Comments on: Enertia Building System stores energy in wood http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2007/05/11/enertia-building-systems-stores-energy-in-wood/ The Alternative Consumer provides product reviews, eco news and green info to the next wave of smart consumers. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:11:43 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v= hourly 1 By: pd http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2007/05/11/enertia-building-systems-stores-energy-in-wood/comment-page-1/#comment-13954 pd Sat, 12 May 2007 14:26:42 +0000 http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2007/05/11/enertia-building-systems-stores-energy-in-wood/#comment-13954 There are alot of materials with higher thermal mass than wood and are therefore much better at regulating temperature. Masonry, stone, concrete, water filled walls, etc. Thats why properly designed passive solar homes use these materials for heat storage walls. Actually I can't think of a a worse material than wood. Well maybe metals would be worse. Also, they lose points for improper use of the term "heat pump". This is a step backwards from passive solar technology (if you can call it that) that has been around for 50 years (or more). There are alot of materials with higher thermal mass than wood and are therefore much better at regulating temperature. Masonry, stone, concrete, water filled walls, etc. Thats why properly designed passive solar homes use these materials for heat storage walls. Actually I can’t think of a a worse material than wood. Well maybe metals would be worse. Also, they lose points for improper use of the term “heat pump”. This is a step backwards from passive solar technology (if you can call it that) that has been around for 50 years (or more).

]]> By: Sylvan Korvus http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2007/05/11/enertia-building-systems-stores-energy-in-wood/comment-page-1/#comment-13878 Sylvan Korvus Fri, 11 May 2007 21:55:18 +0000 http://www.alternativeconsumer.com/2007/05/11/enertia-building-systems-stores-energy-in-wood/#comment-13878 I have to doubt the "sequesters carbon" claim by the company. Trees store carbon in their wood whether they're alive or dead; but alive, they continually process carbon dioxide & release oxygen. Cutting down trees means that not only do you lose that carbon filtering, but it carries the environmental cost of the loss of habitat and topsoil depletion due to runoff. Energy saving is nice; but they'd have to stack that up against a house that uses much less wood (trees) that insulates in a more traditional manner. I have to doubt the “sequesters carbon” claim by the company. Trees store carbon in their wood whether they’re alive or dead; but alive, they continually process carbon dioxide & release oxygen. Cutting down trees means that not only do you lose that carbon filtering, but it carries the environmental cost of the loss of habitat and topsoil depletion due to runoff.

Energy saving is nice; but they’d have to stack that up against a house that uses much less wood (trees) that insulates in a more traditional manner.

]]>