Deep Energy Retrofits , Energy Efficient Stuff , Indoor Air Quality
Risks Associated with Poor Spray-Foam Installations
‘Leathery’ spray foam has lost it’s air pockets and is no longer effective. Is it inert in this condition?
A few months ago, I posed a question about spray foam installations and wet wood to some of the forums I belong to.
I got an astounding response — some of it snarky, most of it super helpful. I’m still editing a longer piece that will cover the responses, but in the meantime I ran into this:
Squishy, deflated, leathery 2lb foam. This was installed on the leaky concrete wall of a basement stairwell with a partial foundation, with a connection to an unflashed framed wall above. The house was built in 1836, while the stairwell was obviously a much later addition. The foundation is very wet, the tidelines on the mechanical equipment hitting the 8″ mark, and obvious water markings on the exposed part of the original rubble foundation. After reading all the comments from my original question about spray foam installations and the considered responses, I have to ask myself what spray foam contractor worth their salt would install in such conditions?
The water damage is easily seen throughout the rubble basement walls. The insulation was sprayed onto the top 24 to 36″ of the rubble wall, but has lots of voids and cracks. There is also a wide range of spray consistencies visible — some of the foam looks positively cumulous, while other parts look like smooth lava. Rookie installer? D-I-Y install from a kit system? Who knows — the homeowners purchased this spring and have no records.
From a cursory walk around the perimeter of the house, I knew there would be one fixable source of water leakage into the foundation: over the 175 years, the grade had settled (dramatically in some places), and snow melt and rain water were caught and funneled down into the rubble wall. Straightforward solution to that cause: regrade. Other problems with the foundation, not so straightforward, but we’ll see.
Water is getting through the spray foam…that’s a crappy installation with all those of voids.
The state of this spray foam made me wonder about health issues, because it had so obviously perished and was dripping this ghastly caramel coloured ooze. There is some field research being done to look at the risks associated with installing spray foam (Field Research to Provide Deeper Look at Spray-Foam Risks – BuildingGreen), but I am not familiar with any studies published on long-term health risks to occupants as a result of crap installations like this one. There are substantiated issues with offgassing immediately after installation, yes, but let’s assume that the product performs as its data sheet indicates, and 24 hours sees most of the offgassing dissipate in a properly done installation.
Water penetration in walls is a problem, period, regardless of the type of insulation that is used, so I’m not freaking out on one type of insulation. From many, many problematic basements, we know what is likely to happen in below-grade frame wall cavities filled with fiberglass batt insulation. When the fiberglass gets wet, it doesn’t drain well or dry out and so causes mold growth given enough warmth. That causes health problems. Cellulose is a total no-go below grade for the same reason. As far as I’m concerned, rockwool is the best option for fibrous insulation below grade. Or spray foam. But only once the foundation is dry. There are so many indoor air quality and eventual structural problems that can be minimized or eliminated by eliminating water leakage into the foundation, and so many that can become exponentially worse by NOT eliminating water leakage into the foundation.
Energy Efficient Stuff , Stuff that makes me crazy
Sir, Ma’am: Step Away From the Foil Faced Bubble Wrap!
So Martin Holladay at Green Building Advisor blogged about foil faced bubble wrap last week. Will that stuff and the ridiculous claims around it in regards to insulation ever ever ever go away?
And here’s a recent 4-pager from NAIMA
I see that Allison Bailes at Energy Vanguard also blogged about it back in 201o.
And here’s a bunch of info I posted in October 2007. Note that even then, I couldn’t believe that it was **still** something that had such bandwidth. This was posted on the old Green Building Listserve…but the whole article is available as a pdf here.
There’s a good discussion going on in the LinkedIN RESNET BPI – Energy Audit & Home Performance Group, instigated by Chris Laumer-Giddens.
One comment sums it up: “The fact that Mr. Holladay felt compelled to write this article is troublesome because it just goes to show how many unqualified, willfully ignorant contractors are out there. Not only do these people offer their clients little return on their investment, it’s likely they diverge from code and protocol, causing property damage and potentially endangering lives.”
The stuff of nightmares…litigation and very unhappy householders.
More excellent discussion has come up today, courtesy Arlene Zavocki Stewart in regards to the issue of ‘effective’ R-values. R-value, U-factor = measurement of conduction. Building envelope materials all have properties that impact heat transfer via convection and radiation as well as conduction, but mere mortals using standard issue energy modelling software acceptable to home performance, DSM, and other incentive/funding programs, can only measure or model the conduction portion with any vigor. Engineers, physicists and fans of complex spreadsheet building (she raises her hand sheepishly) may be able to do otherwise, but it doesn’t count for your client if you can’t plug it into the modelling program and have it make sense with what’s already being calculated. I have bumped into this challenge in terms of modelling thermal mass for cold climate passive solar design, but it’s the same issue: how much heat gain does a material or assembly absorb or reflect from a radiant source, and how much does that contribute to the heating or cooling regime of the building?
Arlene brings a great point to the discussion: “Codes allow ‘cutting edge’ products but our ways of measurement and communication on their features often can’t be quantified in existing conventions. Developing accurate ones is very expensive and takes years for widespread adoption, a funding line item that investors just don’t seem to account for.”
