Obama Spending $1 Million to Fight Global Warming with Wooden Skyscrapers

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On March 20, 2014 @ 4:09 pm In The Point | No Comments

I’m still waiting for the press release on sustainable living by going back to the caves.

Environmentalism, like any leftist ideology, is so incoherent that it has gone straight from activists chaining themselves to trees to fight logging to promoting “emerging wood technologies” to fight Global Warming.

The White House launched a new campaign to sell its global warming agenda to rural America: “sustainable” buildings, including skyscrapers, made out of wood to lower carbon dioxide emissions.
The Agriculture Department (USDA) announced it was launching a new $1 million program to promote wood as a “green” building material to boost rural economies, as well as a $1 million competition “to demonstrate the architectural and commercial viability of using sustainable wood products in high-rise construction,” according to Department.
“Wood may be one of the world’s oldest building materials, but it is now also one of the most advanced,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Building stronger markets for innovative new wood products supports sustainable forestry, helps buffer reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and puts rural America at the forefront of an emerging industry.”

An emerging industry of… wood. I’m pretty sure carpentry has been around for a while. I don’t know how much time you have to spend in Washington to believe that building things out of wood is an emerging industry.

Emerging engineered wood technologies can be used in industrial building projects such as tall buildings and skyscrapers, as well as other projects. By some industry estimates, a 3-5 story building made from emerging wood technologies has the same emissions control as taking up to 550 cars of the road for one year.
But there are worries that have given cities some pause in adopting wooden high-rises. The Oregonian reports that “building codes that restrict wood construction for fear of structural weakness or vulnerability to fire.” Cross-laminated timber panels are combustible, but char and burn out without buckling, reports the Oregonian.
It’s also unclear if wooden panel high-rises and skyscrapers will have the durability of steel buildings and be as economical as steel. Wooden buildings also need to be treated for termites and can warp and twist over time. Steel does not suffer from such problems.

I’m sure it won’t be a problem. Mass death when a fire spreads across a city and takes down all its wooden skyscrapers will significantly reduce the carbon footprint of the human beings who have been turned into ash.

The only remaining question is what will environmental activists chain themselves to now?

Wood can be made fire retardant. The Twin Towers collapsed, they were made from steel and concrete. Steel melts and deforms when subjected to fire too.

LVL can replace steel when it comes to tensile strength. This gives you the rigidity and span. It is lighter than steel.

I do concede than connections could be a major issue. This why you see steel plate connectors inside timber framed structures. The specific gravity of lumber is too low to hold bolts without steel reinforcement.

What I can envision are multistory buildings that would be a combination of steel/LVL/concrete hybrid construction.
Each one of these materials has its advantages. The cost of materials will determine if at some point in the future they are economically feasible.

First of all, I want to leave aside the issue of wood as primary structural members in highrise construction because that is all very special case issues with hundreds of angles involved.

In low rise and mid rise construction, the heavy timber and glue lam timber members do have some good features.
See:
http://www.aitc-glulam.org/ShopCart/Pdf/superior%20fire%20resistance.pdf

The thing that many people don’t realize is that in most fires, steel does not hold up to heat nearly as well as would be assumed for a non-combustable member — it conducts heat too well.

I have seen buildings burnt out where heavy timber survied and the steel members did not for this very reason.

What ever member is used for primary framing, fire resistance is more a factor of the fire protection, fire resistive elements, contents and fire suppression than the issue of primary structural members.

When I have looked at these matters before on fire code appeals boards, the issues are very complex and have to center around tested “assemblies” of materials used in a rated wall, roof, floor, or structural system and its surviability in “hours” as rated by an accredited testing lab. Simple material characteristics alone do not provide all the answers.

To the thread in general, our one poster from the wood and timber industry has tried to present some surprising insight and we have beat him up as though he is trying to excuse Obama. While there is a lot of ‘grant money’ thinking and waste in all of these programs, not every participant is malicious — either in the programs or someone offering comments on our forum.

As an engineer who oversees building design, I can confirm that wood composites CAN be pound-for-pound stronger than steel when considering building structures applications.

Fire spread is much less of an issue today due to extensive sprinkler and fire barrier requirements. Even steel is not fireproof and must be coated/enclosed. Wood can be covered in the same fashion to survive several hours of fire.

However, manufacturing such advanced composites in the quantity and size needed for a building would cost far more than steel and will most likely be less “green” overall.

Also, steel can be melted down and recycled easily. Such wood composites can’t and new trees must be cut each time.

IMO, this is another “green” gimmick to make someone money through government force.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.