CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY IS THE OPPOSITE OF POPULIST WELFARE AND CARING FOR MOTHER EARTH.
We are discussing the use of TOXIC materials INSIDE public buildings under the guise of INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS.
We have read over these few decades of SICK BUILDINGS---SICK HOUSES. Previously, that was tied to faulty AIR CIRCULATION via heating and AC---- lead paint/leaded water pipes-------------------today, SICK BUILDINGS are tied to building materials using COAL FIRE POWER PLANT TOXIC WASTE.
'Sick building syndrome
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe
Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) describes a medical condition where people in a building suffer from
symptoms of illness or feel unwell for no apparent reason.
The symptoms tend to increase in severity with the time people spend in the building, and improve over time or even disappear when people are away from the building.
Sick Building Syndrome results in substantial disruption of people's work performance and personal relationships, and considerable loss of productivity.
Sick Building Syndrome is wide spread and may occur in offices, apartment houses, nurseries and schools, resulting in substantial costs to the community. Even though the cause effect relations are unclear it is possible to remedy buildings with SBS problems, and for new buildings the chances of avoiding SBS problems are also good.
Local Government actions can be both for implementing curative measures and for taking preventive actions. These me assures and actions range from simple to radical'
What was governments actions to fight these few decades of building SICK HOUSES/BUILDINGS? It created a global NGO touted to provide oversight and accountability of construction. That would be LEED-----and as always LEED has been corrupt and criminal in giving CERTIFICATION calling building NOT SAFE OR GREEN-------safe and green.
The US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL-------IS FAKE NEWS.
LEED as a third party 'accountability' filled with far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players------MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as toxic waste dumps as happened overseas in Asia.
What is LEED?LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts.
Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), LEED provides building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.
LEED is flexible enough to apply to all building types – commercial as well as residential. It works throughout the building lifecycle – design and construction, operations and maintenance, tenant fitout, and significant retrofit. And LEED for Neighborhood Development extends the benefits of LEED beyond the building footprint into the neighborhood it serves.
LEED provides a point system to score green building design and construction. The system is categorized in five basic areas: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Buildings are awarded points based on the extent various sustainable strategies are achieved. The more points awarded the higher the level of certification achieved from Certified, Silver, Gold, to Platinum.
At Boston University sustainability is becoming integrated into the design and construction process. Rather than a point system, LEED provides a sustainability framework for design, construction, operations, and maintenance of new and existing buildings. Four LEED certification systems apply to the BU campus including Building Design and Construction, Core and Shell, Interior Design and Construction, and Operations and Maintenance.
There is so much research and class action lawsuits these few decades with tons of academics-----non-profits shouting LEED BUILDING IS CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL. Everyone knows this.
SUSTAINABILITY AND LEED=====have goals of building in ways that create and maximize corporate profits. LEED is called GREEN so it can get FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL FUNDING pretending to be a social benefit.
The SCAM surrounding the use of CO2 REDUCTION tied to fighting CLIMATE CHANGE is the top SCAM. We discuss PATENT MILLS tied to INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS funded by FEDERAL MONEY because it is called GREEN----pretending to be ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE.
What are we getting with LEED BUILDING-----we are getting SICK BUILDINGS AND SICK HOUSES.
'Is LEED Certification Fraudulent?
There is no doubt that gaining LEED certification can play a major impact on the value of a property and there is one guy who doesn’t think this is fair. In fact he is so adamant that LEED certification is fraudulent that he is suing the USGBC.
Is LEED certification really a money making scam?
LEED certification is not a money making scam in the sense that it is taking money from the weak and giving nothing in return, but it is a flawed system/certification process. The cost of filing a LEED project is relatively cheap compared to the overall build cost.
Lawsuit Takes Aim At LEED Certification - Fast Company
LEED is internationally recognized, and its vast criteria take into account everything from water efficiency to indoor air quality. But not everyone is happy with the system. A recent class action lawsuit filed by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel Saving, accuses the USGBC of monopolizing “the market through fraudulent...
Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » The LEED Scam
LEED certification qualifies the buildings owner for tax credits. This is the justification for the huge upfront cost compared to standard building practices. This is being driven more by idealist architects and designers than by owners in the private sector.
U.S. Green Building Council Sued for Fraud Over LEED ...
As reported by BuildingGreen.com, an independent source of sustainability design news, mechanical systems designer and outspoken LEED critic Henry Gifford alleges in a lawsuit that the USGBC is fraudulently misleading consumers and fraudulently misrepresenting the energy performance of buildings certified under its LEED rating systems. Gifford, who owns New York City-based heating retrofit company Gifford Fuel Saving, also claims that LEED is harming the environment by steering consumers ...
Is the USGBC and it's LEED Program a Total Scam? - JLC-Online ...
