Survey: Which building material/construction method have you chosen?

.. and polystyrene on the wall bothers the fewest people when you look at the new development areas.
.

It doesn’t bother anyone either with a mattress, a yogurt cup, the couch, or the toothbrush.

On the topic of sound insulation: we have sand-lime brick, but I don’t notice any difference with the houses in the area made of bricks or aerated concrete (all are in quiet surroundings, highway proximity is of course a bit different). The issue is simply massively overestimated in the single-family house sector. Around here, aerated concrete is the cheapest building material, so it is frequently used. Sand-lime brick plus ETICS is more expensive.

to mycraft it was 1 reply to opalau which said in essence that he would of course have chosen KS instead of aerated concrete, but does not live near a motorway. I am aware that there is hardly any aerated concrete in the south, but rather bricks. So we conclude that as builders we do not really have this choice, it depends on the building location, whether white or yellow-brown. Wood works everywhere, that is certain. And that in timber construction you can achieve the best envelopes in terms of thermal insulation is also certain. Only apparently that doesn’t work without plastic or insulation fibers, which certainly are not sheep wool. Haydee should know exactly how such a super envelope is constructed. I am not an environmental fanatic, but I think and tell myself ok, to get the last few percent regarding CO2 reduction I will probably have to transport quite a lot of CO2-causing construction chemicals across the country by trucks, it would be interesting to find a balance on that. Therefore I am skeptical about passive houses, but everyone has their own way of thinking, right. Karsten

24-hole brick 24 cm + 12 cm ETICS

Monolithic would have just become thicker. Solid was quickly clear anyway, but for us the optimal thermal insulation had to be achieved, which is feasible within a reasonable wall thickness at reasonable costs. Originally it was supposed to be aerated concrete too, but then the ETICS would have become quite a bit thicker.

The thread is also supposed to be about the entire D and not just the North.

Well, hardly anyone here in the forum builds "in the entire D", but many "only" one house, in a specific area, and there are regionally different preferences (and even regional building materials). In "my" area this is the case, for example: northern RLP, Vulkaneifel / Neuwieder Becken. There is pumice in the ground there, you can make stones from it. They have proven and popular properties. They are not the philosopher's stone, not the egg of Columbus; but no worse than, for example, aerated concrete. So you don’t haul anything in if you can get something equivalent without long distances. Here, people build "whole houses" from it - increasingly also with stud walls for "interior, non-load-bearing".

to mycraft it was a reply to opalau who basically said he would of course have chosen KS instead of aerated concrete, but does not live on a highway. I understand that in the south there is hardly any aerated concrete, but rather bricks. So we conclude that we builders do not really have this choice, it depends on the building location whether white or yellow-brown. Wood works everywhere, that is certain. And that you can get the best envelopes in terms of thermal insulation with timber construction is also certain. But apparently that also doesn’t work without plastic or insulation fibers, which certainly are not sheep’s wool. Haydee should know exactly how such a super envelope is constructed. I am not an eco-pacifist, but I think about it and tell myself, ok, to get the last few percent regarding CO2 avoidance, I probably have to transport quite a bit of CO2-causing construction chemicals by trucks across the country, it would be interesting to find a balance on that. I am therefore skeptical of passive houses, but everyone is different, right. Karsten

Karsten you are rightly skeptical and I feel we have to save a lot in order to compensate for the CO2 from production. I have already received criticism here in the forum because I do not see solid wood as the ecological miracle weapon. I have simply always wanted a passive house, it fascinates me. My husband also likes it and agreed. Originally, we wanted a stone-on-stone solid house as a passive house with lots of extras like AGA stove, swimming pond, extra-high garage with lift platform. After the first discussions, reality set in. Cuts were made, compromises reached, the right building partner had to be found (all can do the foundation slab, with a slope it became more difficult) – and we would also have given up on a passive house – if the building partner couldn’t do it.

Wall construction 10 cm wood 30 cm Neopor with mineral insulation it would probably be more like 60 cm insulation and will not be installed Cellulose would have worked 30 cm + 6 cm some kind of insulation boards

I have already taken hits here in the forum because I don't see solid wood as the ecological wonder weapon.

Have you?

If you seriously pursue the idea of saving CO2, everything that requires tree felling is maximally counterproductive. The only argument always put forward here in favor is "regrowth". Well, oil was once trees too, what I burn grows back as well – and exactly as fast as if I had burned wood.

Now, in house construction, the CO2 is bound, since wood is used here but not as fuel. Still, trees and thus CO2 sinks are removed from the environment. And newly growing trees only reach their CO2 consumption after 30-40 years. Whether that is, purely from a CO2 perspective, better than doing ETICS, or making concrete, or excavating pumice: It is to be doubted.

So, whoever gave you hits can also report to me. The use of renewable resources being more eco-friendly than anything else is a green life lie. Before something can regrow, it first has to be shaved off.