back
4 comments
The article mentions misconceptions about fire resistance, but then doesn't list fire resistance as one of the things that they tested.

Misleadingly, they compare the energy efficiency of this construction technique against existing homes, not against the current standard for new homes.

And there is no mention of the cost difference; not even in the section entitled "Building with straw - the figures".

I feel that the journalist could have done far better here.

We have had straw roofs for centuries. I am failing to see the "new" in this.
The difference is, despite straw bales being an excellent building material (especially with regards to heat and sound insulation, cost & carbon), that has indeed been used for at least a hundred years, there's a huge amount of resistance to it's use from both the conservative building industry and the general public.

Evidenced by the tedious 'three little pigs' hook used by the journalist.

I looked into straw bale houses years ago. I even saw them being built in an El Paso, Texas subdivision and walked around the construction.

They do have some advantages, but the thing that caused me to loose interest was the possibility of water damage and mould. One leaky pipe and your wall is done.