The LEED system is not only ineffective, but is harmful to the environment, to the prosperity of our country, and to effective energy saving methods which are ignored in favor of the image of energy efficiency. LEED should be abandoned immediately, and be replaced with a system that is based on actual verifiable energy use measurements.
IKEA Distribution Center in Illinois Awarded LEED Gold ...
Gray Construction, a nationally ranked engineering, architecture and construction firm, is pleased to announce that IKEA, the world’s leading home furnishings retailer, has been awarded the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certification from the United States Green Building Council® (USGBC) for its new distribution center in Joliet, Illinois, which Gray designed and ...
'IKEA under fire for ancient tree logging
Wholly owned subsidiary Swedwood accused of clear-cutting ancient Russian forests for use in furniture'
LEED Fraud Class Action | The Building Code Forum
All persons who paid for LEED certification in reliance on alleged deceptive marketing related to energy performance in LEED buildings. 2. "All persons who design energy-efficient buildings and whose livelihoods are injured by USGBC's monopolization of the market through fraudulent and intentionally misleading representations in the marketing ...
LEED and GREEN building is NOTHING BUT FRAUD
By Ariel Schwartz
The U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) certification has become the de facto certification system for green buildings, and for good reason. LEED is internationally recognized, and its vast criteria take into account everything from water efficiency to indoor air quality. But not everyone is happy with the system. A recent class action lawsuit filed by Henry Gifford, owner of Gifford Fuel
Saving, accuses the USGBC of monopolizing “the market through fraudulent and intentionally misleading representations in the marketing and promotion of their LEED product line.” Do Gifford’s claims have any merit?
“What Henry Gifford is alleging is that the USGBC has defrauded the public,” says Shari Shapiro, a LEED-accredited attorney with Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel in Philadelphia. That is, “building owners, building professionals that
have gotten LEED accreditation, taxpayers, consumers, and a variety of other people. He is saying that USGBC representations about the energy performance of buildings have harmed all of these classes of people in various ways.”
The representations in question include claims that LEED-certified properties use 25% less energy, offer CO2 reductions, and feature improved air quality and water efficiency compared to non LEED-certified buildings. Gifford points out that verification of energy usage is not required for LEED-certified buildings, and that the USGBC doesn’t require facility plans to be submitted or reviewed, “essentially allowing building designers to self-certify.”
If the case isn’t certified as a class action lawsuit, it’s probably doomed. Gifford isn’t LEED-certified, and he doesn’t own any LEED-certified buildings. It will be difficult, in other words, for him to prove that LEED has caused him to lose out on any business personally.
Still, the USGBC might want to take Gifford’s accusations to heart. Complaints against LEED are not uncommon among green building professionals; the rating system is inexact, and it’s hard to measure “green.” Just because a building plan lives up to LEED’s requirements doesn’t mean its energy consumption will be lower once the building is in use.
“Whether LEED buildings live up to the performance representations made by designers of buildings is an open question at this point,” Shapiro says. “I’m not privy to the internal communciations of the USGBC, but I will say that where there’s one lawsuit, there are more.”
Below we see only ONE problem. LEED ratings do not address emissions for all building materials YET that is what is touted MOST.
SYNTHETIC GYPSUM BOARD------no reportable VOCs says the manufacturer selling these boards. This SELF REGULATING when a corporation tells us they are being SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
'Although LEED rating systems do not currently address emissions for all building materials and their effects on indoor air quality, finished CertainTeed gypsum board products have no reportable VOCs and will not affect indoor air quality'.
The lawsuits by contractors against LEED and FAKE GREEN certification killed good building ethics by making it impossible to compete using natural gypsum----natural concrete products------COAL FIRE POWER PLANTS sell their TOXIC WASTE ----CHEAP. When DRYWALL PANELS are sold cheap----with synthetic gypsum designed to get rid of a global coal fire power plants' waste products-----
'Advantages of gypsum board include: low cost, ease of installation and finishing, fire resistance, sound control, and availability. Disadvantages include: difficulty in curved-surface application and low durability when subject to damage from impact or abrasion'.
LOW DURABILITY WHEN SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM IMPACT OR ABRASION------YOU MEAN ----NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR?
THERE IS NO ETHICS OR INTENT TO RECYCLE. IT'S LIKE OUR ATTITUDE IN THROWING AWAY CHEAP ELECTRONICS INSTEAD OF REPAIRING THEM.
Just what we want from drywall and paneling inside our buildings and homes---------the abrasions release of course all that TOXIC FLY ASH, SYNTHETIC GYPSUM, METALLIC SLUDGE WASTE
'low durability when subject to damage from impact or abrasion'.
