Not all SIPs (structured insulated panels) are created equal Their insulating medium and the incumbent toxic gasses that occur under conditions of combustion should be the determining factor in what they're constructed with. Unfortunately, it's not. Rather, the industry glosses over such questions and goes into "deflect and distract" mode by explaining how they can meet residential and commercial fire code. Well that's all well and fine, but that's achieved by various layers of gypsum wallboard and has nothing to do with SIPs proper.
And it still doesn't address the issue of combustion toxicity. On that front, the closest industry gets to addressing toxic gases is the usual short dismissal about how low the formaldehyde outgassing is, and then pointing out that it's not a problem of the insulation, but the OSB. But no answer on combustion gases unless you crucify them to a wall and hold a bloody nailgun to their heads. Expanded polystyrene may be a great insulator, but it never has been and will continue to not be a construction medium of choice if the first thought of "what if" were considered. I certainly wouldn't want to include it as a factor if I were trying to locate a missing child or remove an unconscious adult in a fire scenario. Rigid polyisocyanurate foam would be a far better option, even more attractive if it were manufactured from vegetable-oil based polyols. But the consuming public isn't supposed to think or worry about such things. Why? Because "We're the experts!" - experts being industry and regulatory agencies. There's probably not much comfort in that "assurance" after inhaling the first lungful. It's a valid question as to whether or not polystyrene has been included in the primary constrution of a building and a solid reason to walk away from a home purchase no matter how good the price. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 10:37 PM Subject: [biofuel] Re: food for thought > 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/ > > > 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/