In the meantime, we have ‘snake foil’ salespeople out there, talking up effective R-values that defy all the laws of thermodynamics. I will stop short of banging my head against the wall now.
Deep Energy Retrofits , Energy Efficient Stuff , Low Energy Housing
Invited to present at WREN (World Renewable Energy Network) conference
The WREN Conference invitation came because I was invited to write a chapter in a book on Sustainable Buildings back in 2012. The book (Sustainability, Energy and Architecture: Case Studies in Realizing Green Buildings) was published last year (http://bit.ly/OXVl0k). The chapter I wrote was ‘Deep Green and Comfortable’, focussing on energy savings to be had by carrying out deep energy retrofits on existing houses.
The paper I’m writing for the conference expands somewhat on that idea, and looks at the missing part in many discussions that I’ve had in the field, with clients, renovators, lenders and other stakeholders: proving the value of deep energy retrofits. Not just for the current homeowner, but for future homeowners and for the municipality/community.
The idea came out of one particularly frustrating discussion with a potential contractor for one of my renovation clients. Note that this was a contractor who was bidding on a job that had already been specified. The client wanted to stay in the 100 year old house (location was spectacular, structure was sound, a phased deep energy retrofit was completely reasonable option). We were recapping the details of phase 1, when the contractor put down his pen and calmly told (my) client that renovating was not the right option. That the cost was likely to be more than 30% of the appraised value of the house, and therefore not a good economic decision.
Then he continued, telling (my) client that their best bet was to go out to the suburbs and buy/build new.
This, I thought, was not cool. The client’s preference — to stay in the house, and the strategy we had landed on — to phase the retrofit over 5 years, was clearly articulated, with modelled energy reductions, projected fuel costs (they were on oil, we were looking at a heat pump after major envelope work) and rough order costings showing payback and ROI. Apparently that didn’t make much of a dint in the contractor’s view, even though he had been briefed on the project and asked to review the design program and ask me any questions before the meeting.
I wondered where he pulled the 30% figure from, politely. It was a ‘rule of thumb’, he told me. I didn’t ask where his thumb had been, but I did ask him to back up the rule of thumb with some concrete information, which never came — neither did the quote.
So then I started thinking about the inherent value of established neighbourhoods with infrastructure vs the cost of greenfield development, and then I started mashing that together with the value of the resources tied up in an existing house, and the cost of retrofit vs. the cost of new construction and I got all jumped up about research and proving the case for deep energy retrofits.
For your entertainment, I’ll be blogging bits and pieces on this over the next few months…WREN conference is in August.
Blue House Energy , Energy Efficient Stuff
Special Offer on Building Science Basics, Canadian Version
The Canadian version of Blue House Energy (our sister company) Building Science Basics is $100 off the regular fee from now until the end of March. Catch a good deal and learn the fundamentals of building science at your own pace! Follow this link to the course description and shopping cart thingy.
Was rummaging around in a bunch of market research when I came across this item, from April 2013, which makes me shed many tears. Here’s the headline (go read the article if you want to cry, too):
Shelton Group Study Shows Decline in Energy-Efficient Product Purchases and Home Improvements.
I’m not weeping in angst because energy-saving habits have declined in the last three years. I’m weeping in frustration that the extent of what counts as ‘energy efficiency’ is so focused on minimal impact issues like replacing light bulbs and purchasing high-efficiency appliances, unplugging chargers and un-used appliances. Let’s look at the impact those ‘energy efficiency measures’ have on a relatively standard issue household.
I like the idea of LEDs and high-efficiency appliances and shutting off stuff you’re not using. Of course I do!!!!! So I’ve posted a bunch of info about energy efficient lighting options in the last few weeks. But those are band-aid solutions to real energy savings. It doesn’t change the amount of energy used in the house in a significant manner. It doesn’t change the financial load for the homeowner or renter. The telling part of the article is this statement: “and more than 40 percent of those who’ve actually done something are frustrated because they aren’t seeing the reduction they expected on their utility bills.”
No kidding.
In Canada, electronics and lighting account for 4 percent of overall household energy use. Appliances account for about 14 percent. Space and water heating account for 80 percent of the overall energy use. Eight-Oh. Four-fifths. Mostly All.
In the US, with a mixed bag of climate zones and space conditioning needs, appliances and lighting account for anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of the overall energy use. Space heating and cooling, and water heating accounts for 70 to 80 percent of the overall energy use. Still Mostly All, if you ask me.
What stands in the way of significant reductions in energy used for space conditioning and hot water usage? Like 50 to 90 percent reductions.
Off the top of my head…
- Not a silver bullet option offered at a big-box store
- Not easily packaged in a direct install program
- More expensive than a few cups of coffee
Simplistic, I know. The primary stumbling blocks are always cost and complexity. Low cost, simple measures are thought to be easier to accomplish. But are they? What if we took another look at measures that take the whole house into consideration and put big savings in small affordable phases? I’ll give some examples of what we’ve been looking at with our clients in the next few blog entries.
Leave A Comment