Type X DrywallCertainTeed Type X fire resistant drywall is an interior gypsum board consisting of a solid set, fire resistive, Type X gypsum core enclosed in ivory-colored face paper and a strong liner back paper. CertainTeed Type X board features a specially formulated core providing fire resistance ratings when used in tested assemblies. Long edges are slightly tapered, allowing joints to be reinforced and concealed with joint tape and joint compound. CertainTeed Type X fire resistant drywall is available in a variety of lengths and widths.
- Thickness: 5/8" (15.9 mm)
- Widths: 4' (1220 mm) standard / 54" (1370 mm)
- Lengths: 8' to 12' / (2440 mm to 3660 mm)
- Edges: Tapered
- Packaging: Two pieces per bundle, face-to-face and end-taped
Surface Burning Characteristics:
- CertainTeed Type X Gypsum Board has a Flame Spread rating of 15 and Smoke Developed rating of 0, in accordance with ASTM E 84, (UL 723, UBC 8-1, NFPA 255, CAN/ULC-S102).
- "UL Classified for Fire Resistance (ANSI/UL 263; ASTM E119) and listed under UL File No. CKNX.R3660"
- Applicable Standards: meets ASTM C1396.
For complete Technical Data, please see the Product Data and Submittal Sheet.
See important Fire Safety Information.
- ICC ESR-1338 Report
- Important Fire Safety Information
- Data Sheet - Type X
- Gypsum Board 3 Part Spec
- Canadian Gypsum & Insulation Systems Manual
- Safety Data Sheet
Sustainability InformationCommitted to sustainability and total transparency, CertainTeed Gypsum is the first gypsum manufacturer to issue:
- EPDs: Comprehensive 3rd party life cycle assessments certified by UL Environment
- Type X and Easi-lite
- HPDs: Open standard, in which manufacturers report what makes up our products
- All of board products have HPDs
- Preservation of natural resources
- Face & back paper consists of 100% recycled paper
- In-plant scrap is recycled back into the manufacturing process
- Waste management
- Where sources are available, synthetic or by-product gypsum from the desulphurization of flue gases at coal-fired power plants is used.
- 3 of our manufacturing plants (Carrollton, Kentucky; Moundsville, West Virginia and Toronto, Ontario) use 100% synthetic gypsum and the total recycled content for these synthetic gypsum plants is 96%.
We shout these INFRASTRUCTURE rebuilds happening in all US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES will not have REAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING----no PUBLIC HOUSING ----it will have WORKER DORMITORIES--------WORKER HOUSES attached to the global corporate campus---or global factory the property owned by that corporation.
All AFFORDABLE HOUSING will be filled with LEED/GREEN/SUSTAINABLE COAL FIRE POWER PLANT toxic waste building materials. We already know that.
'2.2 Coal Combustion ByproductsThe term “coal combustion byproducts” (CCB) includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD (flue-gas desulfurization) material known as synthetic gypsum'.
FAST=TRACKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING-----WITH SYNTHETIC GYPSUM PANELS.
'Modified from GFRG2, n/a. Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Load Bearing Panels for Affordable Housing in Fast Track and Environmental Protection (Anon). Available at: http://www.frbl.co.in/rapidwall_for_housing.pdf'.
Here in Baltimore for example we have REFURBISHED ROWHOUSES----renovated using LEED/GREEN/SUSTAINABLE building products on COLLEGE-TOWN CAMPUSES all over Baltimore City Center.
How did we get the LEAD PAINT AND LEADED WATER PIPE crises of several decades? The same institutions DUTY TO ACT to keep people SAFE with WELL-BEING-----created FAKE DATA----myth-making and propaganda media saying all that was SOCIAL BENEFIT.
JUST AS THIS NEW INNOVATIVE WAY OF HARMING PEOPLE TODAY.
Below is really BORING STUFF----PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH to look at key talking points.........
Learn more about Synthetic GypsumSustainability of gypsum products as a construction materialN. Lushnikova, L. Dvorkin, in Sustainability of Construction Materials (Second Edition), 2016
184.108.40.206 Wall blocksOrdinary and water-resistant gypsum binders, synthetic gypsum and normal-weight and lightweight concrete can be applied for manufacturing. Blocks can be solid or hollow. A common size is 390 × 190 × 188 mm. Compressive strength varies from 2.5 to 10 MPa. Specific energy consumption for 1000 bricks (250 x 120 x 65 mm) made of ordinary gypsum concrete is 12.4 kg of conventional fuel. For water-resistant gypsum concrete blocks, it is equal to 11.39 kg; for gypsum concrete with its low water requirement, it is 7.89 kg (Ferronskaya, 2004). According to Ferronskaya (2004), if equivalent power inputs on ordinary ceramic brick production will be accepted as 2504 kWh per 1000 of conventional brick as 100%, power inputs on the manufacturing of gypsum blocks are less than 1%.
