rastra

why fiberglass insulation doesn't work

In a previous post we’ve discussed the shortcomings of a wood frame wall with fiberglass insulation as a thermal barrier (why R-values are mis-leading). Our focus in this post is isolated solely on the fiberglass itself.

Although fiberglass has been the standard insulation in new construction, it has serious flaws that aren't well known outside the industry. Some of them may surprise you.

Let’s begin with this … its a little known fact that fiberglass insulation loses over 40% of its insulating capacity when outside temperatures fall below 20˚F.  LEED confirms through a Canadian cold weather study that fiberglass loses half its R-value below 0˚F. When this happens, an R-19 fiberglass insulated wall performs as if it were only R-9. When you need it the most, fiberglass insulation cannot properly insulate.

Once fiberglass insulation becomes damp its performance decreases dramatically. In fact, it only takes a 1.5% increase in moisture content in fiberglass to reduce its R-value by up to 50%. When moisture is trapped in a conventionally-built wall cavity insulated with fiberglass and sealed with a vapor barrier, insulation becomes damp and loses its ability to insulate. This also promotes mold growth which leads to structural damage.

One reason fiberglass is such a poor performer is that for fiberglass insulation to be effective it must be completely enclosed on all six sides without gaps or air pockets. The material must be installed to be in continuous contact with its surrounding surfaces with no pockets of air left between the framing materials and the fiberglass. This is virtually impossible to accomplish on a job site.

Another problem with fiberglass is that for it to work it must be fully expanded to allow air pockets to perform. If it’s stuffed into an opening or compressed by electrical and plumbing lines it simply doesn’t work. If you have electrical outlets on an exterior wall it’s a safe bet that there’s no insulation between the inside and outside of the wall where these outlets are placed. You simply can’t install a 3” deep outlet box in a 3½“deep wall cavity and insulate properly.

Lastly, fiberglass batt insulation is designed to be used in framed walls. Everywhere a framing member is installed, a thermal break is created between the pieces of insulation that allows air to pass. If 2x4s are used to construct the wall, anywhere a 2x4 is positioned the wall only has an R-value of R-3.5. On average 27% of the exterior wall’s surface is made up of framing members, meaning that 27% of the average wall surface has an R-value of only R-3.5.

Its no wonder The Department of Energy concluded that a solution of wood frame walls with fiberglass insulation "just doesn't work" as an effective thermal barrier.

Thanks for visiting.

mike warren

housing costs surpass incomes

In a study just released by the Center for Housing Policy home values may be sliding, but housing costs just keep rising. In the report, the Washington, D.C. based group noted that housing costs have jumped nearly 65% between 1996 and 2006, far outpacing the increases for food, transportation, and health care over the same period.

Overall, homeowners increased the percentage of their household income spent on housing by 4.7% between 1996 and 2006, to 26.2%, according to the report.  Over the decade, every major category of homeowner expenses increased faster than incomes the report states. Mortgage payments increased 46%, utilities 43%, property taxes 66%, and property insurance 83%. By contrast, homeowner incomes increased by 36.3%.

That disconnect between housing costs and income has proved particularly problematic as home prices have eroded and the economy has struggled. The Wall Street Journal reported today that nearly one in 6 homeowners owes more on their mortgage than their house is worth.

“By documenting the substantial increases in a wide variety of housing expenses, this study shows that the nation’s housing concerns extend beyond higher mortgage payments,” said John McIlwain, chairman of the Center for Housing Policy.

So the question becomes what can we do to control these expenses?  RASTRA contributes in several areas. 

1. Using RASTRA to construct the exterior walls lowers energy consumption by up to 50%.  This helps protect homeowners from the volatility of energy prices.  While we can’t control the cost of energy we can reduce how much energy we use.
2. RASTRA creates a stronger and safer home, insurance rates are lower, especially in high risk areas where severe weather is consistently present.
3. Maintenance expense which was not mentioned in the study is also lower with RASTRA.  Because wood that rots is replaced and the fact that HVAC systems don’t work as hard to control the indoor climate, savings are realized.
4. Reduced interest rates are available from some lenders for more energy-efficient new homes.
5. Energy-efficient homes hold their value and even appreciate more than a home that’s not considered energy-efficient.  According to the National association of Realtors for every $1 saved annually in energy expense, home value is increased by $20 at time of resale.
6. Tax benefits are available for certified energy-efficient homes and building RASTRA alone usually satisfies these requirements.

