The statement that is the subject of this thread appears in a post on the "General....Residential" forum on this website,along with another "ICF bashing post." I just thought that some other ICF proponents might want to comment.

Care to explain this?
I must be missing something here....
Let it out man- just what are you trying to say?

I did not see the post Sipper is talking about. My assumption is that some short sighted people look at all the energy that it takes to make and pour concrete. Does it take a lot of energy to create concrete, absolutely, but if you take the energy saving that the same house gives you over the next 30 years it not that much energy in the grand scheme. If you look at a stick framed house and compare the amount of energy to takes to erect and then heat and cool it will use more energy that the concrete house. I don't have the stats in front of me but I thought the figure was that after 7 years the energy used was equal. Now if figure that every after that the ICF house is using less energy it makes the comments that ICFs are not green kinda ridiculous. Plus if you add the fact that the ICF house will be there for who knows how long and the framed house will have many renovations to keep the R value and structure up. Sorry to rant but I have been in the field a lot and have not been visiting the board much so I have to get it all out quickly before I head back. LOL

Look on the GBT Home page in "General Forum: Residential" click on thread titled "Precast Concrete Home" and you'll see what I'm referring to. I was just thinking that many of the regular ICF Forum participants may not keep up with that forum. Also, many "newbies" to the site, and that particular forum, could be influenced by the subject comments.