When comparing the thickness of masonry walls of equal heat resistance but made of different materials, gypsum-based block walls usually have a lower thickness than ordinary clay or sand-lime brick. Even at the same average density gypsum-based walls have lower thickness than walls made of other materials like hollow clay bricks, claydite cement concrete (Fig. 25.16).
Fig. 25.16. Required thickness of conventional single-layer outwalls with equal thermal resistance (3.15 m2 K/W).
Data from Dvorkin, L., Dvorkin, O., 2011. Building Mineral Binding Materials. Infra-Ingeneria, Moscow, pp. 27–90 (in Russian).One suggested method for manufacturing walling blocks is based on phosphorgypsum processing, which permits excluding the grinding process of the binder (Fig. 25.17). It is an energy-efficient method for producing items directly from phosphorgypsum, providing the implementation of two chemical processes: dehydration of dihydrate and hydration of hemihydrate in one technological cycle. At ‘self-steaming’ in the high-density moulds, crystallised water releases in drip-liquid state and remains in the pores of grains and the voids of the gypsum. Blocks are pressed in moulds consisting of two punches and a formwork. The upper punch covers the gypsum powder placed in the formwork. With thermal treatment, the punch compacts the hydrated mass. The hardened product is demoulded at a temperature lower than 40°C.
Fig. 25.17. Schematic circuit of phosphorgypsum direct-processing masonry units (grinding is excluded): Aggregate for phosphorgypsum modification (1); Pump (2); Continuously working autoclave (3); Filter (4); Mixing-activating equipment (5); Moulding machine (6); Masonry units (7).
Foam gypsum blocks can be produced with water-resistant binders or binders that are not water resistant. The blocks’ density varies from 300 to 900 kg/m3 and a compressive strength from 1.5 to 10 MPa. The most common size is 600 × 300 × 200 mm. They are applied for partitions and internal walls.
A new method of building construction based on GFRG panels was developed in Australia and is widely used in Asian countries (Fig. 25.18). It combines the benefits of prefabricated, lightweight large panels with cavities, conventional cast-in-situ concrete and steel reinforcement, which require specific design methods (GFRG2, n/a; Wu, 2009).
Fig. 25.18. GFRG panel. Cross section, schematic view: Cast-in-situ concrete (1); Reinforcing elements (2); GFRG panel (3).
Modified from GFRG2, n/a. Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Load Bearing Panels for Affordable Housing in Fast Track and Environmental Protection (Anon). Available at: http://www.frbl.co.in/rapidwall_for_housing.pdf.Tongued and grooved panels are used for partitions (Fig. 25.19). Their length is 600–660 mm, their width is 300–500 mm and their thickness is 80–100 mm.
Solid WastesNicholas P. Cheremisinoff, in Clean Electricity Through Advanced Coal Technologies, 2012
2.2 Coal Combustion ByproductsThe term “coal combustion byproducts” (CCB) includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD (flue-gas desulfurization) material known as synthetic gypsum. An American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) subcommittee under Committee E-50 on Environmental Assessment addressed the question of standards and definitions of coal and CCB terms. The definitions for some of the pertinent terms are as follows:
•Fly ash is coal ash that exits in a combustion chamber in the flue gas and is captured by air pollution control equipment, such as electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, or wet scrubbers.
•Class C fly ash is fly ash that meets criteria for that class as defined in ASTM C618 for use in concrete.
•Class F fly ash is fly ash that meets criteria for that class as defined in ASTM C618 for use in concrete.
•Bottom ash consists of agglomerated ash particles—which are formed in pulverized-coal boilers—that are too large to be carried in the flue gases and adhere to the boiler walls or fall through open grates to an ash hopper at the bottom of the boiler.
•Boiler slag is molten ash collected at the base of the slag tap and cyclone boilers that is quenched with water and shatters into black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy appearance.
•FGD is the process of removing gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2) from boiler exhaust gas. Primary types of FGD processors are wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers; sorbent injection is another primary process. SO2 sorbents include lime, limestone, sodium-based compounds, and high-calcium fly ash.
•FGD material is the product of an FGD process that typically uses a high-calcium sorbent, such as lime or limestone. Sodium-based sorbent and high-calcium fly ash are also used in some systems. The physical nature of these materials varies from a wet, thixotropic sludge to a dry, powdered material, depending on the process. FGD units remove SO2 from flue gas but, in doing so, generate large quantities of synthetic gypsum (FGD material), which is a mixture of gypsum (CaSO4C2H2O), calcium sulfite (CaSO3), fly ash, and unreacted lime or limestone. A number of power plants convert the CaSO3 to calcium sulfate (CaSO4) by forced oxidation and take appropriate measures to reduce other impurities in the synthetic material and, thus, produce synthetic gypsum that meets or exceeds the specifications for wallboard manufacture. Wallboard plants that have been constructed adjacent to such electric utilities use the FGD gypsum from those electric utilities. About 26 metric tons (MT) of FGD material were produced in 2001, and about 7.3 MT (28%) were used, mostly for wallboard manufacture. FGD issues affect, directly or indirectly, coal, gypsum, lime, limestone, and soda ash industries. Increased commercial use of FGD products represents an economic opportunity for high-sulfur coal producers and the sorbent industry. Synthetic gypsum competes directly with natural gypsum as raw material for wallboard and cement manufacture.