I’m not suggesting that RASTRA is the cure all to the housing crisis, but we do make an impact.  Can you say the same for wood frame walls?

Thanks for visiting.

Mike Warren

consider the possibilities

The Central Ohio real estate market where I live is depressed like most other markets.  So when I suggest to local homebuilders that we consider the future when building new homes, it's usually met with some resistance.  This is understandable - it's hard to think about the future if you're fighting just to make payroll.  I get that.  But let's just take a few minutes and at least talk about what's possible even in a soft housing market if we make a collective decision to simply do the right thing.  

The fact that RASTRA is building a new plant in this community is an opportunity that if fully leveraged will position Central Ohio as the leader of green building.  Central Ohio has an opportunity like no other market in the U.S. to become the gold standard of sustainable construction.  Best of all, everyone wins - homeowners, builders, the entire community including those not even building new homes - and it doesn't cost any more than today's construction methods. 

Before we "consider the possibilities" let's review the assumptions I use to make my projections.  Based on building permits through June, Central Ohio is on pace to build over 3,200 new homes in 2008.  Let's just use 3,000 for this exercise.  Because the permit total includes multi-family units I'm going to use a conservative average savings of only 2 tons of CO2 per year to account for the smaller sized units.  The average savings is much closer to 3 tons.  Other conservative assumptions are that we continue to build at this low pace of 3,000 new homes per year for the next 30 years and that energy prices don't increase at all over 30 years. 

First, let's discuss how RASTRA would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  If the exterior walls of 3,000 new homes were built exclusively with RASTRA in place of wood frame construction, 6,000 fewer tons of CO2 would be emitted into our atmosphere each year because it takes less energy to heat & cool the home.  Over the life of the 30-year mortgage these same 3,000 homes would reduce total CO2 emissions by 180,000 tons.  If we continue to build 3,000 homes per year, after 30 years 90,000 Central Ohio homes will be emitting 180,000 fewer tons of CO2 each and every year.  To put this in perspective, this improvement would be equivalent to removing 32,579 cars from the road. 

Over this 30 year graduated build up of homes, the collective reduction in CO2 emissions would exceed 2,790,000 tons!  Homeowners would not have to change anything about their lifestyle to make this kind of improvement - it's completely passive and they save money doing it.

Now lets see what kind of impact we could make on our local economy if we use a very conservative energy savings of only $50 per month.

At the same rate of only 3,000 new homes per year, these 3,000 homeowners would save $1.8 million per year.  Over 30 years these same 3,000 homeowners living in RASTRA built homes would save a total of $54 million.  If 3,000 new homes are added each year over 30 years, the collective savings over this period represents $837 million that would be returned to the local economy.

It's worth repeating that these savings represent only $50 per month and assumes energy prices don't increase over 30-years which is wildly conservative.  It's logical to believe that increases in energy costs over 30 years will inflate this total savings to over $1 billion in energy savings alone.

Savings in other areas such as reduced maintenance expense, lower insurance premiums and even lower interest rates could potentially eclipse the savings in energy costs.  Homeowners would also enjoy other benefits of living in a RASTRA home including a stronger, safer, quieter and healthier home.

Builders stand to gain even more than homeowners by contributing to a healthier economy.  And by building more energy-efficient homes, new homebuyers are less likely to downsize their homes to offset high energy costs helping keep the building industry strong.  Lenders are more willing to approve potential buyers when they know that energy costs are being managed.  This increases the pool of potential buyers.

This is within our reach.  All it takes is the collective will to do the right thing.  Central Ohio is in the unique position of having a RASTRA plant right here in Columbus.  This allows builders to contribute to reducing our own waste stream, create new manufacturing jobs and enjoy access to a high performance building system without freight expense.  A RASTRA wall system is suitable for any style architecture and any price point.  The only barrier is the willingness to embrace change.

Thanks for visiting.

mike warren