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

Fri Dec 12 07:10:17 CST 2014

Very well said John. Thanks for the numbers too.

On Friday, December 12, 2014, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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, AIBDcertified passive house
> consultant, PHIUS*
>
>
> *certified passive house builder, PHIUS*cell     202-437-8583
> alan at abramsdesignbuild.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan at abramsdesignbuild.com');>
> HELICON WORKS *Achitecture and Education*
> <http://www.heliconworks.com/index2.html>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Gennaro Brooks-Church - Eco Brooklyn <
> info at ecobrooklyn.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 USA
www.EcoBrooklyn.com
22 2nd St; Brooklyn, NY 11231
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141212/375927d4/attachment.html>