[Greenbuilding] Insulation, windows, siding...oh my!

[Justin Close]

Tom,
    Thanks for the information about the wet blown cellulose.  It is 
good to hear real world examples.  Especially the part about not 
covering it for a few months and being able to see how it dried; that is 
a great piece of information to have.

--  Justin



tom wrote:
> Justin-
> We had wet-blown cellulose done for the walls of our house a couple 
> years ago.  I don't know how the metrics would be on it currently, but 
> after doing quite a bit of research we decided it came out ahead when 
> balancing efficiency, cost, performance, 'green-ness,' etc.  The 
> hardest thing was finding an insulation contractor who did it.  Plenty 
> trying to get us to go with PU.  They guy who did the job also did PU- 
> agreed that the wet-blown cel was better (safer, greener, and close in 
> performance) but said the equipment was a pain to maintain, most 
> people didn't know what it was and/or didn't want it and that he was 
> going to get rid of his rig.  As far as I know the only 'chemical' 
> added to the cellulose is borax.  I suppose it could be argued that 
> there is additional chemical content from the newsprint, etc. the 
> cellulose material is made from, but most newspapers now are using veg 
> inks.  It took me several months before I put the sheetrock up after 
> the cellulose was blown in and I didn't see any kind of 'shrinking' or 
> settling.  The stuff dries pretty solidly.  If you are going to open 
> the bays go with blown- blown performs better than the dry, 'dropped' 
> in stuff.  Opening the walls, then closing them, then putting in the 
> dry stuff would be a missed opportunity for better results.
>
> Think about a flash water heater (also called 'on demand' etc).  They 
> are far more efficient than tank systems, and you could later add a 
> solar component with the flash heater making up the temp difference 
> when needed.  On a lot of flash heater installs you qualify for a tax 
> break.
>
> Tom
>
>