Straw-Bale or Hemplime Construction Which Is More Appropriate For An Environmentally Responsive Low-Density Housing Development in Suffolk

GSE MSc Architecture: AEES Essay May 2010: Straw-bale or hemp/lime construction: which is more appropriate for
an environmentally responsive low-density housing development in Suffolk?
GSE MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 (CEM152)

(Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination) Essay
STRAW-BALE OR HEMP/LIME CONSTRUCTION: WHICH IS

MORE APPROPRIATE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTALLY
RESPONSIVE, LOW-DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN
SUFFOLK?
Word Count 2,724
admin@greenfrontier.org
http://www.greenfrontier.org
For the attention of Lucy Cartlidge
June 22nd 2010
Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 1 of 37

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3
CRITICAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................ 4
CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................... 20
GLOSSARY.............................................................................................................. 22
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................... 23
APPENDICES........................................................................................................... 30

Introduction
This essay relates to several lectures of Module C3, ‘Environmentally responsive
materials’, particularly the ‘Straw-bale Building’ and ‘Hemp/Lime’ lectures.
The Housing and Regeneration Bill (now enacted) ‘Supports the delivery of three
million new homes by 2020’ (UK Parliament, 2008). The construction of this number
of houses could be environmentally devastating as production and transport of
construction materials uses 10% of UK energy consumption (EA, 2003).
However, the bill explicitly states that it ‘provides for the establishment of new
settlements like eco-towns and for simplifying the ways in which the Homes and
Communities Agency would facilitate delivery of these projects’ (UK Parliament,
2008). New settlements must be constructed using environmentally responsive
materials.
Suffolk County Council (SCC) is committed to ‘Creating the Greenest County’. Its
Environmental Action Plan (Appendix 1) for 2009-2010, includes the goal ‘to be an
exemplar in tackling climate change’ and ‘reduce its CO2 emissions by 60% by 2025’.
Theme 1 of the plan ‘Climate Change’ includes the sub-theme ‘Sustainable
Construction and Development’ (SCC, 2009). Using environmentally responsive
building materials will help achieve these ambitions.
This essay will compare hemp/lime to straw-bale construction, particularly embodied
and sequestered CO2, and ascertain which is more suitable for new low-density
dwellings in Suffolk.

Critical Analysis
Suffolk
Suffolk is a largely rural East Anglian county of 380,000 hectares (Butterfield et al,
2003). It is one of the driest counties of the UK with ‘Sheltered and very sheltered’
driving rain indices (Nicholls, 2008). This is of benefit when considering straw-bale or
hemp/lime construction and the exposure of the walls to water permeation.
Agriculture
A good climate, good soils and flat low-lying terrain, endow Suffolk with prime arable
land. In 2009, 298,474 hectares of Suffolk were farmed, including 135,416 hectares
of cereals of which 96,105 hectares were wheat (DEFRA, 2009). Suffolk has the
potential to ‘grow-its-own’ building materials.
Housing need
Suffolk’s population density is less than half that of England’s, at 1881 people/km2
offering scope for low-density housing. Suffolk’s housing stock was 322,292 in spring
2009, up 25,519 since 2001. The Regional Spatial Strategy indicates should
complete 36,181 dwellings between spring 2009 and spring 2021 (Chown, 2009), an
average of 3,289 a year.
Building Superstructure
Brick-and-block
The standard low-density construction method used in the UK is brick-and-block.
The external weight-bearing walls consist of a ‘brickwork outer leaf, insulation, dense
solid blockwork inner leaf: cement mortar, plaster, paint’. (Anderson et al, 2009). This
building method is well understood by the building trade and the materials are
relatively cheap and reliable. The environmental responsiveness of the materials are
1
Suffolk has a population of 715,700 people (Audit Commission, 2009) and an area of 380,000
hectares (Butterfield et al, 2003). England has a population of 51,464,600 (ONS Centre for
Demography, 2010) and an area of 130,439 sq km (Butterfield et al, 2003)

known (see appendix 2) but not prioritised. Harris and Borer call this ‘Developer’s
vernacular’ (2005).
Figure 1. Developer’s vernacular used in Durrant Road, Hadleigh, Suffolk. Not in

keeping with other buildings in the ancient market town.
Source: Google (2010)

Woolley has criticised the weighting placed on the energy-in-use of houses when
considering ‘green’ credentials, arguing that the embodied CO2 of the construction
materials are not prioritised, even by the Passihaus standards (2006). Studies of
brick-and-block houses by Harris (1999), Brinkley (2006) and Asif et al (2007), as
summarised by Embleton show that minimising the use of concrete and plastics in a
house can reduce the embodied energy (2009). See appendix 3.
Straw-bale
Straw-bale building began in Nebraska in the nineteenth century. The bales are
simply stacked like Lego to form walls (Woolley, 2006). There are two basic types of
straw-bale construction: load-bearing and infill. With load-bearing houses, the bales
take the weight of the roof and no other super-structural support is used. With infill,
the bales insulate the frame of the house, which is usually timber (Jones, 2009).
Amazonails promote load-bearing straw-bale building, stating it is fast and easy for
non-professionals to follow (Jones, 2009). However, Snell and Callahan argue in

favour of the infill method stating that the load-bearing method exposes the bales to
damaging rainfall events. They also cite a major advantage being that adapting a
common structural system to straw-bales will allow easier co-operation with the
follow-on trades (2005). There is no timber reduction using the load-bearing method
(Jones, 2008). Woolley suggests infill is more acceptable to the public (2006).
Houses built with straw-bale and lime rendered would resemble Suffolk vernacular.
Figure 2. Shops in Hadleigh, Suffolk built in the vernacular. Rendered in lime.
Source: Author (2008)

At 3.5 tonnes of wheat-straw/hectare (BEC, 2008), Suffolk’s 96,105 hectares of
wheat produces 336,368 tonnes/year. Building 3,289 straw-bale houses would
require only 5.5% of the wheat-straw harvest.
Hemp/Lime
Hemp/lime construction uses hemp hurds2 mixed with lime binder to form a kind of
concrete called “hempcrete”. This material was developed in 1990’s France. The
most usual form of Hemp/lime construction involves casting the material around a
2
Hurds or shiv is chopped hemp straw left after the fibre has been extracted.

