[Greenbuilding] New Type of Chipboard

Wed Sep 24 13:07:58 CDT 2014

John,

I'm curious about where you're getting your information for your claims 
about cellulose insulation.

The numbers I'm seeing are that cellulose insulation only uses a small 
share of the recycled newspaper stream (e.g., 
http://www.itseasytorecycle.org/Newspaper.cfm). I'm also not seeing any 
data suggesting that the use of recycled newsprint for producing 
cellulose insulation is in any way limiting the recycled content of 
newsprint. Similarly, I'm not seeing that the production of cellulose 
insulation requires wetting and subsequent drying. The numbers I have 
seen (e.g., BuildinGreen's "INSULATION CHOICES") seem to suggest that 
the energy requirements for production and the life-time global warming 
potential of cellulose insulation are much lower than those of any other 
widely used insulation material.

As to wool as an alternative, there may be some small potential for 
diverting low-grade wool from landfills and turning it into insulation, 
but there really aren't that many sheep in North America and, as far as 
I know, the vast majority of their wool gets sold for clothing 
manufacture, which seems like a better use for it as an insulating 
material. If we start raising sheep for wool as insulation, not only is 
the insulation going to be prohibitively expensive, but you'll need to 
start factoring in all the negative environmental impacts of all those 
herds of sheep, and of the processing and shipping of the wool insulation.

Certainly, cellulose insulation shouldn't be exempted from environmental 
concerns, but I'd love to see some data showing that there are 
environmentally preferable alternatives for the applications that 
cellulose insulation is well-suited.

Jeff

-- 
Jeff Martin
Partner, Service Open2Learn

On 9/22/2014 10:44 AM, John Salmen wrote:
>
> Hi, was sure I've ranted about cellulose before.  The reason I call it 
> stupid is that is was a stupid use of newsprint. It became popular in 
> the 70's after the first oil crisis for horizontal application -- 
> basically localized backyard operations. At that point very little 
> newsprint was being recycled. Took about a decade for the insulation 
> it to gain approvals for vertical application and to meet fire 
> standards etc. -- at which point it became a viable large commercial 
> industry which is only viable when it has a steady supply of resources 
> - essentially sucking up all the recyclable newsprint.
>
> Newsprint and paper can be recycled to make new paper something like 
> 7-9 times before the fibres loose quality. Virgin pulp production has 
> not only been the major cause of deforestation but with the chemicals 
> used and the energy used is the 3^rd largest polluter and the 5^th 
> largest energy consumer.
>
> There is a subsequent energy factor in the production of cellulose 
> (wetting, drying, fluffing) as well as in the production of borates 
> (about 30% of the content) and latex binders. Another issue is 
> density, settlement, dust, etc.
>
> So we think cellulose is exempt from many env concerns because it is 
> recycled but in removing recyclable paper from the paper stream 
> inherits the cfc pollution and other concerns from that industry.
>
> Now wool is still a raw material that is being landfilled in NA in 
> huge quantities and at a per lb price that is less than the raw 
> material cost for most insulation....
>
> John
>
> *From:*Greenbuilding 
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Alan Abrams
> *Sent:* September-21-14 1:46 PM
> *To:* Green Building
> *Cc:* Topher Belknap
> *Subject:* Re: [Greenbuilding] New Type of Chipboard
>
> <Look at cellulose insulation - a stupid product >
>
> John- that is the first time I've heard a serious criticism of 
> cellulose insulation. I thought it was heroic on my part, to wean 
> myself from foam, and instead to use chopped up George Will columns. 
> What ho?
>
> -AA
>
>
> Alan Abrams*
> */certified professional building designer, AIBD
> certified passive house consultant, PHIUS/
>
> /certified passive house builder, PHIUS
> /cell 202-437-8583
> alan at abramsdesignbuild.com <mailto:alan at abramsdesignbuild.com>
> HELICON WORKS /Achitecture and Education/ 
> <http://www.heliconworks.com/index2.html>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM, John Salmen <terrain at shaw.ca 
> <mailto:terrain at shaw.ca>> wrote:
>
> I like the 'minimal surplus' ratio and would only say that rather than 
> doing
> things wrong we have no clue as to what 'right' is. In the 50's the US
> established something called T values for soil erosion - giving permission
> for farmers (agribusiness) to be right or not wrong if erosion was 
> something
> like .5 to 1mm roughly. They (whoever that is) now puts conventional agri
> soil loss at 1mm/yr globally (wherever that is). The question really 
> is what
> makes and sustains soil. The only models are native vegetation and one of
> the terms applied is 'geologic erosion rate' - being the rate that the 
> decay
> of native vegetation matches the rate at which the soil erodes. In the 
> PNW I
> think that is now considered to be about 100% i.e. no surplus. I have 50
> year old fir trees falling over indiscriminately in my woods because there
> is no soil to support them. I have left them in the lying down status.
>
> Can we make engineered building products from corn - sure why not - 
> will it
> succeed - probably not in the short term as we already have a huge 
> industry
> grinding up quick growing trees and it takes a decade or so for an 
> industry
> to develop and few more decades to be supplanted. Look at cellulose
> insulation - a stupid product that has consumed far too many resources but
> once it became a product the resources were dedicated to it. Same with
> engineered wood.
>
> The problem still is scale. I think the average house size in NA is around
> 2500 sq. ft. which is about 1000 sq. ft. too much for the average family
> size. That is where the trees or corn are going. Ironically people are 
> also
> consuming about the same ration of calories more than are needed 
> (corn, corn
> fed beef?) - which is also soil loss.
>
> I am now using engineered wood extensively in structures as well as 
> metal -
> whatever does the work with the least material. I am at the point 
> where if a
> client wants to see wood - I can recommend taking a hike in what are 
> left of
> our forests.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greenbuilding 
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org 
> <mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> On Behalf Of Topher
> Sent: September-20-14 3:42 PM
> To: archilogic at yahoo.ca <mailto:archilogic at yahoo.ca>; Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] New Type of Chipboard
>
> On 9/18/2014 9:31 AM, RT wrote:
> > So, in addition to depleting nitrogen from the soil (nitrogen being
> > essential to leafy vegetative growth), the long decomposition time of
> > the very coarse debris hinders planting of the next growing season's 
> crop.
>
> My understanding is that this should be phrased as 'binding up nitrogen
> during the decomposition'.  In other words, decomposing woody materials
> requires nitrogen in the process, but that nitrogen eventually becomes
> available to plants again, it isn't lost (to the atmosphere, for example).
>
> That said, soil chemistry and biology is incredibly complex, and we
> generally appear to be doing almost completely wrong.
>
> The basic take away is that removing ANY organic materials from the
> biological cycle, beyond a minimal surplus*, is going to reduce the 
> efficacy
> of the system.
>
> * - Minimal surplus can be guesstimated at 1/1Millionth of yearly 
> production
> (calculated from our current usage of fossil fuels at the rate of a 
> million
> years of production per year).
>
> Thank You Kindly,
>
> Topher
>
> --
> Topher Belknap
> Green Fret Consulting
> Kermit didn't know the half of it...
> http://www.GreenFret.com/
> topher at greenfret.com <mailto:topher at greenfret.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org <mailto: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 
> <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 <mailto: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/20140924/2186348a/attachment.html>