The value of CCBs is well established by research and commercial practice in the United States and abroad. Kalyoncu provides an overview of industry applications.1
The U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook publishes data based on industry surveys. The surveys conducted over the years account for about 60% of the power (highest survey response conducted in 2001). The last survey was conducted in 2001. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 were prepared using this information.
Figure 2.2. Reported amounts of CCBs used in industry applications.
Figure 2.1 shows the relative amounts of CCBs generated across the country based on projections made by the U.S. Geological Services analysis. Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the amounts of CCBs used and the fraction of this waste reused in industry applications, respectively.
Figure 2.3. Fraction of CCB usage based on statistics reported by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published an estimate that nearly half of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal, resulting in about 130 million tons of CCB as of 2010. One source reports that about 55%, or 72 million tons, is fly ash and that about half the fly ash generated in the United States is currently used for beneficial purposes, mostly in concrete.2 This statistic is included as the 2010 data value in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. With the downturn in the economy and the lack of a peer-reviewed study to substantiate the claim, the reported estimate should not necessarily be considered accurate.
Figure 2.4 illustrates the industry general management practices in the handling of CCBs. Between 1966 and 2001, roughly 1.8 billion MTs of CCBs were generated. Of this amount, about 0.54 billion MTs was used in various industry applications (largely cement) and about 1.25 billion MTs sent to landfills or retained in ponds. Approximately 30% of the waste generated over this time period found use in value-added markets. Based on the 2010 reported value, a significant increase in use of this waste occurred in which 55% of the generated waste found its way into commercial markets.
Green Materials and ProductsSam Kubba Ph.D., in LEED Practices, Certification, and Accreditation Handbook, 2010
220.127.116.11 Gypsum Wall BoardIn the United States and Canada gypsum board is manufactured to comply with ASTM Specification C 1396. This standard must be met whether the core is made of natural ore or synthetic gypsum.
Gypsum wall board, also known as plasterboard or drywall, is a plaster-based wall finish that is available in a variety of sizes; 4 feet wide by 8 feet high is the most common. Thicknesses vary in 1/8-inch increments from 1/4 to 3/4 inch.
The vast majority of the synthetic gypsum used by the industry is a byproduct of the process used to remove pollutants from the exhaust created by the burning of fossil fuels for power generation. Nearly 100 percent of the fiber used in the production of gypsum-board face and back paper comes from newsprint and postconsumer waste materials.
Advantages of gypsum board include: low cost, ease of installation and finishing, fire resistance, sound control, and availability. Disadvantages include: difficulty in curved-surface application and low durability when subject to damage from impact or abrasion.
Due to its ease of installation, familiarity, fire resistance, nontoxicity, and sound attenuation, gypsum wall board, known by its proprietary names Dywall® and Sheetrock®, is ubiquitous in construction. Gypsum wall board is a benign substance (basically paper-covered calcium sulfate), but it has significant environmental impacts because it is used on a vast scale; domestic construction uses an estimated 30 billion square feet per year.
The primary environmental impacts of gypsum are habitat disruption from mining, energy use and associated emissions in processing and shipment, and solid waste from disposal. Using “synthetic” or recycled gypsum board can significantly reduce several of these impacts. Synthetic gypsum accounts for approximately 20 percent of U.S. raw gypsum use and is made from the byproducts of manufacturing and energy-generating processes, primarily from desulfurization of coal-power-plant exhaust gases. In excess of 80 percent of coal fly ash sold in the U.S. is used in gypsum board.
HABITAT DISRUPTION FROM MINING NATURAL GYPSUM----YES, BUT TOXICITY IN SYNTHETIC GYPSUM IS WHERE THE HARM IS
Though synthetic gypsum-board use is growing in popularity, diverting drywall from the waste stream is proving more challenging. Reclaimed gypsum board can easily be recycled into new gypsum panels that conform to the same quality standards as natural and synthetic gypsum, but doing this may not be practical because gypsum is an inexpensive material that can require significant labor to separate and prepare for recycling. Gypsum-board face paper is commonly 100 percent recycled from newsprint, cardboard, and other postconsumer waste streams, but most recycled gypsum in wall-board products is postindustrial, made from gypsum-board manufacture. Gypsum board should be purchased in sizes that minimize the need for trimming (saving time and waste). Working crushed gypsum off-cuts (that have not been painted, glued, or otherwise contaminated) into soil helps reduce waste while improving the workability and calcium availability of many soils.
