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 (—1.45, 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:
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.
| |