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

Fri Dec 12 14:39:55 CST 2014

Sorry about everyone getting confusing info about EPS Composites, that get
all EPS covered with Thin-Shell Polymerized Concrete. The EPS will always
be embedded in this concrete shell, you can also place your radioactive
items in there for safety:-)

Because we all know that EPS lasts "forever," the biggest problem is
finding a strong concrete mix that will last as long. If mixed in the
mortar as small fibers or a woven mesh will make a super strong GFRC mixes
that will stick to the EPS very well. Some builders are trying to us the
extruded XPS on foundations, but concrete will not stick to it.
http://basalt-mesh.com/

Roxul is made in western Canada at it's Grand Forks plant not Maple Ridge,

   1. Roxul Inc
   Address: 6526 Industrial Pk Way, Grand Forks, BC V0H 1H0, Canada
   2. Phone:+1 250-442-5253

I do not sell any product, Styrofoam or EPS, just inspiration smart
people can build on. follow me on.

Follow me on Twitter @styrohome
[image: Inline image 1]

http://about.me/StyroHome

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:22 AM, John Straube <jfstraube at uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:
>
> I apologize if the “tone” was offensive.  Wild is an adjective that I
> leave up to others to decide. But just re-read my post and remove wildly.
>
> The errors are numerically out by a factor of early 100 in the case of EPS
> styrene content and perhaps 5-10 times in the case of glue in rock wool.
>
> Your information about rock wool and how they get density is wrong.  You
> said the majority of the increase in rock wool density is glue, whereas 95%
> or more of the increase in density is glue.  That is a massive difference
> when we talk about going from 2 pcf batt to 8 pcf roofing board.  You can
> easily and simply look this up on the MSDS sheet for any stone wool product
> or better yet visit the local plant. I will not muddy the waters in this
> post about how and why products resist heat flow.
>
> If I subtract the density of air from the EPS, 95% or more of EPS foam is
> made of polystyrene.  I am sorry I was not clear. It is NOT 1.1%
> polystyrene.  Of the solid matter almost 100% is polystyrene and fire
> retardants.  That is a massive difference.
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 11:59 AM, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141212/61cee9d1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: R0013152.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 374425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141212/61cee9d1/attachment.jpe>