Choosing Materials and ProductsSam Kubba Ph.D., LEED AP, in Green Construction Project Management and Cost Oversight, 2010
1 Gypsum Wall BoardAlso known as drywall or plasterboard, gypsum wall board is manufactured in the United States and Canada to comply with ASTM Specification C 1396. This standard must be met whether the core is made of natural ore or synthetic gypsum. Gypsum wall board is a plaster-based wall finish that is available in a variety of sizes; 4 feet wide by 8 feet high is the most common. Thicknesses vary in 1/8-inch increments from 1/4 inch to 3/4 inch.
Due to its ease of installation, familiarity, fire resistance, non-toxicity, and sound attenuation, gypsum wall board, known by its proprietary names Dywall® and Sheetrock® is ubiquitous in construction. Gypsum wall board is a benign substance (basically paper-covered calcium sulfate), but it has significant environmental impacts because it is used on a vast scale; domestic construction uses an estimated 30 billion square feet annually.
The main advantages of gypsum board include low cost, ease of installation and finishing, fire-resistance, sound control, and availability. Disadvantages include difficulty in applying it to curved surfaces, and low durability when subject to damage from impact or abrasion. Reclaimed gypsum board can easily be recycled into new gypsum panels that conform to the same quality standards as natural and synthetic gypsum, but doing this may not be practical because gypsum is an inexpensive material that can require significant labor to separate and prepare it for recycling. Gypsum board should be purchased in sizes that minimize the need for trimming (saving time and waste).
Read full chapter
Green Building Materials and ProductsSam Kubba PH.D., LEED AP, in Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction (Second Edition), 2017
Gypsum Wall Board (Drywall)Gypsum board is the most common indoor building material in the United States. In the United States and Canada, gypsum board is manufactured to comply with ASTM Specification C 1396 which was designed to replace several existing ASTM specifications, leaving one reference standard for all gypsum board products. This standard is to be applied whether the core consists of natural ore or synthetic gypsum.
Gypsum wall board, also known as drywall, or plasterboard is a plaster-based wall finish that is available in a variety of standard sizes; 4 ft wide by 8 ft high is the most common. Thicknesses vary in 1/8-inch increments from 1/4 to 3/4 inch. Gypsum wall board, which is also known by its proprietary names Drywall and Sheetrock, is ubiquitous in construction. Gypsum wall board is a benign substance (basically paper-covered calcium sulfate), but it has significant environmental impacts because it is used on a vast scale; domestic construction uses an estimated 30 billion square feet per year. Advantages of gypsum board include its low cost, ease of installation and finishing, fire resistance, nontoxicity, sound attenuation, and availability. Disadvantages include: difficulty in curved-surface application and low durability when subject to damage from impact or abrasion.
Gypsum board manufacturers are increasingly relying on “synthetic” gypsum as an effective alternative to natural gypsum. It is estimated that roughly 45% of the gypsum used by U.S. manufacturers in 2010 was of the synthetic variety. Synthetic gypsum and natural gypsum have similar general chemical compositions (CaSO4·2H20). The vast majority of the synthetic gypsum used by the industry is a by-product of the process used to remove pollutants from the exhaust created by the burning of fossil fuels for power generation. If synthetic gypsum was not used to manufacture gypsum panel products, it would end up in landfills.
Though synthetic gypsum-board use is growing in popularity, and reclaimed gypsum board can easily be recycled into new gypsum panels that conform to the same quality standards as natural and synthetic gypsum, doing this may not be practical because gypsum is an inexpensive material which can require significant labor to separate and prepare for recycling. Gypsum-board face paper is nearly 100% recycled from newsprint, cardboard, and other postconsumer waste streams, but most recycled gypsum in wall-board products is postindustrial, made from gypsum-board manufacture.
Ecology Action, a nonprofit environmental consultancy states that the main environmental impacts of gypsum include habitat disruption from mining, energy use and associated emissions in processing and shipment, in addition to solid waste from disposal. Some of these impacts can be significantly reduced by the use of “synthetic” or recycled gypsum board. Synthetic gypsum, which is now used in about 30% of drywall, is a by-product of coal-fired power plants. It is sometimes confused with fly ash another coal combustion product with which it has very little in common. In excess of 80% of coal fly ash sold in the United States is used in gypsum board.
