Almost everything we do as humans has some negative impact on the planet -- this is not a diatribe against humanity or anything, just a fact. In moderation, the planet can easily respond to our impacts, as it does with most other living things and did successfully for a good long time before we people got to be all industrialized. Our current impact is no longer moderate, and a few of us are thinking about ways to reduce our impacts so our earth can do its thing again. I hope you're one of them.
Us people tend to think in absolutes -- "bad" or "good," rather than "better" or "worse". There are many things that are good that we do. But we have to accept that little of our modern lives could be characterized as “good” for the planet. Sorry. I speak the truth.
Several recent comments discuss whether insulating foam (used to) release greenhouse gasses (GHGs) when applied. I am sure there's some nasty chemical process that goes on while creating the foam. I don't know the process, but I don't think it is collected from the tips of unicorn horns :-).
So foam may be “bad”. But if we think about comparison, it's better than the alternative (assuming we’re not spraying it on unicorns, of course).
After I had my energy audit done (good!), I learned that my house leaked like a sieve. All that nasty natural gas we burn to keep warm (bad!) was leaking past all the insulation we had installed some years back because we had no idea that we also had to create a tight house that kept warm air in and cold air out.
So we had our insulation beefed up where it was missing or thin, but by far the biggest change was application of foam around the sill of the house, and in a number of other places where air was leaking out (and in). We did other things to plug the holes, many of them involving just a little caulking. Who knows what bad things were in the materials we used.
However, the result of our efforts was a significant reduction in the amount of natural gas we had to burn to keep the house warm in the winter. As I write this, it is 93 degrees and humid outside, but quite comfortable in our house. I have a Vornado fan going that uses electricity (bad!). No air conditioning (good!).
So if it were the case that my use of foam released some GHGs during application, the foam and its benefits will last for decades, and reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn to heat and cool. Neither is good; one is better.
Many people have shied away from CFL bulbs because they have (tiny amounts of) mercury in them, which might get released if the bulb breaks. Mercury is "bad". But the irony is that not replacing the incandescent bulb with a CFL results in release of more mercury (and into the air and water, to boot) when we burn coal to create electricity to power the bulb.
My Toyota Prius uses a lithium battery pack that creates environmental harm (bad!). But the car also gets 50 MPG, which (as of last year) is about 2x the average mileage of cars in the US. It will last for 100,000 miles, and thus use about 2,000 gallons less gasoline than a regular car. Even without the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, oil isn't exactly a friend of the environment.
Even environmentalists are confused by this trade-off. None of the groups deny the benefits of renewable energy like wind and solar. But when it comes to siting wind or solar farms, other conflicting environmental goals arise.
Last week, we had a spirited and excellent discussion about the Jevons Paradox (one of the many economic theories which gave the field of Economics the name "the dismal science"). The nut of the idea is that it may actually be worse to improve efficiency than not, and while counter-intuitive, at some level, this has been proven to be true repeatedly. Peter argues, persuasively I think, that the Jevons Paradox doesn't apply to our current energy woes -- in some ways our attempt to apply this theory to the current situation is a case of "bad" versus "good" thinking versus "better" and "worse".
We all make trade-offs between bad choices. We need to become educated about which choices are relatively better. Respecting that people need to make their own choices, and that we all view and see the world differently, our calculation needs to be not what is good or bad, but which is better or worse.
Comments
Mr. Harrison,
You are funny. and smart. thanks for your continued efforts to keep us thinking.
Lisa
Posted by Lisa on Jun 28, 2010 5:05pmI beg to differ.
We do know the chemical processes involved in insulating buildings with closed cell spray foam in the United States. These products use HFC-134a and HFC-253fa as blowing agents (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane and 1,1,1,3,3,-pentafluoropropane), blowing agents with a greenhouse gas effect that FAR outweighs the energy savings possible from insulating. HFC-134a is 1,430 times as harmful to the atmosphere as CO2. This isn't a little bit bad, or a maybe bad. This is seriously bad.
This means that it could take hundreds of years of energy saving to mitigate the damage of these compounds.
