Tag Archives: construction

Straw homes are a cheap and green fix for the housing crisis Updated for 2026





The UK construction sector must reduce its energy consumption by 50% and its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

So radical changes are needed to the way we approach building houses. Straw could be a critical part of the transition towards a low-carbon future.

The thermal insulation value of a typical straw bale wall meets the requirements of even the most demanding performance specifications.

Recent research led by the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath has shown that straw bale buildings reduce energy bills by 90% compared to conventional housing stock.

The manufacture of cement, used in concrete, is responsible alone for up to 8% of all industrially produced greenhouse gas emissions. Using natural materials such as straw, often directly from the field and with little further processing, significantly reduces this impact.

Traditionally, the environmental impact of construction materials has been significantly less than the impact of occupation (heating, cooling and so on) over the lifespan of the building. However, in modern energy efficient buildings the proportion attributable to that ’embodied’ in the fabric of the building is expected to increase to at least 90%.

Measures to reduce the impact of the embodied energy and carbon will deliver even more environmentally friendly buildings.

A natural building material

Straw is just the dried stalks of plants stripped of their grain. You don’t really ‘make straw’ – it’s a co-product of grain production, an established and essential agricultural process. So using straw doesn’t displace land required for essential food production.

In the UK more than 7m tonnes of straw remains after the production of wheat, and up to half this amount is effectively discarded due to its low value – simply chopped up and returned to the soil.

As an average three-bedroom house needs 7.2 tonnes of straw, the ‘leftover’ could be used to build more than 500,000 new homes – a city the size of Birmingham could be built each year using discarded straw.

Straw is also a low-cost material. But more importantly, as a plant it captures and stores atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. By using more and more straw in buildings we are creating a natural carbon storage bank.

Though the bible references using straw for bricks – and thatched roofs – have been common for centuries, modern straw construction was developed when mechanical baling machines were first used in late 19th-century Nebraska.

Stacked like large bricks, straw bales can be used for modest loadbearing as well as non-loadbearing walls. The oldest surviving straw bale building is around 100 years old.

But straw has never caught on as an alternative to bricks, concrete or timber. There are concerns about its poor durability, fire resistance, the way it attracts mice and rats and, as one of the three little pigs found out the hard way, its lack of structural integrity.

The answer – high precision pre-fabricated ‘bales’

Straw bales aren’t currently made to the same levels of tolerance and specification as bricks or cement. The fact they’re generally slightly different sizes combined with the need to keep bales dry during construction has meant most builders would not, until recently, consider straw bales a viable solution for anything. Other than perhaps for enthusiastic self-builders.

However, the development of prefabricated wall panels using straw bale for insulation has now provided the opportunity to market straw to the mainstream construction industry.

Prefabrication, or off-site manufacture, means that wall panels can be made to a very high specification in a factory, protected from variable weather conditions that would otherwise inhibit on-site building with straw.

A prefabricated product can be certified as fit for use by industry bodies, making it much more acceptable to builders, financiers and insurers. It also radically reduces site construction times, with houses able to be erected in ten weeks instead of around 16 weeks for more conventional buildings. It seems the time has arrived for straw bale construction.

For the past ten years the University of Bath has been working with a local company, ModCell, to develop prefabricated straw bales. We started out looking at straw as a low-carbon cladding solution and soon moved on to developing panels that could bear heavy loads. Now, we are able to make low-energy prefabricated straw bale houses.

 

Bath’s own straw house. The panels from 00:09 onwards are all prefab straw and lime plaster.

Officially approved for the formal construction sector

The panels have been subjected to fire tests, thermal transmittance tests, accelerated weathering tests, acoustic tests, simulated flooding and impact testing. We’ve even tested the structures in a simulated hurricane force wind, in what has been termed the ‘big bad wolf’ test: the panels and prototype BaleHaus passed with flying colours.

These panels have now been granted certification. This in turn means insurers will cover straw houses and home-buyers will be able to obtain mortgages.

Hayesfield School in Bath, EcoDepot in York and the School of Architecture at the University of the West of England have all made use of these panels. Certification means the housing market can now use straw too, with LILAC in Leeds completed in 2013 and now a new development in Bristol due for completion later this year, with proposals for larger schemes already in planning.

Modern prefabricated straw bale houses are affordable, deliver excellent levels of energy efficiency in use for the home-owner or occupier and provide a genuine sustainable solution by using a cheap and widely available agricultural co-product.

Other similar prefabricated systems using straw bale construction have been developed in Australia, Belgium and Canada. Entire communities, towns or even cities built from straw bales. And why not?

 


 

Pete Walker is Director, BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390068

Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late Updated for 2026





As of this month, 49 of 66 reactors under construction around the world are running behind schedule, according to an updated analysis conducted by the authors of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014.

