<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
John,<br>
<br>
I'm curious about where you're getting your information for your
claims about cellulose insulation.<br>
<br>
The numbers I'm seeing are that cellulose insulation only uses a
small share of the recycled newspaper stream (e.g.,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.itseasytorecycle.org/Newspaper.cfm">http://www.itseasytorecycle.org/Newspaper.cfm</a>). 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Jeff<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jeff Martin<br>
Partner, Service Open2Learn<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/22/2014 10:44 AM, John Salmen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:001801cfd673$bdde0160$399a0420$@ca"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<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]-->
<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
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> Greenbuilding
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org">mailto:greenbuilding-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>] <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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan@abramsdesignbuild.com"
target="_blank"><span style="color:#666666">alan@abramsdesignbuild.com</span></a><br>
</span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.GreenFret.com/" target="_blank">http://www.GreenFret.com/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the
web page<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>