timber frame with panels of timber stud. This forms a solid wall. External protection is
required; usually lime render (Bevan and Woolley, 2008). Internally, lime or clay
plaster is used. Novice builders can follow this technique.
Hemp
Historically Suffolk had a well-established hemp industry (Fordham, M) and the
county is home to the ongoing revival. Hemp Technology, a hemp processing plant
in Halesworth, Suffolk, has the world’s highest hemp production capacity, capable of
producing 25,000 tonnes of hurds a year (Hemp Technology, 2010).
Hemp yields average 5,500kg/hectare, of which 70% are hurds (3,850 kg). 8,000kg
of hurds are required to build a 2-bed terrace with 400mm walls (Rhydwen, 2010a).
To supply 3,289 properties requires 6,834 hectares of hemp – 5% of the land
currently down to cereals. Duel crops would also yield 1-1.6 tonnes/hectare hemp
seed. Currently Hemp Technology could produce the hurds required for 3125 houses
annually – 95% of Suffolk’s requirement.
Lime
The lime reserve is classified by Berge as ‘Very Large’ (2009). Suffolk, and the East
of England have major deposits of chalk, most of which lie outside National parks or
SSSIs.

Figure 3. Industrial limestone deposits in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

showing National Parks, Areas of outstanding natural beauty and Industrial limestone
producers. Singleton Birch lime pit in North Lincolnshire and Needham chalk pit in
Suffolk are indicated.
Singleton
Birch lime pit
North
Lincolnshire
Needham
chalk pit
Suffolk
Source: British Geological Survey (2006)

Suffolk and neighbouring counties have large lime deposits, and an operational chalk
pit exists at Needham. While lime has lower CO2 emissions than OPC, they are still
fairly high and large-scale opencast mines destroy landscapes. Lime is abundant,
but finite and minimising its use is essential (Rhydwen, 2010b).

Figure 4. Singleton Birch lime pit in Barnetby, North Lincolnshire showing damage to
the landscape caused by mining. Singleton Birch is the UK's largest independent
manufacturer of lime products
Source: Google Earth (2010)
CO2 comparison of hemp/lime and straw-bale houses.

Hemp sequesters CO2, but its processing into hurds emits CO2. Lime production
causes CO2 emissions, both through processing and transport and chemically as
CO2 is released during burning. Some will be reabsorbed during curing but not all.
Rhydwen suggests 25 –75% reabsorption (2010b).
One m3 of hempcrete contains 200kg of lime and 100kg of hemp-hurds. A
hempcrete wall requires 20mm (30kg/m 2) of render, usually lime, inside and out
(Rhydwen, 2010b).
Straw sequesters CO2, but requires more render than a hempcrete wall due to
absorption into the straw. A straw-bale wall requires the equivalent of 35mm
52.5kg/m2 of render (Atkinson, 2008) inside and out.

CO2 Sequestration
Hemp
Hempcrete walls vary in thickness depending on house design. The Haverhill Hemp
houses’ walls are 400mm (Rhydwen, 2010b). The net values of CO2
sequestration/emissions vary more for hemp than for straw because hemp needs
processing into hurds whereas straw is a by-product of cereal production.
Rhydwen calculates that 1000m3 of hurds weighing 100kg sequester 127–181kg
CO2. Therefore a 400mm thick wall sequesters 50.8–72.4kg CO2/m2 (2010b).
Straw-bale
Atkinson estimated that one 1m*0.475m*0.4m 23kg straw-bale sequesters 31.28kg
CO2. Stacked, a wall sequesters 78.2kg CO2/m2 (2008).
CO2 Emissions
Rhydwen calculates that the net CO2 emissions from the lime in hempcrete are
63kg–162kg/m3. The lime in a 400mm hempcrete wall contains 25.2-64.8kg/m2
embodied CO2.
Lime plaster applied to one side of a hempcrete wall contains 9.5-24kg/m2
embodied CO2. Applied to one side of a straw-bale wall, it contains 16.6-42kg/m2
embodied CO2.
CO2 Sequestration minus Emissions for 1 m 2 wall.

This section will attempt to ascertain whether straw-bale or hempcrete walls have a
better CO2 balance per m2.
Initially a 400mm hempcrete wall will be considered alongside a standard-width
straw-bale wall (475mm). The walls can either be plastered externally with lime (and
internally with clay) or externally and internally with lime.
This section will examine each end of the range of figures for embodied and
sequestered CO2 in the lime and hemp of a hempcrete wall. Only one value for the

CO2 sequestered in the straw of a straw-bale wall will be used, but two (high and low)
for the emissions associated with the lime plaster.
Where the application of lime plaster is to just the outer fabric of the walls, the inner
fabric is plastered with clay and is assumed to have zero emissions.
Table 1. Range of values for Embodied CO2, Sequestered CO2 and CO2 balance for
straw-bale and hempcrete walls (negative values indicate net sequestration).
Embodied (E) Sequestered Net CO2 emissions
CO2 (Kg) (S) CO2 (Kg) Low E CO2 - S CO2 (Kg)
High E CO2 - S CO2 (Kg)
Straw-bale 16.6 78.2 -61.6
plastered one side to to
with 35mm lime 42 -36.2
plastered.
Straw-bale 33.2 78.2 -45
plastered both sides to to
with 35mm lime 84 5.8
plastered.
Embodied (E) Sequestered Net CO2 emissions
CO2 (Kg) (S) CO2 (Kg) Low E CO2 - Low S CO2 (Kg)
Low E CO2 - High S CO2 (Kg)
High E CO2 - Low S CO2 (Kg)
High E CO2 - High S CO2 (Kg)
400mm Hempcrete 34.7 (25.2+9.5) 50.8 -16.1 (34.7 - 50.8)
wall plastered on to to -37.7 (34.7 - 72.4)
one side with 20mm 88.8 (64.8+24) 72.4 38 (88.8 - 50.8)
lime (hempcrete + 16.4 (88.8 - 72.4)
plaster)
400mm Hempcrete 44.2 (25.2+19) 50.8 -6.6 (44.2 - 50.8)
wall plastered on to to -28.2 (44.2 - 72.4)
both sides with 112.8 (64.8+48) 72.4 62 (112.8 - 50.8)
20mm lime 40.4 (112.8 - 72.4)
(hempcrete +
plaster)
Table 1 shows that when comparing like-for-like values for embodied CO2 within the
lime, straw-bale walls sequester more net CO2 than all hempcrete wall scenarios,
and whether the straw-bale walls are plastered on one side or both with lime. E.g.

