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  
>>> (≈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:
>>>>
>>>> --- 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.
>>>
>>
>