Avoiding the Global Warming Impact of Insulation

I am very pleased to see that Cellulose Insulation appears to be the best choice for the most cost effective and environmentally friendly type of insulation in your charts. I have been using Wall Spray Cellulose Insulation in our walls for last 25 years. I selected it for its recycled qualities along with the ability to build custom sized batts in every wall. I know the "installed" R value is superior to other batt insulations. Along with our air sealant work, air tight drywall approach and Cellulose in the walls, we are building a durable high efficient house that will last for years to come.

Another important source of methane is a "gut fermentation of cattle," because he eloquently necessary. It's really a source of greenhouse gas emissions significant and is a weapon that vegetarians use to promote their lifestyle. Since I heard about this, they are actually consciously eat less meat.

After carefully reviewing the data presented above, your blog raises some questions.

First, the data presented appears to be very similar to what has previously been presented by other researchers. Since you have no citations in your post, it is unclear if this is new research or based on existing information. Has any of the information in this blog been published previously?

Second, there isn’t enough information in the post to allow a full understanding of the underlying science, methodologies, and assumptions used. An explanation of your methodology would facilitate greater understanding of your conclusions and would allow for a more robust discussion.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond.

Dave Williams
Sr. R&D Manager
Honeywell International

Does anyone know whether Walltite ECO (TM) Polyurethane Insulation/Air Barrier produced by BASF is an effective insulation product? This company claims not to harm the ozone..and have a near zero global warming potential (GWP) score.

Thanks in advance.

Teresa

for Bernard - and all others who may may hear this argument. take some time and study ecological and geological history. Yes there have been climate changes before, some much more extreme and some we can be glad we were not around for. The problem with the current climate change is that it is happening very fast, and plants/ animals may not adapt - so we could a) lose many many species in the next century or two. b) inflict terrible suffering on many people - especially poor people c) lose some water front property (ie Florida). Though I agree we humans are a part of nature, we evolved the smarts to release the stored energy in the worlds fossil fuels into the atmosphere all in a few hundred years - which is a millisecond to a geologist!

The interest in additional data and information is great. For much more detail, please check out the recent article in Environmental Building News (EBN), "Avoiding the Global Warming Impact of Insulation." The summary information provided in this blog post is derived from that article:

http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/6/1/Avoiding-the-Glob...

The research, thought, and presentation put into this analysis takes time and resources so our full feature EBN articles are available to our subscribers. To read a single article like this one, an easy option is to get a weekly subscription for $12.95.

– Tristan Roberts
Managing Editor, EBN

Second, there isn’t enough information in the post to allow a full understanding of the underlying science, methodologies, and assumptions used. An explanation of your methodology would facilitate greater understanding of your conclusions and would allow for a more robust discussion.

The two graphs are showing the same thing, but on different scales. The table that's included before the two graphs doesn't show payback, but rather the underlying assumptions on "lifetime global warming potential" (GWP) of the different insulation materials. Data in the last column of the table is used in calculating the paybacks shown in the two graphs. Hope this answers your questions. -Alex

Great article, but I don't understand the meaning of Payback in the first graph. In the second one, it makes sense because you are comparing the embodied GWP to the GWP that is offset through energy savings. But as far as I can tell the first graph is just comparing the GWP of different insulation -- there is no countervailing effect being considered which would provide a payback.
Can you clarify this? I'd like to share it with my colleagues, but want to understand what I'm sharing first.

Another important source of methane is a "fermentation digestive tract of cattle," because it is elequontly use. This is really sigificant source of greenhouse gases, and is a weapon that vegetarians use to promote their lifestyle. Since I learned of this, they are actually concisouly eat less meat.

One more question -- How can I find out which closed-cell SPF products are water-blown? Is there a list out there somewhere?

1) In Europe XPS is produced without any FCKW. So that would be the very first step: Flour and Chlor shouldn't be used in the foaming agent. You do not need it.
2) As in economy, payback times are misleading. Insulation reduces the overall green house effect, and it is one of the best methods to do so. For a correct analysis a life cycle balance has to be used.

A payback time line that surpasses an individuals life span makes not rational sence. Global warming, greenhouse gases, climate change...what does any of this mean when you look at 4 to 5 billion year old goelogical record and see evidence that this is not the first time this has occuered, nor will it be the last... Why blame it all on man and his use of the earths resorces? Someone has a great deal of time on their hands and alot of imagination.

Current research has shown that using food based agricultural products as fuel feedstock has caused major land use changes that has increased global warming.
http://www.globalwarming360.net/

Heather, dense-pack cellulose is blown into cavities, under pressure, at a density of roughly 3.5 pounds per cubic foot. At this density it doesn't settle, offers good R-value, and fairly impermeable to air movement. Cellulose can also be blown into cavities at a lower density, or blown into open spaces such as an attic, also at lower densities, so these applications might be called "blown-in" but not "dense-pack."

What is meant by "dense-pack" cellulose? Is this the same as blown-in spray cellulose?

In 2008, Owens Corning Celfortec's Valleyfield, Quebec plant (where XPS is made) released no less than 351 tonnes of HCFC-142b into the atmosphere
and 163 tonnes of HCFC-22, according to Environment Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory (http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/websol/querysite)
Cheers,

Andre
I work and live in Europe, compared with other insulation, the expanded corkboards, aren't that expensive, about 20% more expensive, in the north american market, i don´t know.
But you could try contacting Amorim, they are the bigest producer, http://www.corkcomposites.amorim.com/, Good luck

I am also surprised that you don't mention other cleaner materilas like cork. We have been using expanded corkboards for insulating buildings in Portugal. But, very relevant: we use in this context not only because its production is environmentally almost completely clean but also because the proximity of growing and production avoids transport polution. In other contexts, other clean insulations are available, according to the local resources (lambswooll, strawbails, etc.). In order to be of practical use, the comapartive table must include in a dynamic way (location of use input by the user) the waste and pollution of transport and calculate the overall impact.

A Quebec manufacturer of cork told me cork insulation costs a fortune.
Filipe, do you know of an American supplier who is competitive?
Thanks,
André

I really enjoyed your article, but I am surprised that don't mention Expanded Corkboards, the best environmentally isolation material friendly that I know.