Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Build a mud house and save the earth
We must achieve the character and acquire the skills to live much poorer than we do. We must waste less.
— American novelist and essayist Wendell Berry
Environmentalists tell you that a mud house is a meaningful choice. But when you start thinking of one for yourself you find more people who discourage you.
The contractor will say there is no proven technology. The "down-to-earth" architect may say it is not worth the trouble and your neighbour may laugh at you.
Though they are claimed to be cost-effective, people realise that it is easier said than done. The "discourage brigade" may point out at the Yelahanka fiasco where a Government agency attempted to build thousands of houses that were washed away in one rain years ago.
Whom should one believe?
Well, Bangalore is one of the cities which have many mud houses. Chitra Vishwanath, one of the architects who has been doing only mud houses for a good 10 years now, puts the figure at 5,000.
In a city that has 1,500 architects and where the Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) of the Indian Institute of Science has made a pioneering effort to evolve sustainable building materials and technologies, few architects embrace them.
There are reasons. Making mud-based bricks (adding only a little quantity of cement) is not easy, points out Mysore-based B.S. Bhooshan, who has built over 200 mud buildings in the State. It requires close monitoring, which cannot come free.
The mud-brick making machine is available with CST on hire, no doubt. But you will have to ensure that the labourers prepare the proper mix of mud, sand and cement (both in terms of quantity and quality). Then, they have to put exactly 9 kg of wet mix and press it manually by forcefully pulling a lever. "The labourer will like to put only 8 kg and make his job easy," points out Mr. Bhooshan.
The required strength cannot be achieved when the labourer fails you. So too when the mix is not properly made. The architect suspects this could have happened in Yelahanka as well.
On their part, architects will have to supervise at almost every stage of construction to ensure quality. They say it is a "thankless job."
"It takes a lot of hard work to understand the material, to design well with it, to train masons and workers on it and that does not come by sitting in an office," says Ms. Chitra. But she says, "The joy of building with mud comes with hard work and it is the process that is as important as the product. This means building and creating dedicated teams not depending on contractors. It is your attitude which lessens the pain."
Saving cost, according to her, is not the idea with a mud house. Savings come from the simplicity of the finish.
Today's walls and roofs take only 40 per cent of the total cost of buildings, Mr. Bhooshan points out. Rest of the money goes into modular kitchen, floors and other accessories. There is little scope for the mud wall and roofs to make a significant difference to the cost of the house.
Though the cost of the bricks (consequent to rise in the price of cement) has gone up, the mud bricks and blocks (used for the foundation) save cost only if they are made on the site using the mud dug up for laying the foundation. If they are secured from elsewhere the cost of transport is added.
Though Ranka Builders attempted to manufacture mud bricks on a large scale a few years ago, it was not successful apparently because of lack of demand. "But you have persons like Yogananda of J.P.Nagar, who offer a package solution to you," suggests N.H. Ravindranath, who heads CST. He says his house was built with a dome-like roof 14 years ago using mud bricks.
Birds love it
Ms. Chitra points out other benefits that go beyond the reach of the mathematician in you. Her house has 32 kinds of birds coming into it. It does without a fan, and recycles water besides harvesting rainwater. The house has a facility (Eco-san) to turn waste into fertilizer.
Mr. Bhooshan points out the futility of building a mud house and installing an energy-monster air conditioner in it.
Durability? "Ask the 500-odd people for whom I have built," says Ms. Chitra. Mr. Bhooshan too says the mud houses are durable.
But he is sad that there are hardly any takers for the alternative technology now. He says the issue has to be seen in the larger context. In the renewed globalisation scenario, where people are encouraged to own more than they need, the mud houses are the victims. Even the house has emerged a commodity to be owned as a showpiece. A German company using robots puts up a pre-fabricated house in 48 hours, he says.
Why not, you may ask. Mr. Bhooshan questions our world vision. "If everyone is to live the lifestyle of an average American, you will need 11 earths to sustain it."
He says everyone cannot have a party on one earth.
Quoting figures from the Ministry of Non-conventional Energy, architect K.R. Ganesh says Indian's per capita coal energy consumption is 482 calories as against the world average of 1671. That of the U.S. is 8,129 followed by Japan (4,070) and the U.K. (3871).
The energy consumed by cement (in the manufacture) is 5.85 mega joules per kg (MJ/kg). The energy consumption of soil-cement block is only 2.6 MJ/kg (if six per cent cement is used) and 3.5 MJ/kg (eight per cent cement), according B.V. Venkatarama Reddy and K.S. Jagadish of CST.
Mr. Ganesh simplifies it all: a regular building using RCC roof and plaster consumes 20 tonnes of coal energy while a mud house of the same size will need only nine tonnes.
Mr. Bhooshan wants the Government to issue guidelines for energy audit of every upcoming building (as is being done in the U.K.) and announce tax sops for energy-efficient buildings.
Berry, it seems, has reasons to warn us: "We must waste less. We must do more for ourselves and each other. It is either that or continue merely to think and talk about changes that we are inviting catastrophe to make."