the best value for straw-bale walls plastered on one side was -61.6kg/m2 compared
to –37.7kg/m2 for hempcrete.
In order to ascertain whether a hempcrete wall would ever sequester more CO 2 than
a straw-bale wall, a range of different thicknesses of hempcrete wall were
investigated. (The width of the straw-bale wall is fixed). The results are presented in
graphical format. Figure 5 compares walls plastered on one side with lime plaster
and figure 6 showing wall plastered on both sides with lime plaster. (See appendices
4 and 5 for data).

Figure 5. CO2 balance in hempcrete walls (plastered on one side with lime plaster) of
different thicknesses using high and low values for CO2 emissions for lime and high
and low values for CO2 sequestration in hemp. Negative values indicate
sequestration. Sequestration within a straw-bale wall of standard fixed width is also
shown with high and low values for CO2 emissions for lime.
60
y = 35x + 24
45
40 41.5
38
34.5
31
27.5
24 22.1
20 20.2
18.3 16.4 14.5
12.6
9.5
y = -19x + 24
3.1
0
-2.3 -3.3
Kg CO2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

-9.7
-14.1
-16.1
-20 y = -64x + 9.5
-22.5
-25.9
-28.9
-37.7
-40
-36.2
y = -118x + 9.5
-49.5
-61.575
-60 -61.3
Thickness hempcrete walls m
High Embodied CO2 & High Sequestered CO2
High Embodied CO2 & Low Sequestered CO2
-80 Low Embodied CO2 & High Sequestered CO2
Low Embodied CO2 & Low Sequestered CO2
Straw High Embodied CO2 Lime Plaster
Straw Low Embodied CO2 Lime Plaster
Source: Author’s calculation based on Rhydwen ‘s hemp/lime data (2010b) and
Atkinson’s straw data (2008)
Figure 6. CO2 balance in hempcrete walls (plastered on both sides with lime plaster)
of different thicknesses using high and low values for CO2 emissions for lime and
high and low values for CO2 sequestration in hemp. Negative values indicate
sequestration. Sequestration within a straw-bale wall of standard fixed width is also
shown with high and low values for CO2 emissions for lime.

80
y = 35x + 48 69
65.5
62
60 58.5
55
51.5
48 46.1 44.2 42.3 y = -19x + 48
40 40.4
38.5 36.6
20 19
Kg CO2
12.6
5.8
7.2 6.2
0 -0.2
0.0 0.1 0.2-4.6 0.3 0.4-6.6 0.5 0.6
-13
-16.4
-20 y = -64x + 19 -19.4
-28.2
y = -118x + 19
-40 -44.95 -40
Thickness hempcrete walls m -51.8
-60 High Embodied CO2 & High Sequestered CO2

High Embodied CO2 & Low Sequestered CO2
Low Embodied CO2 & High Sequestered CO2
Low Embodied CO2 & Low Sequestered CO2
Straw High Embodied CO2 Lime Plaster
Straw Low Embodied CO2 Lime Plaster
Source: Author’s calculation based on Rhydwen ‘s hemp/lime data (2010b) and
Atkinson’s straw data (2008)

Figures 5 and 6 show that only the scenarios where the lowest figure for embodied
CO2 in the lime plaster and the highest value of CO2 sequestration in the hemp are
used does the net CO2 sequestration near that of a straw-bale wall. This is true
whether plastered on one side or both sides with lime.
The formulae for straight line graphs obtained in figure 5 and figure 6 were used to
calculate exact thicknesses of hempcrete walls required to match straw-bale walls for
each of the four scenarios. Results are shown in table 2. See appendix 6 for data.
Table 2. Thickness of a hempcrete wall plastered required to sequester the same amount
of as a straw-bale wall.
High Embodied High Embodied Low Embodied Low Embodied
CO2 & High CO2 & Low CO2 & Low CO2 & High
Sequestered CO2 Sequestered CO2 Sequestered Sequestered CO2
CO2
Plastered outside with 20mm lime and inside with 20mm clay
Equation y = -19x + 24 y = 35x + 24 y = -64x + 9.5 y = -118x + 9.5
Width in metres 3.17 -1.72 1.11 0.62

(unobtainable)
Including 40mm 3.21 -1.68 1.15 0.66
plaster (unobtainable)
Plastered inside and outside with 20mm lime
Equation y = -19x + 48 y = 35x + 48 y = -64x + 19 y= -118x + 19
Width in metres 2.22 -1.21 1 0.54
(unobtainable)
Including 40mm 2.26 -1.17 1.04 0.58
plaster (unobtainable)
It can be seen that after the addition the 20mm of lime plaster externally and 20mm
of clay plaster internally a hempcrete wall of 660mm would match a straw-bale wall
of 525mm. However this would rely on best-case scenario for emissions and
sequestration of CO2 in hempcrete. If the wall were plastered with lime on both sides
it would require a thickness of 580mm before it sequestered as much CO 2 as a
straw-bale wall. A hempcrete wall with high embodied and low sequestered is a net
emitter of CO2. The other scenarios are over a metre wide.

