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

[John Salmen]

Hi John
Wildly wrong?

My original information on the roxul board came from a phone conversation
with their technical department so I don't know John - they are a bit cagey
on the formaldehyde content but that is what is used and if the rock density
increases the insulation value drops (more rock fibre less air?? - or am I
missing something - are these special rocks being used?. I've used the board
- its nasty, dusty, easy to crush and deform under foot. I do like using the
batt product in projects as an alternative to glass. I did not know they had
mining in BC but your right the downstream operation is in grand forks (523
km) so about 4x the distance for a finished product though it is a
downstream operation from the various mines so there would be more transport
of heavy byproduct to grand forks.

The 1.1% is the polystyrene beads so I'm not sure what the difference is you
are talking about as yes it contains the pentane which has a weight but then
is expanded dispersed and replaced with the air - the monomer content is
given as .1% by ALL manuf. - yes stuff varies in manuf. but since the
monomer represents a cost I doubt manuf. vary it intentionally - not like
adding more butter to make it better type of thing. Materials need
ingredients - the work is to find products with the fewest ingredients! I
don't understand your comment that a board is 95% monomer that is misleading
unless monomer is a new word for 'air' - it is air and yes I know what steam
is - difficult thing to contain in a product?

I think you get the point of the comments I was making and I don't see wild
inaccuracies but I certainly do feel belittled by the tone of the response.
Yes monomers are not as stable as was thought or is advertised. Styrene is
mutagenic so are many wood fibres and dust, pigments, chlorines, perfumes,
etc. We have to realize that most of what we synthesize is also 'naturally'
occurring - the built environment is as I said a toxic environment and the
toxicity increases as compounds concentrate  and merge to form other
compounds. You think that cellulose insulation is free of the dioxins from
the bleaching process? Or tampons and toilet paper?



-----Original Message-----
From: Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of John Straube
Sent: December-12-14 5:18 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] embodied energy was Polyiso strength on roof
(ErgoDesk)

I think the supply chain issue Alan and John are discussing is very valid
and does indeed show how complex it is to make the “best” decision But John,
you have some facts wildly wrong. That about 1 pound of EPS can do 1 sq ft
to R40 is correct although most people us Canadian Type 2, which is a higher
density and R4 per inch. A rounding error.

But that high density stone wool is made by adding glue is not true. A 2
pound per cubic foot batt is definitely 95% or more stone, and the higher
density products like 4 pcf wall insulation or 8 pcf roof insulation have
MUCH more stone and may have a lower % of glue.  You could go to  factory
and watch the stream of fibers on the conveyor belt being squished to
different densities. The primary difference IS the amount of fibers in the
product.
Also, you have a Roxul stone wool plant in Maple Ridge BC  — which is not
3000 km from where you are, it is very likely closer than the styrene plant
in Alberta.  It is true that the amount of rock wool you have to ship for
R40 is a LOT more, more than double (e.g., 3.3 pounds per square foot if you
did it all exterior, I would use 2 pcf batt in the cavity to roughly get the
first R20 and then 5” of pcf on the exterior for the next R20, so lets say
2.6 pounds per square foot versus 1 pounds per square foot)

The claim that 0.067 pounds of styrene makes 67 pounds of EPS is also
incorrect. Norbert is correct. It is true that a 1 pound sample of EPS may
contain only 0.1% of styrene monomer: this is one of the concerns with
styrofoam to some (not me) because the monomer can move and potentially have
health effects. It is often higher than 0.1% which is the problem.  But the
remainder of that sample is polystyrene, the polymer. Pentane is mostly
removed at the factor during expansion and moulding, and replaced with air
which weighs about 0.075 pounds per cubic foot. So of the 1.2 pcf for EPS,
1.1+ is polystyrene.  To make polystyrene you react the styrene monomer to
polymerize it.  So a pound of EPS in typical foam board is over 95% from
styrene monomer.  Not 1%. The steam is used to expand the beads and mold
them, it is not part of the chemical reaction and does not become part of
the product.

How to compare the impact of 1 pound of styrene produced 1000 km away and
2.6 pounds of stone melted 400 km away and 3.5 pounds of cellulose with
0.5pound of borate?  I dont know.  This is tough.  Except for Ergo who knows
the answer before the analysis begins: EPS is always best.

John


On Dec 11, 2014, at 11:38 PM, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:

> Actually it is something to be considered.  
>  
> The EPS product I use is manufactured from polystyrene beads which combine
styrene (0.1% by weight of finished product) and pentane (1% by weight of
finished product). These beads representing 1.1% of the final product are
manufactured in Alberta (about 1000 km from me). They are shipped to
Vancouver (about 130 km from me) where they are manufactured into board
stock using steam (local water and heat) and packaged into roughly 96 cu.ft.
polyethylene wrapped bundles (88 sq.ft. of 2ml poly).
>  
> Each bundle weighs about 67 lbs with .067 lbs (about 1 ounce) of 
> styrene monomer and would insulate 64 sq. ft. of wall to roughly R40.  
> 20 bundles could do the walls of a 1600 sq.ft. house – about 20 oz of 
> styrene (equivalent to 10 milk jugs when they were made of styrene)
>  
> So basically I had about 6.7 lbs of polystyrene beads shipped 1000km then
converted into 67 lbs of finished insulation wrapped in 88 sq.ft of poly (
and shipped 130km where it gets put into buildings and hopefully
subsequently taken out in board form and put into other buildings or
whatever things get recycled into in the future – probably milk jugs).
>  
> I’m not sure I can do better than that at this point with less impact 
> for a local solution that works well in my climate –
>  
> Straw would have to be shipped an equivalent distance (we have no local
wheat) – ironically it would take about 20 bales (about 900 lbs) to insulate
an equivalent area which takes about a ½ acre of farmland to grow and about
.1 lb (1.6oz) of petroleum derived fertilizer to generate the growth.  Straw
does not work in my climate.
>  
> For cellulose the equivalent wall area or insulated area would be about
200 lbs of shredded newspaper – so I could collect and shred papers locally
but I would still have to ship in 60 lbs or so of borates to make up that
amount at at least 4  times the distance. Also we are getting more
information that borates might not be as safe as we thought – not a well
investigated material. Also I have spent a lot of time politically working
on having newspaper recycled as pulp mills are a huge environmental
liability in my region as is deforestation.
>  
> For rockwool for walls the equivalent wall area would be about 162 lb and
I would have to ship that about 3000 km (so double the weight and 3 times
the distance – and 4 times the packaging). If I wanted to use a rockwool as
a board material comparable to the eps for slabs the equivalent area weight
would be about 800lbs (additional weight being formaldehyde binder for
density).
>  
> So it is a complex decision making process. All design decisions are.  Is
1oz of styrene as dangerous as 60 lbs of borate salt, chlorine pollution and
tree loss, or potentially 600 lbs of formaldehyde glue,  or even the soil
loss and petro fertilizer usage from something as green as strawbales. I
don’t know and getting information to know a little more is a continuous
process -  but am certainly not at this point going to accept simple
arguments for simple materials having discovered long ago there is no such
thing as a simple material. Some of the most ‘natural’ materials out there
are still the most toxic and/or inappropriate.
>  
>  


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




_______________________________________________
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.bioener
gylists.org