"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
.. .
"Dave Stanton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:26:11 +0100, IMM wrote:


"Rick Dipper" wrote in message
...

More is always better.

Surely the rule of diminishing returns applies here.

Precisely, and at a certain point negative returns are achieved.

In other words, when the last x mm of insulation takes more energy to
manufacture, distribute, install, and eventually dispose of than it will
ever save over it's expected lifetime, then it has a negative overall
environmental impact.

This cutoff point will also be influenced by the average weather
conditions
of the locality. Those advocating movement towards insulation standards
common in Germany, Scandinavia and parts of the North American continent
should remember that they suffer much colder winters than the majority of
the UK which will therefore push the environmental equilibrium towards
installation of more insulation.

Nice try, but flawed logic. The cut off point is when you don't require a
full heating system. That is simple. Then the gains start to really add up.
What is not really taken into account is the cooling effect insulation can
have in hot summers, which appear to be on the way. So, the gains,
especially in comfort conditions in winter and summer, increase yet again.

Insulation to the point of not requiring a full heating system is a win, win
situation all the way. All the knowledgeable experts who write on this
subject all agree that superinsulation is well worth it.

Don't guess, find out.