Try asking the Energy Saving Trust Joe.

I am researching this myself.
 
The problem is calculating the embodied energy of many components is actually very hard. In many cases, the only records of embodied energy you can extrapolate other data from are the US energy agency reports of the 1970's, though this is improving slowly.
 
Concrete is likely to be the biggest issue, think of the energy used to mine, process and distribute the raw materials, the vast energy used in the heating of the materials in manufacture, subsequent transportation then the water used to mix the concrete on site.
 
Also have to think about the energy used by the staff and engineers, embodied energy in the visits by the geotechnical engineers at the quarry sites, the list goes on.
 
I'm constantly astonished at the lack of depth many of these studies go into. I am training at the moment to be an ISO14001 assessor to offer this service through my company, and the level of detail that you could get away with is banal and the assumptions quite basic. I already write environmental policies for companies and I find our assessments are much more comprehensive than those required under ISO.
 
I also think that the current obsession with C02 excludes other issues such as impact on biodiversity, pollution at the point source of manufacture of goods, water courses. The good news though is I suppose people are at least starting to think about the environmental impact of their lives, which can only be a good thing in the long run.
 
I offer carbon neutral Phase 1 contaminated land reports for planning applications if you are in the SW?
 
I think spending some time looking at the holistic impact of the development is a good idea in addition to the C02 issues.
 
I would consider grey water and rainwater systems. These are not manufactured by CN methods, but the amount of benefit to both the local environment and your water bills would ensure they were at the top of my list along with your heating and lighting issues.

Peter,
Surely one of the best materials to use for building a home must be wood. Wood is used widely over here in home construction, all "home grown" stuff as well, and then they plant new trees to be ready in 50-60 years

Hello Fridihem,
 
Absolutely! Wood is a fantastic material. I plan to build one day with oak framing.
 
Sadly, most of the housing built during the last boom seemed to be concrete block or shuttered concrete for larger structures and calculating the embodied energy in those buildings can be a real challenge.
 
My ultimate home would be an oak framed building over a 2 story basement. I have designed the foundations for a few buildings like this, (I am a geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist/geoenvironmental scientist), and though there is a lot of concrete in the subsurface structure, they do require very little energy input to keep them warm.
 
With lightpipes and passive ventilation, they are quite livable spaces for bedrooms and play areas. One client had an entire lower floor devoted to his music studio and was an inspiring space actually, and his wife couldn't hear him in the garden!
 
Oak frames are very light compared to masonary construction, much less than the usual 25Kn per story per metre run, which makes the foundation design much easier and can avoid piled foundations on some sites where the bearing capacity is marginal for a masonary construction.
 
The price of oak here in the UK though is silly, compared to places like the US and Canada, where quality wood is comparitively cheap.

Using expensive building materials like oak would be a waste of resources if the structure isn't layed out to last for 300 years.
A structure on strip foundations won't last for three hundred years. Unless someone declares it a protected structure and the replacement is hindered, putting another burden onto the following generations.

Peter, Instead of Oak, use top quality pine, preferably from N Sweden and Finland, not spruce.
 
Homes built with pine here in Sweden are still standing after several hundreds of years, and of course pine is much cheaper than oak

Why only go for carbon-neutral?
Hemp concrete gives you a negative carbon footprint!
Recommend "Building With Hemp"
Go to http://www.hempbuilding.com

Or you could consider straw bale walls with a lime render? You would need a timber frame to support the roof and the first floor if there will be one, I guess an architects draftsman would be a good person to talk to, they can size your frame etc. for you and generally work for sensible prices (ie. not as expensive as architects!) There was a straw bale house at the Grand Designs show this year so it might be a good place to look for info?

Look at this http://www.seemyliving.com/~barbara/, hopefully this is not the "Zero target" we are heading. Robert

bench mark house from 'the housebuilders bible' 2004
embodied energy 140,000 Kw/h for a 200m2 home ,internal area
so 700 kw/h / m2