NAHB Has their guns out: Attacking insulation dudes?

[danh]

What's up with this:
http://www.nahb.org/category.aspx?sectionID=817

The NAHB seems to be really really against increases in R-Value, and is really dissing out fiberglass guys for introducing the new legislation as a money making move. Is the fuss justified? Is it really going to cause that big an increase in the cost of construction?

If high-density fiberglass batts cost twice as much as normal batts, doesn't that make other insulations more cost competitive?

Opinionations?

[tooltroll]

Just glanced at it, but it seems to me that their beef about 'adding $600 - $1000 to the cost of an average home' is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Call it a grand extra, and it's ½% of $200K, which is low to average in my area for new houses. Half a bloody percent. Boo... Hoo... They can cry me a river, and I'll s#!t them a bridge to get over it with. :twisted:

Up here, where -20ºC is a warm day in winter, I'll take all the R value I can get, especially with fuel prices hitting the roof.

[giddonah]

no, Bob, really... just tell us what you REALLY think. :lol:

[tooltroll]

Ok... I think I'll have another beer... :lol:

Are you calling me opinionated? Well, I have no strong feelings one way or the other about that. :wink:

Seriously, though- Would you skimp a measly thousand bucks on a new home?

[giddonah]

It does seem like a contrived argument. If they want to keep house prices down, why don't they really do something about costs instead of wasting time and energy arguing about something so minor? (rhetorical)

[danh]

That 200k home is actually a 75k home built on expensive property. So out in the country, extra costs like that matter.

Meanwhile, we don't have to worry about the opinions for poor people, for whom it actually is a make or break, for whom the extra money is a yes or no on their loan application. Namely because they are so poor that they don't have internet.

Let me reiterate:
a) Only high density batts meet the R-Value requirements
b) high density batts cost twice as much as current batts, but increase R-Values by R-2.
c) Oh hey, R-Value doesn't actually determine energy efficiency.

You guys don't feel at least a little bit ripped off?

And you guys in canada don't know what it's like. You guys actually have building codes that make you build decent homes...

[giddonah]

I'm not saying it's a rip-off or not. I'm just saying it's a little silly to argue about something like that. And if people are that poor and still building a house, they can make other changes to keep the cost down that will make a much bigger impact on the cost of construction.

And, I still have to convince myself that R-value has nothing to do with energy efficiency.

[danh]

And, I still have to convince myself that R-value has nothing to do with energy efficiency.

I never said that. It does make a significant contribution. However, you have to appreciate that R-Value is no longer the determining factor.

For example, you know that two houses of equal square footage can each have a different type of insulation installed to identical R-Values, and will have very different energy bills. Or even the same insulation, but with a different crew doing the installation, to the same result.

Why is that? The only rational solution is that R-Value CANNOT be the determining factor.

Next point.
Say the insulating budget is 2000$.
Option 1: Install 1000$ worth of high density, 1000$ labor. OR
Option 2: Install 500$ worth of low density, 1500$ labor (they do a better job of it).

Option 2: better energy efficiency, and more money stays in town as opposed to going to the manufacturer.

So why are we legislating option 1?

[giddonah]

I can appreciate the effect of installation on energy effeciency, but how do you rate the installation? What else would you propose to use for measuring insulation other than R-value? Assuming good installations, wouldn't then the difference be in R-value? I don't like the argument that R-value isn't a good measure because of installation. Anything can be worthless if done wrong.

[danh]

Good point.

Then we must consider the fact that the NAIMA brochures all say that the insulation only works if installed with a complete air sealing package. In fact, their studies show that when the exterior sheathing is properly detailed to prevent air leakage, fiberglass can perform up to even foam plastics...

In fact, physics tells us that an R-20 installation of fiberglass batt, installed with a complete & competent air barrier, can achieve approximately the same performance as R-40 foam plastic.

But common experience in the field tells us that no fiberglass installation is able to achieve this type of performance.

Unless, of course, you go to Canada, where air barriers are a code requirement. It's not that we are installing fiberglass wrong; it's just that our codes don't require us to install it right.

[giddonah]

Then why do we keep putting up with schlock work? Why don't we just raise our standards a little higher and get people to stop slapping homes together and running away before they fall down? Why not mandate codes that actually produce better built products? Quantity over quality... Just what we need more of, wasted resources. :roll:

[tooltroll]

The codes are set by the government, and the only thing the govt. gives a crap about are the industrial and commercial lobby groups who pay for their election campaigns. Can't risk pissing off the construction lobby by requiring competence just because 0.1% of your constituents are dying in collapsing houses, and they sure as hell won't risk pissing off the oil and power companies by requiring better energy efficiency (and considering the taxes they get from fuel sales... gotta pay their salaries, benefits and retirement packages somehow, the poor deprived souls.) It's just as bad up here, just different, due to the climate.

What else can you expect in a capitalist economy where the almighty dollar is the be-all and end-all? Everything's disposable, nothing's built well... There are 200+ year old buildings on this continent, and much older structures in the rest of the world that are still standing, despite never knowing a building code. These are the old, old places you see on 'this old house,' etc., where the walls are 2x4s 24" oc, similarly flimsy floors and roofs, and the sucker's standing almost perfectly after a couple of centuries. Those guys knew how to build and they had real pride in their work! Nowadays, nobody gives a damn about anything but slapping it up a.s.a.f.p. as cheaply as possible and pocketing as much as possible, either for themselves or at the instructions of a boss or corporate board. So corners get cut, crap gets used, and junk gets built.

[danh]

Nowadays, nobody gives a damn about anything but slapping it up a.s.a.f.p. as cheaply as possible and pocketing as much as possible, either for themselves or at the instructions of a boss or corporate board.

The best was that episode of Holmes on Homes where the contractor pretty much finished the house, without paying any of the subs, and then right before everything was finished, he left with all the money. Amazing.

That was only a 6000sqft house. Could you imagine doing that on one of the 22 000 sqft behemoths coming out of the ritzy suburbs these days?