Clearly a straw-bale wall sequesters more CO2 than a hempcrete one and minimises
the environmental damage caused by lime extraction, particularly if plastered
internally with clay. But what about other considerations?
Structural performance
The timber frame is the structural element in a hemp/lime wall. The hemp/lime forms
a no-cavity wall around the frame. Although the hemp/lime does provide support the
house does not rely on this (Thompson, 2010). Load-bearing straw-bale walls can
withstand loads of 48,826kg/m2. When used as infill, the weight is borne by the
timber frame (Jones, 2010). Structural performance does not differ for timber-framed
houses, whether non-load-bearing straw-baled, hemp/lime or brick-and-block.
Performance in use
Energy in use
Thermal performance: U-values, thermal mass
Building regulations require new external walls to have a U-value of 0.35 or less.
450mm wide straw-bales have a U-value between 0.13 and 0.20. W/m 2K (Jones,
2009). However Andersen discovered that the U-value on sections of plastered
straw-bale wall was poor in comparison to thermal transmittance through a single
straw-bale, due to air penetration and natural convection flows. This was attributed to
poor construction (in Wihan, 2007). Atkinson’s estimated her lime-plaster/straw-
bale/clay-plaster wall to have a U-value of 0.13W/m 2K (2008).
The U-value of Adnams brewery thick hempcrete brick walls are 0.18 W/m 2K. Lime
Technology Ltd’s headquarter building has a calculated U value of 0.14W/m 2K. The
walling is 500 mm thick Tradical® Hemcrete (Bevan and Woolley, 2008). However
the Haverhill houses did not perform as well as the conventional houses although
heating bills were the same (Rhydwen, 2010b).
Indoor air quality

Hemp/lime walls are breathable. They can absorb moisture, reduce humidity and
improve the air quality of buildings. Building can be airtight, so ventilation must be

considered (Bevan and Woolley, 2008), as with straw-bale buildings which are also
airtight (Jones, 2009). Air quality is greatly influenced by the finishes used. Lime or
clay internal plasters will reduce volatile organic compounds.
Acoustics
The Haverhill hemp homes ‘did not perform as well as the traditional (brick-and-
block) houses’ in terms of soundproofing (Rhydwen, 2010b). Jones claims that
Amazonails has ‘overwhelming experiential evidence that straw walls offer far more
sound insulation than 20th Century wall building techniques’ (2009). (Source material
not checked).
Economics and ethical considerations

The sale of straw for construction gives cereal farmers an extra income. Hemp hurds
production can be coupled with hemp seed and fibre, giving farmers three products
per crop.
Hemp/lime construction is currently more expensive than standard construction, but
this due to the current lack of skills in the building trade (Rhydwen, 2010b).
Straw-bale construction is less expensive than standard construction in terms of
materials, though labour needs vary. Both techniques are more accessible to self-
builders than brick-and-block construction.
Both hemp and straw are sustainable, renewable products that can be harvested
year after year and sequester CO2 in the process.

Comparing hemp/lime to straw-bale

Table 3. Summary of the properties and merits of hemp/lime and straw-bale.
Embodied energy and U-value criteria also include lime plaster. Other criteria do not.
Environmentally Hemp/lime Straw Bale
responsive criteria
Embodied Energy
Total content. -37.7 to 38 kg CO2/m2 for 400mm -61.6 to -36.2 kg CO2/m2 for
Negative value hempcrete wall externally plastered standard straw-bale wall
indicated with lime. externally plastered with
sequestration lime
Extraction Low for hemp is an annual crop. Nil. Straw is a by-product of
High for lime as it must be mined. grain production and energy
is already accounted for.
Processing / Low. Hurds must be extracted and None – already baled
Manufacture chopped, but done locally. during grain harvest so
High for lime burning, but less than energy is already accounted
cement. for.
Transportation Low. To and from Halesworth from Small. Already grown and
the rest of Suffolk. Lime can be baled locally. May be
produced locally, but is often transport minor distances.
trucked in from Lincolnshire.
Environmental
legacy
Sustainable Hemp can be grown organically as Sustainable if organic.
production a break crop. Lime is very Whilst cereals are grown for
abundant but not finite. grain, straw is available as
a by-product.
Deforestation Grown as a break crop, hemp None. Land already farmed.
requires no additional land to be
cleared of trees.
Opencast lime mining strips the
land of vegetation including trees.
Toxic waste None with hemp. None with straw.
Mining can cause heavy metal
pollution.
Pollution Some CO2 emissions- see None. Pollution from
embodied energy. farming accounted for in
Various water and land pollution cereal production.

Environmentally Hemp/lime Straw Bale

responsive criteria
problems due to lime mining.
Health issues None if used correctly. None if used correctly.
Waste None with hemp. Lime mining None.
causes spoil.
End of life Hemp/lime can be broken up and Composts.
(recyclability, burnt to produce lime. Pozzolans
reusability, may cause issues.
disposability)
Performance in
use
Energy in use Variable results. Better and worse Good due to insulation.
than brick-and-block. Better than brick-and-block
Indoor air quality Excellent if correct finishes applied. Excellent if correct finishes
applied.
Structural Same as a timber-framed brick- Non-load-bearing same as
performance and-block. a timber-framed brick-and-
block. Load-bearing walls
up to 48,826kg/m 2.
Thermal Thermal performance variable. Thermal performance good
performance: U- U-value 0.14-0.18W/m 2K. when properly constructed.
values, thermal (Including plaster.) U-value 0.13-0.20W/m 2K.
mass Medium thermal mass. (Including plaster.)
Low thermal mass.
Acoustics Poorer than brick-and-block Better than brick-and-block
(source material not
checked).
Availability of the Hemp renewable Straw renewable.
material Lime abundant.
Ease of construction Non-specialist. No more labour Non-specialist. Labour
(Labour intensive) intensive than brick-and-block. intensive. Best with a group
of people.
Length of Initially longer than brick-and-block Quick with a group of
constructi for skilled craftsmen. Potential to people and suits that
on be quicker. method.
Economics and Hemp production is a good Excellent second source of
ethical revenue stream for farmers and income for cereal farmers
considerations sequesters CO2. Lime production is and sequesters. CO2.
less damaging than concrete. Empowers self-builders.
Empowers self-builders.

