Are there any externally published factors for the embodied carbon of
different insulation materials?
On 11 Dec 2008, at 13:47, Tom Doc Brudzinski wrote:
> I do work with a modular manufacturer and have contacts with
> others. They have all stayed away from cellulose because of
> settlement during transportation. Does your group feel the dense-
> pack eliminates the risk of settlement by eliminating the space for
> settlement to occur??
>
>
>
>
> Chad Lacasse wrote:
>>
>> Embodied energy is the energy consumed in producing products.
>> Mineral insulation comes from furnaces that gulp natural gas to
>> melt sand, slag, or rock. Foam plastics are petrochemicals. They
>> are literally made out of energy! Cellulose insulation is made by
>> processing recycled wood fibers through electrically driven mills
>> that consume relatively little energy when they are operating, and
>> which can be shut down completely with the flip of a switch at the
>> end of the shift -- or even for lunch and coffee breaks. Fiber
>> glass, rock wool, and plastic insulation may have from 50 to over
>> 200 times more embodied energy than cellulose.
>>
>> Preferred Building Systems, our modular home factory installs
>> dense-pack cellulose at a 3.8 per inch R value and provides
>> tremendous air sealing along with the additional air sealing we
>> install. The cellulose is 85% post consumer recycled newspapers
>> with a fungicide and fire retarder.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: VGBN Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Suzy Hodgson
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:03 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: not natural building products?
>>
>> cellulose insulation made with recycled paper is a good green
>> option with performance - high R value and low ghg emissions
>> On 11 Dec 2008, at 12:55, Robert Riversong wrote:
>>
>>> Icynene vs straw is a good example of the difficulty in making
>>> appropriate choices of "green" materials.
>>>
>>> While I don't think that spray foams should be used in new
>>> construction, stuffing straw into existing walls for a retrofit/
>>> upgrade is not a sensible option and with a limited wall cavity
>>> Icynene may be the best alternative for renovation. Even for new
>>> construction, straw bales - with their low R-value per inch
>>> (Å1.45, about the same as lumber) may not be the best choice.
>>>
>>> Besides having no global warming or ozone-depleting installation
>>> by-products, Icynene has only a little more embodied energy per
>>> cubic foot than fiberglass (not that I would recommend fiberglass
>>> for anything), typically less installed embodied energy (since
>>> framing bays are not generally completely filled) and better
>>> efficiency payback.
>>>
>>> Best use of remaining fossil energy and petrochemicals? Not so
>>> simple to discern.
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 12/11/08, Michelle Smith Mullarkey <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>> Point taken. I admittedly was thinking of products like Icynene
>>> vs. straw, but it seems fossil fuels really are part of our
>>> entire world.
>>>
>>> On 12/10/2008 6:21 PM, Robert Riversong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- On Wed, 12/10/08, Michelle Smith Mullarkey <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Fossil fuel is still used to manufacture and transport the
>>>> majority of green building products (not natural building
>>>> products such as straw bales)...
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid that fossil fuels are used for the production of most
>>>> straw and since some of it is coming from Canada, there's also
>>>> transportation costs. "Natural" building materials are not
>>>> necessarily immune from the environmental costs of other materials.
>>>
>>
>
|