The study takes into account several delay announcements in recent weeks:

  • USA: two reactors, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2 and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 3;
  • South Korea: two reactors – Shin-Hanul-2 and Shin-Wolsong-2;
  • and Finland: Olkiluoto-3.

Little is known about the progress on four nuclear reactors in India. All the other reactor projects have been under way for less than two years, which makes it difficult to identify delays in the absence of full access to information.

The full and up to date list of reactors under construction and related delay details is available at World Reactor Delays.

The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)

The study highlights the two EPR-design reactors currently under construction: Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 and France’s Flamanville-3. Both are running about $7 billion over their initial budgets and now projected to cost more than $11 billion.

EDF’s Flamanville reactor was due to be completed by 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion, but is now projected for completion in 2016 at a cost of €8.5 billion.

Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 reactor, the first EPR construction project, is likely to be a decade behind schedule upon delivery, with a projected completion date of 2018. Construction of the 1.6GW plant began in 2005 and was originally due for completion in 2009. Cost figures are similar to those for Flamanville.

Despite the severe problems with existing EPR projects, the French parastatal power company EDF is planning to build a twin-reactor 3.2GW plant in the UK at Hinkley C in Somerset.

The UK Government strongly supports the project and has agreed terms for a support package that may be worth as much as £100 billion over its lifetime. It includes both a guaranteed electricity price double current wholesale market levels (at £92.50 per megawatt hour) and a £10 billion construction finance guarantee.

Critics like Nikki Clark of the Stop Hinkley campaign group have denounced the UK’s choice of the EPR design as “insane” given the delays and cost overruns in France and Finland.

The support package for Hinkley C is under review by the European Commission as possible ‘illegal state aid’ and may never win approval. The reactors are not included in the study since construction has not proceeded beyond extensive groundworks.

Delays a key factor behind rising costs

Mycle Schneider, Paris-based international consultant on energy and nuclear policy and lead author of ‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014′ said:

“Delays in construction – some of them multi-year – are a key factor behind rising costs and the clear trend of the shrinking share of nuclear energy in the world’s power production, which declined steadily from a historic peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013.

“That trend is likely to persist as costly construction delays continue to dog the relatively small number of new reactor projects around the globe.”

Contrary to what is often claimed in the United States by proponents of nuclear power, he added, “the reality is that other nations around the globe do not have a better track record when it comes to delivering nuclear reactor projects on time and on budget.”

The global picture

According to the study:

  • China – often cited in the US as an example of where nuclear power is being delivered on time and inexpensively – is actually experiencing construction delays at 20 of its 27 reactor projects.
  • Russia is seeing delays at nine out of nine reactor projects.
  • India is reporting delays at two out of six reactor projects, but little information is available about the on-time status of the other four.
  • South Korea is seeing delays at four out of five reactor projects.
  • The United States is reporting delays at all five new reactor projects now under construction.
  • Ukraine’s two reactors were commenced in 1986-1987, and grid connection is officially due in 2015-2016.
  • Five reactors in Pakistan (2), Slovakia (2) and Brazil (1) are also running behind schedule.
  • Finland – Olkiluoto EPR delayed by almost a decade (see above).
  • France – Flamanvile EPR four years behind schedule (see above).

Of these eight reactors have been listed as ‘under construction’ for more than 20 years, and another for 12 years.

With Belarus, a new country was added in the last year to the list of nations engaged in nuclear projects, while Taiwan has halted construction work at two units. Fourteen countries are currently building nuclear power plants.

The remaining 13 reactors all started construction in 2012 and after, making it hard to see how construction is advancing. They are also in countries with little open information on building progress.These 13 reactors comprise: Argentina (1), Belarus (2), China (7), South Korea (1), UAE (2).

“This is by no means any guarantee that these plants are factually on time, let alone on budget”, says Schneider.

Contruction delays – a feature of nuclear power for 40 years

“For the last 40 years, the US nuclear power industry has been plagued by construction delays and by cost overruns”, comments Peter Bradford, adjunct professor on Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Vermont Law School.

The former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and former chair of the New York and Maine state utility regulatory commissions, continued:

“Because nuclear power is already more expensive than alternative ways both of generating electricity and of fighting climate change, these delays and overruns further undermine nuclear power’s claim that special nuclear subsidies are an essential part of the world’s climate change strategy.”

 


 

Further information: http://bit.ly/worldreactordelays.

 

 




383087

The nuclear industry today: declining, but not (yet) dying Updated for 2026





Every year, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report reminds me why those in the Green movement who think nuclear has a major role to play in securing a low-carbon world are completely, dangerously off their collective trollies.

The Status Report is not an anti-nuclear polemic. Over the years, its authors (Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt) have assiduously built its reputation for dispassionate reporting on the state of the industry, presented as objectively and non-judgmentally as possible.

