[Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof (ErgoDesk)

Thu Dec 11 23:54:28 CST 2014

Hi Mike

Not sure what the ad hominem stuff is about but it is a difficult topic as we don’t do well in recognizing the embodied content of a material much less its energy content. One of the problems of the built environment is that it is a defensive protective environment – which makes it a hostile environment and toxic in nature. Alex wrote his article in 2009. He gave polyiso as a possible board alternative but we now know that it also has issues. Also mentions rockwool as a board material or ‘rigid’ rockwool but no one ever seems to get it that the added density i.e. rigidity is simply adding formaldehyde resin not ‘rigid rocks’. When we identify problems with a product we should not jump to an alternative product as being free of problems or jump back to ‘simple’ old products as preferred (like asbestos). I have long worked from the assumption that every building product represents a risk in usage or context and it seems my job is increasingly about quantifying that risk – I can’t ever assume that I am eliminating risk.

The primary aquatic concern with polystyrene as Alex pointed out was HBCD’s which actually posed a greater risk in bedding and clothing and other household items as that was the primary vehicle for it entering the water stream. Not used in coffee cups but realistically styrene foams represent a smaller risk than more solid plastics (specifically vinyls) in building and only because they are more air than plastic.  20 ft of vinyl flashing is probably more plastic than would be contained in a house completely insulated with eps foam – and a house insulated entirely in cellulose or rockwool may represent more risk of irritant or chemical contamination than one done in foam – I don’t know - but it goes back to the nature of the materials used (all of the materials used) in the products). For insulation it ultimately goes back to density and stability.  If a material (like eps) is 98% air then 2% of the remaining material represents a risk. If a material is 60% air then 40% of the materials need to be evaluated – if 20% of that is friable or soluble or whatever then that needs to be considered. I don’t know any other way of looking at it. 

The concern about plastic toxicity should be initially with the manufacture and the pollution that is a result of that – vinyl production has been the worst internationally because it is a cheap plastic to produce so is ubiquitous. Subsequent concerns should be with appropriate usage as many of the compounds are not stable as we are discovering with packaging and contaminated foods. Then more concern with how it erodes or is disposed of.

Could or should be a long conversation held daily (as it generally is here). In getting back to houses as the hostile environment – we are trying to make buildings immune from the effects of nature which is trying to reduce everything back to nature. Ironically the more durable we want to make things the more toxic they are in some way to our natural world. The strongest piece of lumber will be an old growth tight grain piece of wood or it will be a piece of steel or it will be a lot of chips and plastic glues. The more protective paint we put on a building the more paint is washed off into the ground, etc.  

If everything we put in building was designed so it can be reduced back to its basic compounds without risk of exposing or concentrating toxic elements then perhaps we would be improving things a little – but that is not necessarily an argument for simple materials.

. 

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Michael O'Brien
Sent: December-11-14 9:37 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof (ErgoDesk)

Hi, guys--

It's good that we examine the health and environmental costs and benefits of our materials. The danger is that we may become personally tied to our particular choices such that we advocate for them by criticizing and belittling others who make different choices. That person becomes a bully who attempts to force his views through ad hominem arguments.

For me, polystyrene as a building material cannot be separated from polystyrene for consumer products like coffee cups. Polystyrene is one of the world's worst pollutants. Saying that our wall insulation EPS is not what's fouling the oceans, is avoiding looking at all the problems associated with polystyrene in general. Our use of it as a material supports the primary manufacturers, who will not be responsible for their impact on health and environment.

If you haven't yet read Alex Wilson's evaluation of polystyrene in EBN, it's online at buildinggreen.com as "Avoid Polystyrene Insulation."

Best, Mike O'Brien

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn <info at ecobrooklyn.com> wrote:

John: " In my case a foam brand is about 60 miles away "

I doubt that. If it is like most products on this planet, it's ingredients span across all continents: soy from Nebraska, ingredient A from China, Ingredient B from the Philippines, canisters from Mexicon etc. 

This the argument for simple building materials. Less ingredients, less travel. Cob: hay and mud from next door. Now that's green.

Gennaro Brooks-Church
Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.
Cell: 1 347 244 3016 USA
www.EcoBrooklyn.com
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:19 AM, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:

So if diverting energy from the food stream and the deforestation that results is unacceptable in the case of soy foams – why is diverting energy from the paper stream and subsequent deforestation of NA acceptable?  The question is density and the amount of a virgin material used to get a result – and then the question becomes appropriate virgin material.  I don’t like bringing food material into the building or waste stream but it may be better than producing synthetic material – I don’t know?.  

All insulations are simple – a material that is made to encapsulate air. . Cellulose or fibre material is odd because we are harvesting, processing and transporting a coarse material that either naturally encapsulates air or is made to do so rather than simply introducing air into a material in a geographically more local context – and most foams are produced close to the regions where they are marketed. In my case a foam brand is about 60 miles away whereas mineral wood is about 3000 miles.

Again not a defense of foam just trying to make sense of the discussion.

From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Alan Abrams
Sent: December-11-14 3:37 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof (ErgoDesk)

and that 5% that is soy has the carbon of the fertilizer and fuel it took to grow, harvest, transport, and process it. I would not doubt that is a greater EE factor than pure plastic. 

not to mention, the diversion from feedstock. IOW's, how many more acres of Amazon forests does it take, to grow feedstock for raising cattle, because of the soy that was used for manufacturing insulation?

put another way, could you eat your insulation if you got hungry enough?

AA

Alan Abrams
certified professional building designer, AIBD
certified passive house consultant, PHIUS

certified passive house builder, PHIUS
cell     202-437-8583
 <mailto:alan at abramsdesignbuild.com> alan at abramsdesignbuild.com
HELICON WORKS  <http://www.heliconworks.com/index2.html> Achitecture and Education

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn <info at ecobrooklyn.com> wrote:

They tell me it's made from soybeans and pop bottles so it must be good.
Ross Elliott         

A whopping 5% of the foam is soy. The other 95% is just like any two part foam. Last time I checked. 

_______________________________________________
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

-- 
Gennaro Brooks-Church
Director, Eco Brooklyn Inc.
Cell: 1 347 244 3016 <tel:1%20347%20244%203016>  USA
www.EcoBrooklyn.com
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141211/a3e0bd47/attachment.html>