expectancy, all the trees I used have been replaced with saplings in the forest. at the end of my homes expectancy, those trees grandbabies will be ready for someone else to use in a log home.
Thats enough typing for now, but i havent even scratched the surface of superior efficiency, amounts of foreign oil involved in the entire house, etc. hope this helps

[BarstowRat]

Excellent points from all especially you RCK. Mind you, this whole question was nothing that would sway me from building our cabin, just a curiosity. I have been confronted before from others saying "that's bad for the environment"and my reply is always that I don't care, still going to watch my dream come true as I cut down some trees. I just wanted to have a more credible answer than that. So again, I was not trying to incite a cabin riot, but I figured with all the brains here someone would have already done the figuring. Thank you all.

[destructoxvi]

No calculations, complaints or moaning but LHN you got some goooood, with a capital "G", pictures. That is a massive log holding up that roof.

[blane]

Yes, and I have one of those teenage spidermen myself. Those come in handy!
No calculations, complaints or moaning but LHN you got some goooood, with a capital "G", pictures. That is a massive log holding up that roof.