Conclusion
Summary of the case made
Straw is abundant in Suffolk and the county could grow enough hemp to supply its
housing requirements. Facilities exist in Suffolk to process 95% of the hurds required
to supply the entire housing need of the county. Suffolk’s climate is suitable for both
straw-bale and hemp/lime buildings, externally rendered with lime plaster.
Both building methods would bring local economic benefits, are suitable for amateurs
and professionals alike and produce structurally sound buildings. Both types of
building have similar air quality properties, but straw-bale buildings may have better
soundproofing and thermal performance than hemp/lime, and brick-and-block, but
results are inconclusive.
Minimising lime use minimises the environmental destruction caused by mining, and
the associated CO2 emissions. Straw-bale buildings used less lime than hemp/lime
buildings and usually sequester more CO2. Only the best-case scenario for a
hemp/lime building with very thick walls could match the net CO2 sequestration of a
straw-bale building.
Considering all factors, straw-bale building is more appropriate than hemp/lime for
the construction of low-density dwellings in Suffolk.
Existing Orthodoxy
Brick-and-block is the default housing type in the UK. These materials have high-
embodied energy. However, sustainable building practice tends to focus on the
energy-in-use of new builds, assuming that this is the most important source of
GHGs. Low embodied-energy straw-bale and hemp/lime houses are unorthodox and
considered niche buildings suitable for self-building ‘environmentalists’.
This essay challenges these assumptions and focuses on the embodied CO2 of
environmental responsive building materials. It investigated whether the
superstructure of straw-bale and hemp/lime buildings could be CO2 sinks by
calculating how much CO2 each technique could sequester. The essay also

challenges the assumption that building materials must be mined and manufactured
by specialists remotely by showing that Suffolk could grow and process building
materials for its own needs.
Limitations of the essay

The essay was limited to comparing the properties of plastered straw-bale and
hemp/lime external walls for low-density housing. It did not investigate high-rise
dwellings, the use of the materials for constructing internal or party walls, or their use
for other purposes such as flooring or loft insulation.
Although the essay looked at a range of estimates for embodied and sequestered
CO2, it did not examine a continuum of values, or consider other GHGs associated
with cultivation, such as NO2. When clay plaster was considered it was assumed to
have no associated CO2 emissions, which may not be valid.
The essay concentrated heavily on the embodied/sequestered CO2/m2 within the
walls. It touched upon, but did not focus on other properties such as structural
performance or performance in use.
Further research
An evaluation of the embodied/sequestered CO2 should be made for an entire
hemp/lime and straw-bale house of the same building style and floor space, rather
than for the external walls. Each section of the house, such as ‘Separating floors’
should be evaluated using a rating system such as the Green guide to specification.
Where the Green guide lacks information, such as the properties of hempcrete,
other sources should be consulted. Ideally primary data should be obtained,
particularly for the embodied CO2 of hemp, lime and straw, based on the location and
production of the materials. The straw-bale and hemp/lime house should also be
compared to conventional brick-and-block, and timber-framed houses.
A full LCA should be performed for each building type and energy-in-use should be
monitored as a long-term study comparing predicted and actual values.

Glossary
BEC – Biomass Energy Centre
BERR – Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
BIS – Department for Business Innovation & Skills
BRE – Building Research Establishment
BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
CO2e – Carbon Dioxide equivalent.
DECC – Department of Energy and Climate Change
DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EA – Environment Agency
EU – European Union
GHGs – Greenhouse gases
LCA – Life Cycle Analysis
OPC – Ordinary Portland Cement
OPDM – Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
SCC – Suffolk County Council
SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Interest
UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Bibliography
Anderson, J, Shiers, D and Steele, K (2009). The green guide to specification. 4th
ed. Bracknell: IHS BRE Press.
Atkinson, C. (2008). Energy Assessment of a Straw-bale Building. Unpublished
MSc thesis. University of East London
Embleton, C. (2009). Could new build houses in the UK be carbon negative in
terms of embodied energy? Unpublished MSc essay. University of East London
Audit Commission, (2009). Suffolk area assessment. Oneplace
Berge, B. The Ecology of Building Materials. 2nd ed. Translated from Norwegian by
Butters, C. and Henley F. (2009). Oxford. Architectural Press.
BERR. (2008). Strategy for Sustainable Construction. London: HM Government
Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (8731/2k/6/08/NP)
Bevan, R. and Woolley T. (2008). Hemp lime construction: A guide to building
with hemp lime composites. Bracknell: IHS BRE Press.
Biomass Energy Centre. (2008). Quantities of straw grown in the UK. [Online].
Available at: http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?
_pageid=75,17972&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. (Accessed 29 May 2010).
Brinkley, M (2006). The Housebuilder's Bible. Huntingdon: Ovolo.

British Geological Survey. (2006) Limestone: Mineral Planning Factsheet. London:
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Butterfield, J., Summers, E., Holmes, A., Daintith, J., Isaacs, A. Law, J. and Martin,
E. (eds.) (2003) Collins English Dictionary. 6th ed. Glasgow: HarperCollins
Chown, J. (2009) Housing stock for Suffolk’s districts and parishes. Research
and Intelligence team Planning and Performance Improvement. Suffolk County
Council.
DEFRA (2009) June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture: Land Use and
Livestock on Agricultural Holdings. London: Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs
Environment Agency. (2003). Sustainable Construction: Position Statement.
Available: http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/research/library/position/41239.aspx. Last accessed 28 May 2010.
Forestry Commission (2002) National Inventory of Woodland and Trees England.
County Report for Suffolk: Forestry Commission. Edinburgh
Forestry Commission. (2010). Sitka spruce - picea sitchensis. [Online]. Available
at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5nlej6. (Accessed 6 June 2010).
Google Earth (2010). Singleton Birch lime pit. Available at: 53° 35’ 48.48’’ N 0° 23’
6.72’’ W. [Accessed 7 June 2010].

Google Maps (2010). Durrant Road (Google maps streetview). [Online image].
Available at: (Accessed 30 May 2010).
Hafan Homes. (2010). Why construct in timber frame?. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.hafanhomes.co.uk/why-timberframe.php. (Accessed 2 June 2010).
Harris, C and Borer, P (2005). The Whole House Book. 2nd ed. Machynlleth:
Centre for Alternative Technology.
Harris, R. (2010). Is Timber a Sustainable Building Material? C3 [Lecture notes
notes]. Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination. MSc
Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of the
Environment, University of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology,
Restaurant extension. 12 May 2010.
Hemp Technology. (2010). Hemp Technology history. [Online]. Available at :
http://www.hemcore.co.uk/history.htm. (Accessed 4 June 2010).
Holmes, S. (2009). Building Limes and Cements. C3 [Lecture notes notes].
Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination. MSc Architecture:
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of the Environment,
University of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology, Restaurant extension.
15 May 2010.
Jones, B (2008). Building with straw-bales: A practical guide for the UK and
Ireland. 2nd ed. Totnes: Green Books Ltd.