Many people we trust are quickly coming to the conclusion that all use of closed cell spray foam, XPS and other extruded foam insulations in the construction construction needs to stop, right now. Not later and not maybe.
This is especially true when you consider that we have such easily available, less damaging foams stocked in every store. EPS, poly-iso and water blown foams are better by enormous factors if you must use foam. Far better again are mineral wool and cellulose.
Alex Wilson's report at GBA is crucial reading for everyone in the construction industry: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/avoiding...
I do agree that we need to become educated, but that doesn't mean dodging the conclusions of what we learn.
Posted by Jesse Thompson on Jun 28, 2010 6:02pmHi Jesse --
Thanks for this information. It seems important. I am having some difficulty determining if, for the normal homeowner, it needs to be something I must consider.
Do you differ with my general observation, that what we need to consider is not whether something is good or bad, but whether is it better or worse?
I am not advocating putting our heads in the sand -- as I hope is evident from (most of) what we promote here at Energy Circle -- it's the facts that rule. Indeed, it was the very question, from the thread developing on our insulation link that lead me to wonder whether we in a proportional way, or whether we instead respond in a binary way ("good" or "bad").
Your response is both factual and nuanced, which I think is exactly right. But perhaps there's something else going on here -- because the answer is, as always, not so clear cut. In certain cases, as you assert "...it could take hundreds of years of energy savings to mitigate the damage..." -- I will be the first to admit that I use some loosey-goosey language "So if it were the case that my use of foam released some GHGs during application, the foam and its benefits will last for decades, and reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn" -- and to your point, that might not be enough.
So in some cases, you're right. It is true that there are foams still in use whose benefit from an insulating standpoint may be offset by their GHG emissions profile. Thanks for identifying the specific cases where, it is possible that adding foam insulation would be theoretically worse than the alternative.
But is this the norm? Is it the general case that consumers, who really should not be expected to know are forced to evaluate this technical distinction? Do most foam installations done in 2010 use good or bad ... I mean "better or worse" foams?
I really don't want to sweep the nasty facts under the rug. But there's something bigger going on here. There is indeed truth and value in the discovery of facts, and it is especially true for the people we trust to deliver services. As I write, I realize that there's an equally big and important thing to write about, aimed at the pros we serve at Energy Circle -- we need to get the important facts out. We need to be more than just charlatans and snake oil salesmen, we need to be trusted -- we need to be professionals.
Your case, or at least the link you use to substantiate it says "The good news is that, except for XPS and HFC-blown SPF, the payback for the lifetime GWP of insulation materials is very low. If you add four inches of polyisocyanurate (R-25) to the 2x6 wall, for example, (R-39 total) the lifetime GWP payback for that added polyiso insulation would only be 2.7 years." I think this is the key bit of information we need to understand, whether as professional installers, or (perhaps) as consumers.
And isn't it exactly this kind of factual knowledge, and expertise that should be taught and delivered to pros who are installing these materials? Yes, I acknowledge that I am placing a lot of trust in our pros, and even in our training organizations, like BPI and RESNET who presumably help the right people understand how to make the right choices. But where do we place our trust? In a world that trusts no one, it leaves us almost in paralysis, right?
My larger point, perhaps not very well articulated, is that we (us people) can be very quickly persuaded not to make what are essential changes to our behaviors, purchasing behaviors, decisions, and so many other things.
Our scientific process tells us that any one fact to the contrary can disprove that hypothetis. But I don't think we're rigorous in our science (us people in general) and can instead use factoids to support our larger fears, concerns or disinclinations for change.
I thus propose that we're cautious about making binary "all or nothing" statements, even if parenthetical. This is the kind of journalism and reportage that has polarized us into reactive, non-critical thinkers.
So Jesse, with the greatest respect, is it indeed the case that we need to be greatly alarmed by installation of foam in our houses ... in general, in most cases, on the whole? As a consumer of foam, is this something I can be reasonably expected to process? Or should I have more confidence that even though there are crappy products out there (often made by our most trusted corporations, like DuPont and Dow) that overall, my response should be "Yes, I want to insulate, and I trust that you'll use products you understand and trust".