It uses a wide range of sources (academic, industry, avowedly pro-nuclear and avowedly anti-nuclear) to maintain longitudinal datasets going back over decades to tell it as it is – in contrast to all the froth of partisan propaganda. On both sides.

Let me just give you a taste from the newly-published 2014 Report:

Overview

“The nuclear share of the world’s power generation declined steadily from an historic peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production declined from the 2012 low of 4.5%, a level last seen in 1984, to a new low of 4.4%.”

“Twenty-eight years after the Chernobyl disaster, none of the next generation reactors (or so-called Generation III or III+) has entered service, with construction projects in Finland and France many years behind schedule.”

Construction

“As of July 2014, 67 reactors were under construction (one more than in July 2013), with a total capacity of 64GW. The average building time of the units under construction stands at seven years. However:

  • At least 49 of the 67 reactors have encountered construction delays, most of them significant (several months to several years). For the first time, major delays – several months to over two years – have been admitted on three-quarters (21 out of 28) of the projects in China.
  • Eight reactors have been listed as ‘under construction’ for more than 20 years, another for 12 years.
  • Two-thirds (43) of the units under construction are located in three countries: China, India and Russia.”


Certification delays

“The certification of new reactor designs encounters continuous obstacles. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) first delayed to 2015 the certification of the Franco-German-designed EP, and no longer projects any completion date for the review.

“The NRC rejected the licence application for the South Korean APR 1400 due to lack of information in key areas. Only the Westinghouse AP 1000 has received full generic design approval in the US.

“There is no projected completion date for the renewal of certification for the two versions of the ABWR (GE-Hitachi and Toshiba).”

Operating cost increases

“In some countries (including France, Germany, the US and Sweden), historically low inflation-adjusted operating costs – especially for major repairs – have escalated so rapidly that the average reactor’s operating cost is barely below, or even exceeds, the normal band of wholesale power prices.”

The Report is particularly strong on comparing the differences between nuclear power and renewable energy deployment.

“Compared to 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change was signed, there has been an additional 616 TWh per year of windpower produced, and 124 TWh of solar photovoltaics, outpacing nuclear with just 114 TWh.

In 2013, growth rates for generation from wind power above 20% were seen in North America, Europe and Eurasia, and Asia Pacific, with the two largest markets in the US (19%) and China (38%).

In the world of photovoltaics, North America saw a more than doubling of power generation, Asia Pacific a 75% increase.”

Installed capacity

“Globally, since 2000, the annual growth rates for wind power have averaged 25%, and for solar voltaics 43%. This has resulted, in 2013 alone, in 32 GW of wind and 37 GW of solar being added. Nuclear generating capacity declined by 19 GW compared to the 2000 level.”

China

“By the end of 2013, China had a total of 91 GW of operating windpower capacity. China’s 18 GW of installed solar capacity for the first time exceeded operating nuclear capacity.

China added a new world record of at least 12 GW of solar in just one year (versus 3 GW of nuclear), overtaking Germany’s previous 7.6 GW record and exceeding cumulative US additions since it invented photovoltaics in the 1950s.

“China now aims at 40 GW of solar, and will probably exceed the 100 GW wind power target for 2015.”

Nuclear’s installed capacity at the level of decades ago

Not surprisingly, this is the Report’s principal conclusion:

“The nuclear industry is in decline: the 388 operating reactors are 50 fewer than the peak in 2002, while the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 367 GW before declining to the current level, which is comparable to levels last seen two decades ago. Annual nuclear electricity generation reached a maximum of 2,660 TW hours in 2006, and dropped to 2,359 TW hours in 2013.”

This is all just the top line. The Report digs down deep into the situation in Japan (as troubling as ever, whatever the self-justifying protestations of George Monbiot – the man who, mystifyingly, ‘fell in love’ with nuclear power because of Fukushima – and others), in China, at Hinkley Point, and in the context of a whole range of “potential newcomer countries”.

As I worked my way through all this, page by page, it’s all but impossible for me to understand how any thoughtful, intelligent environmentalist could possibly suppose either that

  • a so-called nuclear renaissance is ever going to happen; or
  • even in the improbable circumstances that it did, how it could possibly deliver the kind of safe, secure, low-carbon energy the world needs so desperately.

And the longer they hang on to these fantasies, the more damage they do, sowing confusion and doubt, distracting attention from the business of driving forward with the renewables-efficiency-storage alternative.

All I can think is that these people never actually read up on the state of play in the nuclear industry. They should try it: it’s illuminating.

 


 

Jonathon Porritt has been an environmental campaigner since 1974, and is still hard at it nearly 40 years on. His latest book is The World we Made. He blogs at jonathonporritt.com/blog

Read the World Nuclear Report.

 

 




383087