Jones, B. (2009). Straw-bale Building. C3 [Lecture notes notes]. Environmentally
responsive materials; practical examination. MSc Architecture: Advanced
Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of the Environment, University
of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology, Restaurant extension. 13 May
2010.
Lawley, L. and Kearney, J. (2010). Natural materials for mortars, renders and
plasters. C3 [Practical notes]. Environmentally responsive materials; practical
examination. MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
Graduate School of the Environment, University of East London, Centre for
Alternative Technology, Behind Builders Barn. 14th May 2010.
Met Office. (2008a). Wattisham 1971–2000 averages. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/wattisham.html.
(Accessed 29 May 2010).
Met Office. (2008b). Lowestoft 1971–2000 averages. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/sites/lowestoft.html.
Met Office. (2008c). England 1971–2000 averages. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/england.html.
Met Office. (2008d). UK 1971–2000 averages. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19712000/areal/uk.html. (Accessed
29 May 2010).

Met Office (2008e). UK mapped climate averages. Rainfall amount annual
average 1971 – 2000. [Online image]. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/7100_1km/Rainfall_Average_1971-
2000_17.gif (Accessed 29 May 2010).
Modcell. (2010b). A Carbon Bank. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.modcell.co.uk/page/balehaus/a-carbon-bank. Accessed 8 June 2010.
Modcell. (2010a). Modcell helping you build a more sustainable future. [Online].
Available at: http://www.modcell.co.uk/page/faqs. Accessed 4 June 2010.
Nicholls, R. (2008). The Green Building Bible Volume 2. 4th ed. Llandysul: Green
Building Press.
Thompson, H.O’D. (2010). Hemp/Lime (2) – Building with hemp-lime/hempcrete
– Practical aspects and specification details. C3 [Lecture notes notes].
Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination. MSc Architecture:
Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of the Environment,
University of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology, Restaurant extension.
13 May 2010.
ONS Centre for Demography (2010) Population estimates for UK, England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - current datasets. Fareham: Office for
National Statistics
Ordnance Survey (2010). GB Coastline and administrative boundaries. [Online
image]. Available at:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/images/userImages/misc/outlinemaps/o
utlineb.gif (Accessed 29 May 2010).
Rhydwen, R. (2010a). Hemp/Lime (1a) – History & Background to Hemp
(Cannabis Sativa. L.). C3 [Lecture notes notes]. Environmentally responsive
materials; practical examination. MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and
Energy Studies Graduate School of the Environment, University of East London,
Centre for Alternative Technology, Restaurant extension. 13 May 2010.
Rhydwen, R. (2010b). Hemp/Lime (1b) – Building with Hemp and Binder. C3
[Lecture notes notes]. Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination.
MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of
the Environment, University of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology,
SCC (2006). Green Procurement Guide. Ipswich: Suffolk County Council.
Snell, C. and Callahan, T. (2005). Building Green: A complete how-to guide to
alternative building methods: Earth plaster, straw-bale, cordwood, cob, living
roofs. New York: Lark Books.
United Kingdom Parliament. (2008). Housing and Regeneration Bill. Available:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/housingandregeneration.html. Last
accessed 28 May 2010.
Wihan, J. (2007). Humidity in straw-bale walls and its effect on the
decomposition of straw. Unpublished MSc thesis. University of East London

Woolley, T (2006). Natural Building: A Guide to Materials and Techniques.
Marlborough: The Crowood Press.
Woolley, T. (2009). Sustainable Construction Materials: An introduction to the
concept and analysis of their uptake in practice in the UK. C3 [Lecture notes
notes]. Environmentally responsive materials; practical examination. MSc
Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies Graduate School of the
Environment, University of East London, Centre for Alternative Technology,
Word Count – 2,724

Appendices
Appendix 1. SCC Environment Action Plan 2009-2011 Theme 1.D Sustainable
Construction and Development
Objective Action Timescale Responsibility Local Area
Agreement Target
or National
Indicator
D1. Improve the Lead a sustainable Ongoing Environment Reduce the
environmental attributes construction working and Transport amount of CO2
of buildings in Suffolk group in Suffolk to look (Sustainable emissions for each
and through this reduce at key plans, policies Environment/ person in Suffolk
carbon emissions. and methodologies Sustainable NI186.
including local Development)/R Make sure
development esource adequate plans are
frameworks and the Management in place so that
Suffolk Design Guide (Corporate Suffolk can adapt
for sustainable Property and respond to the
construction. Services) issue of climate
change NI188
D2. In disposing of Continue to work with Ongoing Resource Reduce the amount
property consideration partners and Management of CO2 emissions
will be given to developers involved in (Corporate for each person in
promoting the highest the Chilton Woods Property Suffolk NI186
environmental development to Services) Make sure
standards. discuss how this adequate plans are
development can in place so that
contribute to creating Suffolk can adapt
the objectives of and respond to the
Creating the Greenest issue of climate
County. change NI188
D3. Establish a culture Implement the End 2009 Resource Reduction in the
of environmental/ council’s BREEAM for strategy. Management county council’s
sustainable excellence policy by: Action Plan (Corporate CO2 emissions
in the built environment. maintaining a website by 2010/11 Property NI185
BREEAM policy: resource for staff to Services) Reduce the amount
Where the council has increase awareness of of CO2 emissions
influence over a design the council’s BREEAM for each person in
and build project it will policy, what BREEAM Suffolk NI186
expect a standard of is and how it can be Make sure
BREEAM ‘excellent’. implemented; adequate plans are
Where this is not implement the in place so that