It's a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer. But I do know that we need to do something different than what we're doing (in general) now, which is ... almost nothing. I thank you for your thoughtful comment and observation. I hope my response is measured with an appropriate amount of respect.
Posted by Tom Harrison on Jun 28, 2010 10:01pmTom,
Great and thoughtful response. In my mind, these are indeed larger issues than consumers should have to grapple with, and these changes need to come from Federal policy and regulation. In my opinion, these blowing agents should be removed from the market immediately, and then consumers won't have to worry about these choices. There are bigger systems at work here than our individual choices can effect at any appropriate scale.
But considering that the EPA just took an eight year vacation, we can't expect these policy changes to arrive anytime soon.
So, as building professionals we need to be advocating for these changes and pushing on whatever levers we can, including our local politicians.
As a residential architect, in terms of specific products, we no longer see much use for closed cell spray foam, and we've stopped using it in our practice all together. This new information is just the final nail in the coffin.
To sum up the partial list of negatives:
It's so toxic to install that humans need full skin isolation and protection from the chemical components. Over exposure to isocyanurates can lead to devastating chemical sensitivities, including permanent respiratory damage (Direct from Bayer, a major manufacturer: http://www.greenbuildercollege.com/studyguides/BaySystemsSprayInsulation...).
During installation, if the chemicals are not mixed correctly or at the proper temperature you can get incomplete curing of the two chemical components, either of which is toxic on its own. This is a very rare situation, thankfully, but this rare risk is still one I wouldn't ever recommend one of our clients take with their house.
And, once applied (correctly or incorrectly) a house is bound up and glued together in a manner that is impossible to reverse, limiting the ease of future renovations drastically, even simple actions like adding wiring or fixing plumbing issues.
It does nothing for thermal bridging at typical supplied depths, wood framed buildings still end up with an ~R-6 insulation gap every 16" at each wood stud.
And worst of all, it's extremely expensive, far worse than other comparable insulation materials...
But, none of these specific technical issues gets at your main point, which is consumer confusion, because every point I have listed will be eagerly refuted by the closed cell spray foam industry, which has more lobbying money available than I have time to type.
And this is where we need to get to work changing these larger systems. It's why I think we can't shy away from pushing for policy changes, more than trying for individual behavioral change.
There are viable substitutes for all these blowing agents available, this is a US regulatory problem at heart.
Posted by Jesse Thompson on Jun 29, 2010 9:35amJesse --
I think I agree with every point you make here.
Several of these foams are "worse" than nothing. Some uses of foam may be "worse" than alternatives.
But if you use the right foam in the right way, it can solve specific problems, yes?
I had foam (the good kind, according to my installer) applied from the inside around what was a very leaky sill -- the goal was to do air sealing. We used a little in another spot -- a rim joist which was otherwise un-insulatable and leaky. A follow-up blower-door test with IR showed the sill to be tight, and the rim joist to be better both in heat loss and in air sealing. Assuming my foam was not one of the bad ones, have I not made my house "better".
This discussion is great, but I really want to make the larger point (at some level a MUCH larger point). Our status quo today, in the larger energy picture, as well as home energy efficiency picture is far, far worse than it need be.
We can do better. If most people get mired in the "good/bad" arguments we/they will fail to take action. Yes, whether through government regulation, industry policing and education or whatever we certainly need to avoid solutions that seem better but are worse.
Decades of inaction, even when we knew there was a major problem, have resulted in ... where we are today: worse. We're not going to get it right in our first tries. But we must start trying, knowing that only through failure will we learn how to succeed.
And that will be better.
Posted by Tom Harrison on Jun 29, 2010 10:48amThis discussion makes me very glad that I had -cellulose- (recycled newspaper, I think!) blown in when I insulated my 1920's home's walls.
Posted by Eric on Jun 30, 2010 11:27pmEric -- your cellulose will probably burn up. Face it, we're all doomed.
Joking :-).
Tom
Posted by Tom Harrison on Jul 2, 2010 3:50pm