[Greenbuilding] embodied energy of insulation

[John Straube]

I find it highly doubtful that the polyurethane foam insulation has a lower, significantly, impact than mineral wool of fiberglass. This does not follow the common sense test, nor is it supported by a wider review of the data.  The CO2 data from the Yale paper was assembled by an architecture firm (not usually equipped with the technical background to do the deep dives) and came from one source: http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces
The information flatly contradicts other sources of data.

Take a look as some real Environmental Product Declarations for products (often available from European websites), or third party embodied energy studies (Look for ICE: Inventory of Carbon and Energy from Bath Univ or the US BEES or NZ data).  All show pound for pound significant reductions of stone wool, fiberglass relative to polyurethane EPS XPS. If I look at three sources, I get numbers like 15 MJ/kg for mineral wool, and 90+-15 for polyurethane. That is three sources!  And the values for EPS tend to be lower like 60 or so.  I need to use at least as much, perhaps twice as much density, to the performance of mineral wool and EPS equal. Not always though. For batts, the density can be as low as EPS. For exterior insulation, the density would be 2X.

Each of the companies who produce insulation products do provide detailed, really expensive to perform, LCAs.
For example
www.roxul.com/files/Sustainability/ROXUL_Sustainability_2013.pdf
in which it is stated, for a 10” thick layer,
"ROCKWOOL insulation is a major energy and CO2 saver. A traditional 250 mm ROCKWOOL loft insulation product – manufactured and installed in an uninsulated construction in Denmark and used over 50 years – will save 128 times more primary energy and 162 times more CO2 than used in its lifecycle”
Fifity years is not too long a period and 160 times means the CO2 impact is essentially a rounding area (0.6%).  Quality of installation, nails through the insulation as thermal bridging, etc will all matter more.

BASF as done tons of work with EPS. for example
http://www.sips.org/downloads/basf-ecoefficiency.pdf
If you look at this study, EPS only wins because it is assuming a zero thermal bridge assembly, e.g. it compares apples and oranges.  
People on this list know that you can’t just compare materials you need to compare systems. 

BASF does not compare material to material because it always looses.  But they are correct in that used properly EPS can outperform less than perfect alternate systems made of materials with lower impact. BUT, it is important to understand that EPS does not outperform something like mineral wool in a proper comparison.  Does not mean I would not use it!

Unike Ergo, I do not sell EPS, or mineral wool or polyurethane insulation.

John


On Dec 10, 2014, at 10:25 AM, conservation architect <elitalking at rockbridge.net> wrote:

>  
> <image[1].png>
> This source from Ergo’s link seems pretty authoritative.  I was disappointed not the see eps on the list.  It does have xps which I expect to be much higher carbon footprint than eps because of the price.  Still looking for this comparison. I am surprised that fiberglass is so high.  I am not surprised that cellulose is so low.  They compared these based on R20 square foot.  This is fair for conduction performance.  However, fiberglass and cellulose are not air barriers.  Therefore, the improved energy performance from this characteristic of the foam products is not recognized in this evaluation. 
>  
> I was impressed by fire video of plaster eps room.  The plaster installation surely was the major factor in that result. It was still in place after the fire. 
>  
> I can see the potential for eps plaster panels that could lend itself to reconfiguration and long life.  This is the Lego model. 
>  
> Eli
>  
>  
> From: ErgoDesk
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 6:05 PM
> To: Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof
>  
> Ok you got me on this one, besides I'm busy trying to save the world, but if you want to waste time nickel and dimming yourselves on the constant changing numbers here they are. http://goo.gl/FMnYUz
>  
> -enjoy the info, just warning you upfront
>  
> http://about.me/StyroHome
>  
>  
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, JOHN SALMEN <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Except the density thing and the economic  politics that don't set recycling requirements for paper in na
> Realistically cellulose insul is like 3%? Of insul  sakes. If that ‎ rose it would be more forests
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Alan Abrams
> Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 09:35
> To: listserv Green Building new
> Reply To: Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof
>  
> John...assuming your assessment is accurate, and that any batch of cellulose has had at least one go-round as Krauthammer columns, then shouldn't the EE value be halved? If so, then it's still high, but more competitive against EPS.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org

John F Straube
jfstraube at uwaterloo.ca
www.JohnStraube.com