<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.im
{mso-style-name:im;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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<sup>rd</sup> largest polluter and the 5<sup>th</sup> largest energy consumer.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>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....<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>John<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Greenbuilding [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Abrams<br><b>Sent:</b> September-21-14 1:46 PM<br><b>To:</b> Green Building<br><b>Cc:</b> Topher Belknap<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Greenbuilding] New Type of Chipboard<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Look at cellulose insulation - a stupid product ></span><br><br>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?<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-AA<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#660000'>Alan Abrams<b><br></b></span><i><span style='color:#666666'>certified professional building designer, AIBD<br>certified passive house consultant, PHIUS</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><i><span style='color:#666666'>certified passive house builder, PHIUS<br></span></i><span style='font-size:7.5pt;color:#666666'>cell 202-437-8583<br><a href="mailto:alan@abramsdesignbuild.com" target="_blank"><span style='color:#666666'>alan@abramsdesignbuild.com</span></a><br></span><a href="http://www.heliconworks.com/index2.html" target="_blank">HELICON WORKS <i>Achitecture and Education</i></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:56 PM, John Salmen <<a href="mailto:terrain@shaw.ca" target="_blank">terrain@shaw.ca</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>I like the 'minimal surplus' ratio and would only say that rather than doing<br>things wrong we have no clue as to what 'right' is. In the 50's the US<br>established something called T values for soil erosion - giving permission<br>for farmers (agribusiness) to be right or not wrong if erosion was something<br>like .5 to 1mm roughly. They (whoever that is) now puts conventional agri<br>soil loss at 1mm/yr globally (wherever that is). The question really is what<br>makes and sustains soil. The only models are native vegetation and one of<br>the terms applied is 'geologic erosion rate' - being the rate that the decay<br>of native vegetation matches the rate at which the soil erodes. In the PNW I<br>think that is now considered to be about 100% i.e. no surplus. I have 50<br>year old fir trees falling over indiscriminately in my woods because there<br>is no soil to support them. I have left them in the lying down status.<br><br>Can we make engineered building products from corn - sure why not - will it<br>succeed - probably not in the short term as we already have a huge industry<br>grinding up quick growing trees and it takes a decade or so for an industry<br>to develop and few more decades to be supplanted. Look at cellulose<br>insulation - a stupid product that has consumed far too many resources but<br>once it became a product the resources were dedicated to it. Same with<br>engineered wood.<br><br>The problem still is scale. I think the average house size in NA is around<br>2500 sq. ft. which is about 1000 sq. ft. too much for the average family<br>size. That is where the trees or corn are going. Ironically people are also<br>consuming about the same ration of calories more than are needed (corn, corn<br>fed beef?) - which is also soil loss.<br><br>I am now using engineered wood extensively in structures as well as metal -<br>whatever does the work with the least material. I am at the point where if a<br>client wants to see wood - I can recommend taking a hike in what are left of<br>our forests.<br><br><br><br><br><span class=im>-----Original Message-----</span><br><span class=im>From: Greenbuilding [mailto:<a href="mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>]</span><br><span class=im>On Behalf Of Topher</span><br><span class=im>Sent: September-20-14 3:42 PM</span><br><span class=im>To: <a href="mailto:archilogic@yahoo.ca">archilogic@yahoo.ca</a>; Green Building</span><br><span class=im>Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] New Type of Chipboard</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 9/18/2014 9:31 AM, RT wrote:<br>> So, in addition to depleting nitrogen from the soil (nitrogen being<br>> essential to leafy vegetative growth), the long decomposition time of<br>> the very coarse debris hinders planting of the next growing season's crop.<br><br>My understanding is that this should be phrased as 'binding up nitrogen<br>during the decomposition'. In other words, decomposing woody materials<br>requires nitrogen in the process, but that nitrogen eventually becomes<br>available to plants again, it isn't lost (to the atmosphere, for example).<br><br>That said, soil chemistry and biology is incredibly complex, and we<br>generally appear to be doing almost completely wrong.<br><br>The basic take away is that removing ANY organic materials from the<br>biological cycle, beyond a minimal surplus*, is going to reduce the efficacy<br>of the system.<br><br>* - Minimal surplus can be guesstimated at 1/1Millionth of yearly production<br>(calculated from our current usage of fossil fuels at the rate of a million<br>years of production per year).<br><br>Thank You Kindly,<br><br>Topher<br><br>--<br>Topher Belknap<br>Green Fret Consulting<br>Kermit didn't know the half of it...<br><a href="http://www.GreenFret.com/" target="_blank">http://www.GreenFret.com/</a><br><a href="mailto:topher@greenfret.com">topher@greenfret.com</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Greenbuilding mailing list<br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioener<br>gylists.org</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Greenbuilding mailing list<br>to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br><a href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br><br>to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br><a href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>