Solid wood house / partial self-labor, wall structure / differences

Of course, you can approach it like that if you have endless time, money is no object, you accept risks, and energy consumption is also irrelevant. High energy consumption is not exactly ecological either. I think that might be fine for you, but not for 99.9% of home builders. Regarding the topic of FDH and the word chipboard, I think your knowledge is about 30 years out of date. Modern PU adhesives are FDH-free, and chipboards with FDH or reduced E1 boards no longer play a role in construction. By the way, V100 is a statement about the water resistance of chipboards. Greetings from Potsdam, Friedrich.

Maybe that was my real problem. I thoroughly informed myself at the traveling exhibition on biological building and talked with 2 convinced building biologists. They definitely advised me against PUR adhesives and styrofoam even in the floor slab. I also obtained the technical data sheet of PUR adhesives and see that they are carcinogenic.

One to zero for you. Maybe I should have left out the word building biologist. There are all kinds, and if you meet hardliners, then really the only way left to you is into the cave. As I said, it's always about finding a compromise. You can do without styrofoam because there are enough alternatives. You can also do without glued constructions because there are alternatives for that, too. Whether the alternatives make sense when viewed holistically is another matter. Yes, and half-knowledge is a problem, what you read about PU is true but only for the uncured part, and as a builder you don't have to deal with that. If you get a PU glued product, it is cured and emission-free.

I find it unbelievably difficult to be able to decide at all with so many controversial pieces of information. I have nothing against

white glue (not suitable for building constructions)

and am also not picky about natural insulation materials. Hemp can be just as good as lava, wood, or anything else. But I don't know whether a log house, panel construction or expanded clay. Above all, I want to know which house we can afford with our budget, which is reasonably environmentally friendly, built by craftsmen who are decently paid, and that we like.

When I read the article about sand that a colleague sent me, I am actually not allowed to build a concrete house because that involves overexploitation. Probably I am not allowed to build at all, then I can't do anything wrong.

Well, you can make a problem out of everything. The issue of sand is unknown to me, oh shame. But the issue of concrete. For concrete, you need cement and steel, both extremely environmentally unfriendly productions. So use them as sparingly as possible, you can't do without them. And once again a compromise, grin.

Oops that didn't quite work, some of my comments are inside the quotation.

I just looked into the topic of sand and am literally shocked. I had never seen the problem in this way before. Another argument besides cement to reduce the use of concrete as much as possible. Regarding [Blähton], it may be true that the ingredients are rather harmless, but the manufacturing process is a huge energy consumer, so for me not an alternative. Regards Friedrich.

Of course, you can also approach it that way if you have endless time,

You have to take the time for a proper renovation in monument protection in my opinion. Otherwise, you should leave it and take other paths (e.g. new construction).

money is no object,

Nobody claimed that. Whether new construction or renovation – without a financial plan, neither works.

risks are accepted

"No Risk, no Bau" I would answer in modern German. Show me a new building that can be planned without any risk.

and energy consumption is also irrelevant.

Well, I call that total nonsense. You don’t seriously want to claim that you can insulate exclusively with products from the petroleum industry and facade insulation? Significantly less than 20% energy can be saved with facade insulation of old buildings. That’s why people talk about the “insulation craze,” which lets old, beautiful facades disappear behind hazardous waste (so-called “VWS”). The heat mainly escapes through uninsulated ceilings and leaky windows, not through the facade (apart from structural thermal bridges). That is a misconception, from which the insulation panel manufacturers make a stupidly large profit.

High energy consumption is not exactly ecological either. I think that might be okay for you, but not for 99.9% of home builders.

The higher energy consumption per m² of a renovated old building usually results from the fact that significantly more cubic meters have to be heated. It does make a difference whether you have 2.20 m or 3.60 m ceiling height. Furthermore, old buildings are never as airtight as new buildings can be. A circumstance that old building residents do not necessarily curse. Not everyone feels comfortable in an airtight house. Maybe you misunderstood me as well; I did not write about an uninsulated house but about an old building insulated afterward with sense and understanding. It should be clear that today it no longer works without any insulation.

Regarding the topic of FDH and the word chipboard, I think you are on a knowledge level from 30 years ago. Modern PU glues are FDH-free and the chipboards with FDH or reduced E1 boards no longer play a role in construction. By the way, V100 is a statement about the water resistance of chipboards.

Unfortunately, it is not my knowledge, but the E1 standard that is completely outdated. As long as DIY store chains and building material dealers still sell tons of boards and contaminated floor coverings with carrier boards according to “E1,” the FDH problem is far from over. PU-bonded boards contain no FDH but instead isocyanates, which already emit carcinogenic diamines at normal indoor humidity. The skin and mucous membrane irritations known from FDH come free of charge. Apparently, the devil was cast out by Beelzebub...

Greetings from Potsdam Friedrich.

Greetings from MOL

Time: Right, I meant to express that your concept is probably okay for you, but the majority of home builders will not be able to manage with it.

Money: When I read what you do and assume that most home builders cannot do this themselves and have to hire craftsmen, I believe it will become quite expensive. Therefore, new construction is probably more sensible.

Risks: Where do the risks come from, from "cheap is cool"? As long as people believe during construction that it mainly has to be cheap, the risks are wide open. It already starts with wanting to save on a decent architect and engineer. That goes through the craftsmen and the materials, except of course for expensive fixtures and so on.

Insulation: Not a word about it. I am a convinced timber builder and we never insulate with products from the petroleum industry. We have excellent insulating materials made from our own material if it weren’t for “cheap is cool” again. Our insulating materials simply cost a bit more. There are no uninsulated ceiling floors at all, and the houses are made airtight, equipped with sensible heating systems, and the windows also have excellent values.

Energy consumption: That an old building only consumes more because the ceilings are higher, I would call a fairy tale. Certainly, you are right, it is not only about the wall but about a holistic insulation concept, and that also includes the airtightness of the building envelope. Highly insulated building envelopes consume significantly less energy, that is an indisputable fact. Maybe you should have a "Blower Door" test done at the end. I really hope for you that there will be no nasty awakening. Maybe I have really misunderstood you there, I have just read nothing about insulation.

Glue: Once again, chipboards no longer play a role in structural construction. If something like that still exists in hardware stores, it has something to do with the fact that many DIYers think: “I live in a house and besides there is Mr. ‘Google,’ so I am a construction expert and besides everything is so nice and cheap.” In structural construction, PU-bonded OSB boards are usually used and floors (laminate and prefinished parquet) usually have MDF boards as carriers. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything else. FDH has been and was in the past brought into the house less through building materials but rather through furniture, floors, and believe it or not, wool carpets. Not everything that comes from nature is ecological.

PU: I have to repeat myself. Modern wood products bonded with PU (OSB, BSH, KVH, BSP) have no emissions from the PU glue. Of course, great care must be taken during processing in the companies to protect the employees. In the hardened state, and that is all you get as a customer, there are no measurable emissions and the measurement methods are highly advanced.

Yes, and greetings from P.