New technologies have helped in the development of several new Gypsum board products that have come on the market and that are more environmentally friendly and superior in many ways to the traditional gypsum board. One such example is the new ecofriendly EcoRock Drywall which has significantly changed and improved the drywall product from its basic material elements to its production processing methods. EcoRock is a fully recyclable and highly attractive alternative. It is manufactured from 80% postindustrial recycling and exploits material from steel and cement plant waste and can be safely discarded in landfills. EcoRock is naturally cured and dried, which means that 80% less energy is required than the traditional methods use in the manufacturing process. Moreover, it contains no gypsum, thus eliminating the need for high-intense energy consumption during production and improves air quality by eliminating airborne mercury. EcoRock drywall, which creates 60% less dust, is resistant to termites and is 50% more resistant to mildew and mold.
We often shout PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD is FAKE NEWS----FAKE GREEN POLICY. This CLIMATE ACCORD is designed to push FAKE GREEN TECHNOLOGY as helping to stop CLIMATE CHANGE. That is what LEED/SUSTAINABILITY building certification does in using COAL FIRE POWER PLANT TOXIC WASTE and calling it SAFE----calling it sustainable. The incredible MARKET being built around these COAL FIRE POWER PLANT TOXIC WASTE products assures not only will these plants not be closed---but the opening of more will be super-sized----as is happening with CHINA----
IT'S ALL CHINA'S FAULT SAY GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS -----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----BEHIND CREATING THIS MARKET HERE IN US.
WARREN BUFFETT was allowed to buy MONOPOLIES in our US RAIL industry----here we have another monopoly this time gotten on THE CHEAP----as these power plants aged go cheap----this MOGUL will corner the market on COAL FIRE POWER PLANTS in US and refurbish them because there is now a great amount of profit from selling TOXIC WASTE as building material.
Coal Mogul Plans to Buy Coal-fired Power PlantsNicole Rashotte - April 11th, 2018
'China keeps building coal plants despite new overcapacity ...
Chinese energy companies have been starting two coal power projects a week despite a recent government policy designed to tackle the country’s overcapacity crisis, according to a new Greenpeace analysis. China currently has over 900,000MW of coal-fired capacity, the equivalent of about 1,300 large coal-fired units.
China coal power building boom sparks climate warning - bbc.com
"This new evidence that China's central government hasn't been able to stop the runaway coal-fired power plant building is alarming - the planet can't tolerate another US-sized block of plants to ...
Satellite images show 'runaway' expansion of coal power in ...
“This new evidence that China’s central government hasn’t been able to stop the runaway coal-fired power plant building is alarming – the planet can’t tolerate another US-sized block of ...'
Despite the Paris Agreement, China and India Continue To Build Coal Plants
July 24, 2017
With the United States on its way to official withdrawal, China and Germany are expected to take the lead promoting the Paris Agreement.[i] This is despite China’s role in constructing over 700 new coal-fired power plants around the world. According to Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin, some of these new coal plants will be built in countries that burn little or no coal today. While many of the coal plants will be located in China, about one-fifth of the capacity of these new coal power plants is going to be located in other countries.[ii]
China is not alone in constructing coal-fired power plants. According to Urgewald, about 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries; this data comes from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. If constructed, these new plants would increase global coal-fired capacity by 43 percent. According to Urgewald, 11 of the world’s 20 biggest coal plant developers are Chinese.
China’s Coal Company Plans
Chinese companies are expected to construct between 340 and 386 gigawatts of the new coal capacity worldwide. Shanghai Electric Group announced plans to build coal plants in Egypt, Pakistan and Iran, with a total capacity of 6,285 megawatts—9.5 times the 660 megawatts of coal power it plans to build in China. In Egypt, coal projects by Shanghai Electric and other developers would bring the country’s coal-fired capacity to 17,000 megawatts, up from almost zero today. Also, Pakistan’s coal capacity is set to grow to 15,300 megawatts, up from 190 megawatts today.
The China Energy Engineering Corporation, which has no public plans to construct coal plants in China, is building 2,200 megawatts of coal-fired capacity in Vietnam and Malawi. Planned coal projects in Malawi would bring its coal-fired capacity to 3,500 megawatts, up from zero today.
In China, there is little demand for new coal power due to its slowing economic growth. But Chinese companies are able to capitalize on the global coal market due to strong infrastructure demand in developing countries and a sharp decline in coal financing by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
China is helping these companies construct coal-fired power plants overseas through its state initiative called “One Belt, One Road,” which allows for up to $900 billion in infrastructure investments overseas including high-speed railroads, ports, gas pipelines and power plants. Since 2000, China’s global policy banks (the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China) have provided over $43 billion in overseas coal financing.
