More and more local code enforcement agencies really are pushing every new building towards " higher" insulation values. Only a few major glitches that they seem to not understand or just totally ignore.
Tests by researchers show that fiberglass is good at 75 degrees... but has no insulating value at 20 degrees F. Second. How much insulation value is there in a building constructed with Steel studs? Even the building industry admits steel is a super great conductor of heat.. be it into or out of a building. Always enjoy that they put batts between the studs.. and then you get a thermal nose bleed every 16-24 inches. Here is the reprint from Oakridge testing labs Did you know that R-Value testing is done at 72 degrees Fahrenheit with no infiltration/exfiltration, humidity at 40% or lower and with a small temperature change for a short duration? This test, which is the standard R-Value test was designed when the only insulation material being evaluated was fiberglass. It was developed by the Fiberglass industry, so it's hardly surprising that it would favor them. When the conditions of the test are varied fiberglass doesn't do well. For example, at 20 degrees F with 50% humidity, fiberglass is R-0. EPs acually gets higher R-values as the temperatures decrease, and humidity does not affect it at all. The test is an unreliable guide to efficiency. Imagine how effective insulation is when doors and windows are left open. Essentially, infiltration and exfiltration issues are similar. Air and moisture flow through the structure greatly reduce the energy efficiency of the home. SIPs address this issue better than conventional stick or steel frame construction. Blower door tests indicate that SIPs are 20% tighter than very well built stick frame homes and as much as 40% tighter than most conventional construction. If you've ever used a space blanket, you've seen how effective reflective radiant sheeting can be for insulating. Any material which keeps radiant energy from converting to condutive energy is considered good as a radiant barrier. Stick frame, steel studs and masonry are all exceptionally bad at this and SIPs are good at it. Some materials are slow to change temperature- they have inertia to temperature change. Air and metal are very bad at this and non-metallic solids are good at it. SIPs are excellent insulators where thermal mass is a factor. A standard stick or steel frame wall has studs every 16", which translates to about 20% to 25% of the actual surface area. Obviously there is no insulation where the framing is so the less framing, the higher the insulation efficiency. According to Oak Ridge National Labs, this one issue reduces the efficiency of a wood stud wall by 33% and a steel stud wall by as much as 55%. SIPs rate a 7% loss of efficiency. SIPs are generally tighter at the window connections, but teh quality of the window (R-value and low E) is often the most under-rated issue in energy efficiency. If you look at thermographic images of highly energy-efficient homes the loss through windows is striking. Connection details at the corners, wall top and bottom and at openings are another weak spot for energy efficiency in conventional construction which is well-handled in SIPs. As you can see- the real issues of energy efficiency are ignored when R-value is stressed. So as I was dreaming about earlier today.. wouldnt it be lovely if we could all have houses rated at R 45? Yeah pipe dreams for 90% of the buildings going up... --- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, "Bryan Brah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would this law arbitrarily apply to EVERY new building nationwide? What > about Hawaii, where many people don't have heat or AC, and drafty, > semi-permeable walls are desirable? If you can grant an exemption for > Hawaiians, then why not for Floridians? Even if the law was passed, how > do you propose enforcing it? Currently building code enforcement is a > local jurisdictional responsibility which many communities' may resent > being usurped by the federal government. Additionally, building > inspection departments in small communities could be overburdened by > additional inspection requirements. An unfunded federal mandate of > this nature would exasperate state and local budget shortfalls unless > there was some provision to pay for additional inspectors with federal > tax money. > > > > Assuming that you could overcome these problems, there would still be > the problem of fair application of the law. Since building codes are > local, they vary widely. In some communities, building a new structure > utilizing even a single wall of an existing structure constitutes a > remodel, even if the rest of the structure is demolished. To avoid this > problem you would have to "Federalize" all local building codes to > prevent builders from skirting the law by declaring their projects > "remodels" rather than "new constriction." Then there is the question > of penalties. Since it would be a federal crime to build a wall that is > not R45, does the commercial construction company building an office > complex incur the same penalty as the back-to-nature guy building a > cabin from salvage and scrap lumber? > > > > Sorry, but the only food for thought your suggestion provides is pie in > the sky. We're not going to find solutions to any of our problems in > new laws, particularly one-size-fits-all federal laws. > > > > If you insist on a government solution, then offer meaningful tax > incentives to those individuals and companies that build responsibly. > > > > -BRAH > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:05 AM > To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [biofuel] food for thought > > > > In a message dated 12/29/2003 9:55:00 PM Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Just imagine if the building codes in this country were changed so > that every new building had to be whole wall rated at R45... how much > coal burning could be eliminated by making such a small change. So > much so that over time a lot of the really horribly polluting electric > plants that run on coal could be decommissioned. > When last I was in Finland, they lived 2.6 people per room in large > state-run > apartment complexes, a "Green dream" for saving energy, particularly > with no > elevators. Let's just pass a law ;-) > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
