Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.
Skip navigation
7comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Margaret Carlson

Feb 12, 2017
04:20

Member


1 |
Share via:


I am excited about Javed Sultan's proposal because it addresses so many issues at once!  Not only do his buildings help people survive the imp at of climate change better, but they also slow climate change because of their self-sustaining attributes and improve local economies by using local materials and labor. This innovation in building is a win all around!



Javed Sultan

Feb 12, 2017
05:03

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor


Thank you for your feedback. Much Appreciated. 



Katie Sultan

Feb 13, 2017
06:51

Member


3 |
Share via:


Great work,Javed! Keep it up it makes a difference in the lives of  many people and helps the environment!



-Katie 



Shaukat Matin

Feb 13, 2017
06:46

Member


4 |
Share via:


 I am very pleased with this project. Just joined today. Will look into the proposal and the will leave my comments.



 



-Shaukat



Javed Sultan

Apr 14, 2017
04:55

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor




The following is a response to Judge's comments, made at the semi-finalist evaluation stage:

( We are posting our response here, as we we were unable to post it on the Evaluation tab)


We want to thank the judges for their feedback. We agree that our proposal should be more balanced. Hence we have modified our proposal accordingly. Unfortunately, the changes are spread all over our revised submission.



Here is a summary of some of the changes we have made:



1.       We have highlighted the importance of early warning systems (EWS) in identifying climate change (CC) as well as events made more extreme by CC. We are aware that considerable work has been done in EWS systems for both urban and rural population groups globally. Weather is monitored widely, in most countries globally or data shared through electronic media, for wind speed, rain forecasting, and humidity by weather stations, satellites and weather balloons. Media, including television, radio, and mobile phone texting is used to warn people of extreme weather conditions.  With the ubiquitous use of smart phones, data is available within seconds of reports being issued. We have also found most cities have maps for flood zones. They track flooding frequency based on hundred, ten years as well as other intervals – and building code set minimum set of parameters for construction in these zones.



2.       In Industrialized countries, and to some extent non-industrialized countries, monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, is being done quite regularly. In USA the EPA issues annual reports on greenhouse gas (GHGe) emissions, which show sources and cause of pollutants, as well as the type of pollutants such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases.



3.        Aquifers and ground water is monitored for trace metals, and toxic contaminants – and that needs to be monitored more aggressively in developing countries. Due to massive deforestation in Nepal, it is believed that trace metals and arsenic have contaminated ground water, aquifers, and water bodies in Bangladesh.



4.       Given the judge’s comments we decided to examine our records to find out if the communities we have worked with over the years had been fairly warned of an impending disaster. If the warning helped, did the people reach safety or protected their lives and property. If not what could be done to increase their resilience.



a.       Our conclusion is that there appears to be an imbalance between EWS and resilience. We feel that most countries do have an EWS in place, at least the ones we have worked in, whether it is for weather reporting, carbon dioxide monitoring, or high wind and hurricane or flood warning. What appears to be lacking is perhaps the damage to things that are not easily discernible. Such as damage to our oceans, marine and plankton life, water aquifers, and the damage done because of poor waste management. Waste that ends up in landfills or in our streams.



b.       Our first study is in New Orleans (NO). This study relates to a frequently recurring flooding of coastline and extensive property damage, people relocation, in spite of EWS systems in place. We have spent significant time in the city, talked to building officials and discussed what they are doing to prevent disasters like Katrina. We have found in the case of Katrina the people were fairly warned of the impending disaster, but were caught short by the collapsing of the flood walls. NO and appears to lack short and long-term resilience to climate based contingencies. We have detailed our observations in our proposal. Our work in NO can benefit many countries that are threatened by rising oceans and seas.



c.       In the second study, we have examined a project in rural Bangladesh, and studied the EWS system and the benefits of such a system. Bangladesh has suffered financially and in loss of lives to storms, tsunamis and floods. We wanted to know what could be done to mitigate the impact of these frequent disasters. Our conclusion is that what is needed is greater resilience to these climate based catastrophes.



d.       In the third study, we have presented our work in Lesotho. Most of the people in Lesotho continue to use fossil fuels for heating during freezing winter temperatures. People state that it appears the winter is getting colder and annual rainfall has declined over the years. The fossil fuels lead to emissions of CO2, which contributes to GW. Hence introduction of building practices that rely more on heating and cooling, harvesting rainwater, using renewable energy sources is critical – and we have done so in Lesotho.



5.       The other question that was asked that we had shown examples of work in colder climates, but we have not shown how to provide cooling naturally in warmer climates. In response, we have included or our work in Karachi, Pakistan, which has very hot summers in the 100 degrees -110 degrees Fahrenheit. We built a two bedroom affordable home in 2007 at the request of then mayor of Karachi, Mr. Mustapha Kamal.  You can see a slide of the inauguration of the home and we have provided by clicking on this link, http://www.saridweb.org/projects/low-cost-housing/slides/slide-main.html The last slide shows the mayor speaking to the media about our house. The temperature that day was very hot, in the 90’s, and the house was so cool that some of the journalist enquired if our house was air-conditioned.  The house was widely reported in both the print and electronic media. The reason the house is cool in summer are two:



a.       The walls and roof are highly insulated. The walls have a similar construction strategy as our other projects, whereby insulation is sandwiched between the external concrete layer and the internal. You might imagine this as two sets of envelopes, with insulation in between, enclosing the house.  This creates a thermal break. This prevents conduction of heat from outside to inside surface.  In winter, this strategy blocks heat from escaping the inner envelope. The concrete wall, with its thermal mass, allows one to manipulate internal temperature. This is not possible with wood frame plus drywall construction.



b.       Second, we have an internal courtyard. Plants in the courtyard cool the space and the cooler heavier air enters the warmer and less dense air within the house – thereby the breeze cools the home. This microclimate modification if leveraged properly can provide ambient desirable temperatures without, or minimal, use of fans and air conditioning.