The world’s largest coal-plant developer, however, is India’s National Thermal Power Corporation, which plans to build over 38 gigawatts of new coal capacity in India and Bangladesh. India’s state-run power utility plans to invest $10 billion in new coal-fired power stations over the next five years. Despite several relatively new coal-fired plants being idle, it plans to build three new plants with a combined capacity of over 5 gigawatts. The new plants consist of two 660 megawatt units: one is being built at Singrauli in central India’s Madhya Pradesh and the other at Talcher in Odisha in the east. Its biggest plant will have a capacity of 2.4 gigawatts and will be located in the eastern state of Jharkhand. The new coal-fired plants will be “supercritical” plants that are 2 to 3 percent more efficient than conventional plants and therefore have lower emissions.[iii]
As in China, India’s power demand is slowing despite many citizens living without power. Over 300 million of India’s 1.3 billion people are still not connected to the grid. As grid connections improve, the country’s per-capita power consumption could increase by about a third from 2012 levels to 2,924 kilowatt-hours by 2040.
Around 78 percent of India’s electricity currently comes from coal-fired power plants. As India brings electrification to more of its people, carbon dioxide emissions from India’s thermal plants are expected to increase to 1,165 million metric tons by 2026/27 from 462 million metric tons in 2005—a factor of 2.5 in slightly over 20 years. Its emission intensity, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP, however, is expected to decline. Besides building supercritical plants, India is also planning to retrofit several coal-fired plants with emission-reducing equipment.
China and India, ranked first and third globally in greenhouse gas emissions, are planning to build coal-fired plants at home and in other countries to bring electrification to the developing world and to continue to grow their economies. While both countries have ratified the Paris climate agreement, they will continue to do what their populations need with respect to power generation and will also continue constructing coal-fired plants around the world.
“If you can dig coal out of the ground, you sure as heck can run a power plant,” said Murray during the New York event. “We can run power plants better than the utilities can.”
Meanwhile, in his prepared remarks, Murray continued to urge the Trump administration to invoke the Federal Power Act. According to officials at Harvard Law School, this measure would “carve coal-fired and nuclear-powered generators out of the competitive market and provide them with a rate that guaranteed their profitability.”
While TRUMP is getting the blame for a RESURGENT COAL FIRE POWER PLANT INDUSTRY------it was OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberal who created the FAKE LEED/GREEN/SUSTAINABILITY label for TOXIC WASTE building material---fly ash, metallic sludge, and synthetic gypsum and sent tens of billions of FEDERAL FUNDING to promote using these coal-fire power plant toxic waste 'innovative products'.
COAL FIRE POWER PLANT TOXIC WASTE BUILDING PRODUCTS COMING UP SAYS OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS
'USGBC Pushes Obama to Act on Green Promises
November 14, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama was one of the most vocal advocates on the campaign trail for sustainability, with respect to both the environment and economic stimulus. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has wasted no putting together a progressive green agenda to push in Washington, consisting of a variety of measures Obama has supported on record.
THIS IS THE FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% FAKE GREEN REVOLUTION ----------NOT REAL LEFT ENVIRONMENTALISTS. PROGRESSIVELY MAKING THE RICH---RICHER.
The USGBC has singled out four major nodes on which to base an aggressive sustainability agenda. Green building is at the forefront, and Obama has proposed the expansion of federal grants that assist states and municipalities to build LEED-certified public buildings'.
USGBC Commends President Obama's Push to Accelerate Energy Efficiency
President Obama has signed a memorandum directing the federal government to consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, more than double the current level. In response to this announcement, Rick Fedrizzi, president, CEO and founding chair of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), released the following statement:
We in the green building community applaud President Obama for taking bold action today to accelerate innovative energy efficiency initiatives across the federal government’s facilities and operations. These are significant measures that will advance renewable energy and energy efficiency through programs such as demand response, energy disclosure and other leadership energy protocols.
By insisting on integrating smarter energy management best practices across the federal government, President Obama is showing strong leadership that will ensure the country is saving energy, reducing our carbon footprint, improving air quality, driving investment in clean technology and creating jobs.
At the U.S. Green Building Council, we are doing our part to foster a more sustainable economy by helping advance greener, healthier buildings. Today, more than 10.4 billion square feet of commercial real estate is using LEED. These LEED green buildings are saving energy, money and critical resources, and they are healthier for the people inside. The use of LEED has demonstrated success across federal projects and in the private sector. The newest version of LEED, released last month, pushes the envelope of energy and performance even further.
No one wants to see our taxpayer dollars used on wasted energy. Managing the energy use in our buildings is how energy efficiency potential is turned into real dollar and energy savings. Better management of our public buildings means better buildings and not to mention savings of millions of dollars for the American public. We are committed to continuing to work with the White House and other federal departments and agencies so that together, we can make smarter decisions that save energy and resources.
But all of our collective work in green building and clean energy is made easier today by President Obama’s huge step forward to make the federal government a leader and innovator in energy management.