|
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy Magazine Online July/August 1997
LETTERS
Sealing and Wet-Spray Insulation
Paul Knight's article "Chicago
Apartments Get New Lease on Life" (March/April '97, p. 23) reflects
a myth about wet-sprayed cellulose wall cavity insulation, namely, that
cellulose at 3.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) significantly reduces air
infiltration. It is bad building practice to install cellulose without
a vapor barrier, as recommended in the article. Cellulose cannot stop air
flow.
Contractors' Guide and Energy Design Update both
published reports of a field study by Union Electric that compared blower
door results from two sets of three similar houses insulated with either
high-density fiberglass batts or sprayed cellulose. All houses were caulked
and sealed. A control house had batt insulation, but no air sealing. Improved
performance was found in the caulked and sealed homes regardless of the
insulation used.
Knight indicates that a cellulose manufacturer's
recommendation to omit vapor retarders is a supposed benefit. There are
no data supporting recommendations that omitting vapor retarders is technically
sound in Chicago's cold climate. It also violates the building code. The
real reason for omitting a poly vapor retarder is to permit the wet cellulose
to dry out after drywall is applied. This has little to do with building
science. It is about not wasting time while waiting for the stuff to dry.
Robert A. Sullivan
Rock Wool Manufacturing Company
Paul Knight replies: We don't depend upon
cellulose as an air barrier. As I described in the article, the interior
drywall serves as the air barrier in our buildings.
We like cellulose because it completely fills
wall cavities with no gaps and spaces, ensuring minimal convective degradation
of R-value. Nevertheless, Energy Design Update (EDU) states, "Cellulose
fiber insulation suppresses air leakage to a much greater extent than other
types of insulation" (see EDU"Cellulose Insulation and Air Tightness,"
Dec. '86). The EDU report was based upon a number of studies measuring
air leakage in homes with various types of insulation. Also, according
to the Builder's Field Guide, (p. 182) "Where blown or sprayed in-place
cavity insulations are installed at sufficient density, they can significantly
reduce air flow across the assembly."
A vapor retarder prevents the movement of
moisture into a wall assembly by diffusion. However, air-transported moisture
is 100 times greater than moisture movement by diffusion. According to
the Builder's Field Guide, "In most climates, if the movement of moisture-laden
air into a wall or building assembly is eliminated, movement of moisture
by vapor diffusion is not likely to be significant." We seal the drywall
to prevent this air movement. Furthermore, should moisture accumulate in
a wall cavity, we want that wall to dry to the inside. This drying can't
happen if a vapor retarder is present.
From our experience, we have found that once
building code officials understand these principles they are willing to
grant waivers. I would concur that "not wasting time" is part of the picture;
however, I believe our practices are based upon sound building science
principles.
Finally, I believe fiberglass insulation is
a fine product when installed properly. But given our building conditions
and design, cellulose is the better choice.
The Last Straw
Regarding the article "New
Pioneering in Straw Bale Building," (JulyAug '96, p. 27), you
never substantiate your claims of waste. You assume that if not used for
construction, straw has no use. Far from useless, the 200 million tons
of "waste" you identify covers the soil to reduce wind and water erosion,
returns nutrients to the soil, negates the need for manufacture or mining
of these nutrients, and provides ground cover to hold moisture for the
next crop. These benefits are not included in your equation for the cost
effectiveness of straw bale home construction and compressed straw panels.
Donald J. Schmidt
Editor's Reply: According to the U.S. Department
of Energy, 200 million tons is the amount of straw that gets burned annually
in fields across the United States.
Heat Pumps and Temperature Controls
A good thermostatic control is key to a heat
pump's energy savings. We have a Chronotherm III--which I love--because
it allows multiple and flexible setbacks. It "remembers" recent usage and
determines a target time when heat will be needed. It turns on the heat
pump earlier if necessary to reach the target temperature at the target
time, minimizing the use of the electric resistance backup.
Since outside temperatures fluctuate, the intelligent
control isn't perfect, and the programming favors comfort over cost. If
the chip doesn't think the house will be warm enough by target time, it
calls for auxiliary heat--which I hate. A little green light tells you
when auxilliary heat is being used. When it lights, it means that your
meter is spinning three times faster than normal and your expensive investment
is operating near the efficiency of baseboard heaters.
My HVAC person showed me the dip-switch on the
system's main board that controls auxiliary heat. I now leave it off. Sometimes,
target temperature is a few degrees low at target time, a minor inconvenience
that is more than compensated by energy savings. The little light still
comes on, but now it means the thermostat is calling for, but not getting,
auxiliary heat. I only turn the switch on when outside temperatures get
below the system design temperature of 15°F.
Andy Kerr
Joseph, Oregon
| Back to Contents Page |
Home
Energy Index |
About
Home
Energy |
| Home Energy Home Page
| Back Issues of Home Energy |
Home Energy can be reached at: contact@homeenergy.org
Home Energy magazine -- Please read our Copyright
Notice
|