6.       Our last response is to the question of cement having a smaller carbon footprint than wood. I think we have been misunderstood. We are not arguing that cement has no carbon footprint (CF), but a lesser CF if the walls systems are designed correctly. Here is our response:



a.       Cement does have a carbon footprint. Cement is produced by heating limestone with other materials. So we use heat to produce cement – so definitely it has a CF. Cement produces 5% of the global atmospheric CO2. We also transport it – that adds to its CF. But it is an essential material for our slab and wall systems and infrastructure. It is also non-combustible. Wood on the other hand also has a CF. We cut down a tree using tools that use energy, we transport the tree, we take it to a lumberyard to cut, shape and size, and transport to work locations. All this requires fossil fuels and hence wood has a CF by the time it reaches a construction site. However, wood has other positives – and begs preservation. Wood sequesters carbon. It is mostly carbon anywhere from 50% to 80% depending on species. For every ton of carbon in a tree, 3.5 tons of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere.  Timber forests are home to a diverse ecosystem for fauna, small animals, and biomass. Wood also is combustible and few countries have the firefighting infrastructure of USA. Wood is a major cause of fire in both industrialized and non-industrialized countries.  Wood is also subject to attack from mold, mildew, and has a shorter life than masonry, stone, or concrete structures. Its life cycle cost is more. One has to evaluate benefits of wood versus masonry on a case-by-case basis. For example, Haiti has a cement plant on the island - it is local, but Haiti has no wood. All wood has to be imported. So the fossil fuel spent on transporting wood to Haiti makes its carbon footprint much higher than cement than say in USA where wood is available everywhere. Because of termites, mold, mildew, wood barely survives in that climate. Therefore, lifecycle cost for wood is much higher.



b.       Our other argument is against masonry construction. Masonry walls, especially in developing countries, use about 15% cement by weight of a wall. The mix in the mortar is one part cement and two parts mortar. In the masonry block, it is closer to 1 part cement, 2 part sand, and 3 part fine gravel. Because of slenderness issues masonry walls (MW), by most building codes, also need a minimum of horizontal and vertical steel. The blocks are hardly insulated – and if done very minimally. MW also conduct heat from outside to inside, they do not have a thermal break. They retain the heat and re-radiate it day and night, requiring use of fans and air conditioning – especially in warmer climate. In winter they rapidly loose heat and require significant energy to warm the inside of the homes. All we are saying that one can build hybrid wall systems, using less of cement as a binder. If we design the wall system as non-load bearing, and instead design the house as a frame structure (columns and beam and use higher quantities of concrete in fewer locations), and fill the core of the walls with insulation – we will get a smaller CF for walls. Such walls will use as little as 3% of cement by weight. A lot smaller CF.  There are no slenderness issues in a hybrid wall system – as it is non-structural, or not as demanding, because the way we build our walls we are able to increase its thickness, lower the center of gravity through using angle of repose if required, without any noticeable increase in cost. Because it is lighter, less reinforcing steel is required.  In Lesotho anywhere from 50% to 70% of the walls are made of recycled waste lunch boxes, located at the core non-load bearing section of the wall, which in masonry wall would be difficult to do.



 



Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond.



 



Javed Sultan

Apr 18, 2017
05:58

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor




Javed Sultan

Apr 18, 2017
05:58

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor


(Note: We were unable to combine the image above with our comments – so we have annotated it in this comment. We had some problem uploading both together)


In the drawing above we are showing two sections of a masonry wall system. The one on the left  (Wall “A” ) is a typical “filled”  masonry wall system, un-insulated – as is the practice in most developing countries. They are usually filled with mortar or concrete. Such walls are over designed (each masonry block is designed for a compressive strength of approximately 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) )by some three times what can be done with an insulated masonry wall system (Wall “B”). Wall “A” are heavier so require a much stronger, bigger, foundation system and usually involve more reinforcing steel in the footing, foundation system, and vertical and horizontal steel required by most building code for masonry construction. Because these walls are poorly insulated, they require more fossil fuels for heating and/ or cooling. On the other hand  Wall “B”, which is what we have been building and proposing, is insulated, it has only 50% concrete of a filled masonry wall, is lighter and hence requires less concrete in footing, foundation, and associated reinforcement. Also because it is insulated it requires less fossil fuel or renewable energy sources, to heat or cool the spaces enclosed within. there are several other insulated wall systems available in the marketplace but they are usually more expensive than simple filled masonry walls. Another wall system, utilized in  hot climate system - although very expensive using specialized technology and equipment, the lightweight autoclaved aerated masonry blocks - have high carbon footprint as they require high temperature for autoclaving. If they could be autoclaved using renewable energy sources, they are much better option than wall "A" above.


(Note/ Disclaimer: The two wall sections are conceptual, and  presented only for the sake of comparison. They are based on certain assumptions for geotechnical conditions - including load bearing capacity of the soil, as well as the live loads acting on the wall/ building. They are in not detailed adequately for construction. They should not be used for design purposes).