Agreement Target
or National
Indicator
possible (in council’s BREEAM Suffolk can adapt
circumstances agreed policy assessment and respond to the
by the Environmental system for all issue of climate
Panel) the council qualifying building change NI188
expects a minimum schemes. To be Working age
environmental standard overseen by the people with access
of BREEAM ‘very good’ Environment Panel; to employment by
(or equivalent) to be met develop energy, water public transport
and will aim for and environmental (and other specified
‘excellent’ in particular minimum standards for modes)NI176
aspects of BREEAM e.g. new builds.
energy or biodiversity. Deliver the Property
Strategy for Fire
Stations which
includes environmental
criteria and then
develop an action plan
to implement the
Property Strategy for
Fire Stations.
D4. Ensure that Undertake the Commence Children and Reduction in the
sustainability is a key procurement for wave s in 2011. Young People county council’s
element in the Building 6 of Building Schools (Building CO2 emissions
Schools for the Future for the Future with the Schools for the NI185
programme. intention of ensuring Future Reduce the amount
60% carbon reduction programme) of CO2 emissions
on 2002 equivalent for each person in
builds. Suffolk NI186
Aim to include 1 Make sure
carbon neutral school adequate plans are
in wave 6 of Building in place so that
Schools for the Future. Suffolk can adapt
and respond to the
issue of climate
change NI188


Agreement Target
or National
Indicator
Children traveling to
school – mode of
travel usually used
NI198
D5. Seek to minimise Continue to lobby Ongoing. Environment Reduce the amount
the environmental against the proposal and Transport of CO2 emissions
impacts of for a second runway at (Sustainable for each person in
developments that affect Stansted Airport. Development) Suffolk NI186
Suffolk’s communities. Minimise the Make sure
environmental impact adequate plans are
of any future nuclear in place so that
power station Suffolk can adapt
development at and respond to the
Sizewell whilst issue of climate
maximising community change NI188
benefit.
Manage pressures
arising from the
Regional Spatial
Strategy’s growth
proposals in a way
which minimises
environmental impact
and delivers the most
sustainable outcome
for Suffolk.
Source: Suffolk County Council, 2009

Appendix 2 – Green guide to specification rating system example
'External Walls' - 'Brick or stone and blockwork' cavity walls – ‘Brickwork outer
leaf, insulation, aircrete blockwork inner leaf’
Summary Rating
Climate change
Water extraction
Mineral resource extraction
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Human toxicity
Ecotoxicity to freshwater
Nuclear waste (higher level)
Ecotoxicity of land
Waste disposal
Fossil fuel depletion
Eutrophication
Photochemical ozone creation
Acidification
Typical replacement interval

Embodied CO2 (kg CO2 eq.)
Recycled content (kg)
Recycled content (%)
Recycled currently at End of Life (%)
Brick or
stone and
blockwork
cavity
walls:
All building
types
Brickwork
outer leaf,
insulation,
aircrete
blockwork
inner leaf:
Cement A+ A A+ A+ A A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ 60+ 73 0.6 0 83
mortar,
plaster, paint
Cement A+ A A+ A+ A A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A 60+ 74 3.5 2 86
mortar,
plasterboard
on battens,
paint
Cement: A+ A A+ A+ A A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ 60+ 72 0.6 0 83
lime mortar,
plaster, paint
Cement: A+ A A+ A+ A A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A+ A 60+ 74 3.5 2 86
lime mortar,
plasterboard
on battens,
paint
Anderson et al (2009).

Appendix 3 – Summary of studies into embodied energy of UK houses
Ten most energy intensive materials in each study.

Study: Harris, D.J. Study: Brinkley, Study: Asif, M. et
(1999) M. (2006) al. (2007)
Build type Brick-and-block with Detached brick- Scottish three
aluminium window and-block house bedroom semi-
frames. detached
Material EE % Total EE % Total EE % Total
(kWh) EE (kWh) EE (kWh) EE
Concrete 13,800 15.2 36,336 61.5
Concrete tiles 1,800 2.0
Concrete external 800 0.8

works
Plastics 47,000 44.9 11,300 12.4
Bricks 6,348 6.1 27,100 29.8
Ceramic tiles 8,956 15.2
Timber 24,882 23.8 8,334 14.1
Steel 10,300 9.8 6,500 7.2

Cement 8,580 8.2 6,000 6.6
Mineral wool 2,433 2.3
Clay tiles (roof) 2,052 2.0
Aluminium 1,088 1.0 1,631 2.8
Lightweight blocks 5,200 5.7
Goods transport 5,000 5.5
Plasterboard 3,200 3.5 1,500 2.5
Glass 828 0.8 2,700 3.0 1,133 1.9
Mortar 667 1.1
Damp course 525 0.9
Slate 12 0.0
Total 104,727 90,800 59,093
Source: Harris (1999), Brinkley (2006) and Asif et al. (2007) in Embleton (2009)
Appendix 4 –CO2 emissions / sequestration of hempcrete wall of various

thicknesses plastered on one side with lime. Negative values
indicate net CO2 sequestration. Straw-bale wall values shown for
comparison.
Hempcrete High Embodied High Embodied Low Embodied Low Embodied
thickness (m) CO2 & High CO2 & Low CO2 & High CO2 & Low
Sequestered Sequestered Sequestered Sequestered
CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2
0.0 24 24 9.5 9.5

0.1 22.1 27.5 -2.3 3.1

0.2 20.2 31 -14.1 -3.3
0.3 18.3 34.5 -25.9 -9.7
0.4 16.4 38 -37.7 -16.1
0.5 14.5 41.5 -49.5 -22.5
0.6 12.6 45 -61.3 -28.9
Straw-bale -36.2 -36.2 -61.575 -61.575

Appendix 5 – CO2 emissions / sequestration of hempcrete wall of
various thicknesses plastered on both sides with lime. Negative
values indicate net CO2 sequestration. Straw-bale wall values
shown for comparison.
High Embodied High Embodied Low Embodied Low Embodied
CO2 & High CO2 & Low CO2 & High CO2 & Low
Sequestered Sequestered Sequestered Sequestered
CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2
0.0 48 48 19 19
0.1 46.1 51.5 7.2 12.6
0.2 44.2 55 -4.6 6.2
0.3 42.3 58.5 -16.4 -0.2
0.4 40.4 62 -28.2 -6.6
0.5 38.5 65.5 -40 -13
0.6 36.6 69 -51.8 -19.4
Straw 5.8 5.8 -44.95 -44.95

Appendix 6 – Thickness of hempcrete wall required to match
sequestered carbon of straw-bale-walled house (20mm of lime
plaster not added to thickness).
Hempcrete plastered on one side with lime plaster.

High embodied CO2 and low sequestered CO2.
y = 35x + 24
-36.2 = 35x + 24
-36.2 - 24 = -35x
-60.2 = 35x
-60.2/35 =x
-1.72 =x
High embodied CO2 and high sequestered CO2.

y = -19x + 24
-36.2 = -19x + 24

-36.2 - 24 = -19x
-60.2 = -19x
-60.2/-19 =x
3.17 =x
Low embodied CO2 and low sequestered CO2.

y = -64x + 9.5
-61.575 = -64x + 9.5
-61.575- 9.5 = -64x
-71.075 = -64x
-71.075/-64 =x
1.11 =x
Low embodied CO2 and high sequestered CO2.

y = -118x + 9.5
-61.575 = -118x + 9.5
-61.575- 9.5 = -118x
-71.075 = -118x
-71.075/-118 = x
0.60 =x
Hempcrete plastered on both sides with lime plaster.

High embodied CO2 and low sequestered CO2.
y = 35x + 48
5.8 = 35x + 48
5.8 - 48 = 35x
-42.2 = 35x
-42.2/35 =x
-1.21 =x
High embodied CO2 and high sequestered CO2.

y = -19x + 48

5.8 = -19x + 48
5.8 - 48 = -19x
-42.2 = -19x
-42.2/-19 =x
2.22 =x
Low embodied CO2 and low sequestered CO2.

y = -64x + 19
-44.95 = -64x + 19
-44.95 – 19 = -64x
-63.95 = -64x
-63.95/-64 =x
1.0 =x
Low embodied CO2 and high sequestered CO2.

y = -118x + 19
-44.95 = -118x + 19
-44.95 – 19 = -118x + 19
-63.95 = -118x
-63.95/-118 =x
0.54 =x

Straw-Bale or Hemplime Construction Which Is More Appropriate For An Environmentally Responsive Low-Density Housing Development in Suffolk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Straw-Bale or Hemplime Construction Which Is More Appropriate For An Environmentally Responsive Low-Density Housing Development in Suffolk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSE MSc Architecture: AEES Essay May 2010: Straw-bale or hemp/lime construction: which is more appropriate for

an environmentally responsive low-density housing development in Suffolk?

GSE MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 (CEM152)

STRAW-BALE OR HEMP/LIME CONSTRUCTION: WHICH IS

Word Count 2,724

For the attention of Lucy Cartlidge

June 22nd 2010

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 1 of 37

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 2 of 37

This essay relates to several lectures of Module C3, ‘Environmentally responsive

materials’, particularly the ‘Straw-bale Building’ and ‘Hemp/Lime’ lectures.

of houses could be environmentally devastating as production and transport of

construction materials uses 10% of UK energy consumption (EA, 2003).

Communities Agency would facilitate delivery of these projects’ (UK Parliament,

2008). New settlements must be constructed using environmentally responsive

Theme 1 of the plan ‘Climate Change’ includes the sub-theme ‘Sustainable

Construction and Development’ (SCC, 2009). Using environmentally responsive

building materials will help achieve these ambitions.

This essay will compare hemp/lime to straw-bale construction, particularly embodied

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 3 of 37

hemp/lime construction and the exposure of the walls to water permeation.

potential to ‘grow-its-own’ building materials.

average of 3,289 a year.

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 4 of 37

Figure 1. Developer’s vernacular used in Durrant Road, Hadleigh, Suffolk. Not in

Source: Google (2010)

brick-and-block houses by Harris (1999), Brinkley (2006) and Asif et al (2007), as

house can reduce the embodied energy (2009). See appendix 3.

non-professionals to follow (Jones, 2009). However, Snell and Callahan argue in

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 5 of 37

Figure 2. Shops in Hadleigh, Suffolk built in the vernacular. Rendered in lime.

Source: Author (2008)

wheat produces 336,368 tonnes/year. Building 3,289 straw-bale houses would

require only 5.5% of the wheat-straw harvest.

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 6 of 37

plaster is used. Novice builders can follow this technique.

producing 25,000 tonnes of hurds a year (Hemp Technology, 2010).

To supply 3,289 properties requires 6,834 hectares of hemp – 5% of the land

annually – 95% of Suffolk’s requirement.

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 7 of 37

Figure 3. Industrial limestone deposits in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,

Source: British Geological Survey (2006)

but finite and minimising its use is essential (Rhydwen, 2010b).

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 8 of 37

Source: Google Earth (2010)

CO2 comparison of hemp/lime and straw-bale houses.

Rhydwen suggests 25 –75% reabsorption (2010b).

One m3 of hempcrete contains 200kg of lime and 100kg of hemp-hurds. A

52.5kg/m2 of render (Atkinson, 2008) inside and out.

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 9 of 37

processing into hurds whereas straw is a by-product of cereal production.

Rhydwen calculates that 1000m3 of hurds weighing 100kg sequester 127–181kg

CO2. Therefore a 400mm thick wall sequesters 50.8–72.4kg CO2/m2 (2010b).

CO2. Stacked, a wall sequesters 78.2kg CO2/m2 (2008).

63kg–162kg/m3. The lime in a 400mm hempcrete wall contains 25.2-64.8kg/m2

Lime plaster applied to one side of a hempcrete wall contains 9.5-24kg/m2

embodied CO2. Applied to one side of a straw-bale wall, it contains 16.6-42kg/m2

CO2 Sequestration minus Emissions for 1 m 2 wall.

better CO2 balance per m2.

Initially a 400mm hempcrete wall will be considered alongside a standard-width

internally with clay) or externally and internally with lime.

Craig Embleton, 0750553, Group 15 (Lucy Cartlidge), C3 Essay admin@greenfrontier.org Page 10 of 37