Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting
the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put insulation down. However I have some questions about it. Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there. Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types, such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than crown insulation. (b&q special offer). I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool : (http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is unbelievable. Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in
insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Christian. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Dean Richard Benson wrote: I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put insulation down. However I have some questions about it. Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there. Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types, such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than crown insulation. (b&q special offer). I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool : (http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is unbelievable. Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received. Thanks. why not use this http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/tech/aerogel.html stuff? OK it's a bit expensive ($11/gram) but hey, when you want the best. . . . 'It's the lowest density of any solid, and it has the highest thermoinsulation properties. Though it would be very expensive, you could take a two- or three-bedroom house, insulate it with aerogel, and you could heat the house with a candle. But eventually the house would become too hot.'" Nick |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:29:12 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote:
Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Some useful info in there. Leads me to even more questions.... - with currently having a 100mm joist height, should i either increase the joist height (cross joists) or just cross-lay the insulation over the top of the 100mm. - If you insulation up to 350mm, how are you meant to ever reach places in your loft without falling through the ceiling ;P - You mention the recommended above, based on diminishing returns, but what insulation material is that based on - as I understand it, different manufacturers produce insulation to different values. So my thought was, that maybe 200mm of rockwool, might equal 300mm of crown or something? Thanks again Dean |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:16:10 +0000, Dean Richard Benson
wrote: I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put insulation down. However I have some questions about it. Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there. Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types, such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than crown insulation. (b&q special offer). I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool : (http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is unbelievable. Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received. Thanks. You can do the sums on this. Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. You can see that there is a huge difference between nothing and 100mm, but a rapidly diminishing return after that. This is typical worst case. However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In terms of the material cost, this provides a reasonable rate of return. However, if you set it in the context of whether the space is important to you and the cost of the timber and other means to access it, then this becomes less interesting. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Dean Richard Benson wrote in
news Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there. Can't answer quantitatively, but for the same reason I put down 4inches (HTF does one cope with a foot of insulation?) It's made a big difference, there was already a skimpy fibregass layer there, but it's pretty well just the 4 ins. So I think I would stick with 4 ins ant take the losses, at least I can still find joists, wiring, pipes, chimneys etc. mike r |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:28:07 +0000, Dean Richard Benson
wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:29:12 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote: Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Some useful info in there. Leads me to even more questions.... - with currently having a 100mm joist height, should i either increase the joist height (cross joists) or just cross-lay the insulation over the top of the 100mm. It depends on whether you want to board over the top. - If you insulation up to 350mm, how are you meant to ever reach places in your loft without falling through the ceiling ;P It may not matter, since you won't be putting many other things there anyway :-) Before you get over-excited by this idea, take a look at how much heat is going out through the walls and windows....... - You mention the recommended above, based on diminishing returns, but what insulation material is that based on - as I understand it, different manufacturers produce insulation to different values. So my thought was, that maybe 200mm of rockwool, might equal 300mm of crown or something? If you want a better compromise between thickness and U value, then you could use polyisosyanurate board such as Celotex or Kingspan which have about 4x the insulating property of glass fibre. However, it costs £15-18 for a 2440x1220 sheet........ Thanks again Dean ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:28:07 +0000, Dean Richard Benson wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:29:12 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote: Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Some useful info in there. Leads me to even more questions.... - with currently having a 100mm joist height, should i either increase the joist height (cross joists) or just cross-lay the insulation over the top of the 100mm. It depends on whether you want to board over the top. - If you insulation up to 350mm, how are you meant to ever reach places in your loft without falling through the ceiling ;P It may not matter, since you won't be putting many other things there anyway :-) Ah, but never underestimate the insulatng properties of a loft full of junk :-) Before you get over-excited by this idea, take a look at how much heat is going out through the walls and windows....... Indeed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Andy Hall wrote in
: You can do the sums on this. No, I can't, you do them Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. Ta However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. mike r |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message et... Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Are you sure on this. It's just I heard the ODPM people who set the building regs were talking about as much as 450mm in the next part L. Rockwool is on 3 for the price of 2 at Wickes and so matches the B&Q prices well. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0000, "G&M" wrote:
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message . net... Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Are you sure on this. It's just I heard the ODPM people who set the building regs were talking about as much as 450mm in the next part L. They talk about all sorts of things. This one is pure pandering to be seen to be doing something towards the Kyoto protocol. It has no basis in economics or anything else when put into the context of where domestic energy should be being saved. So people in an average house can spend about £100-200 and save about £10 a year. It's a complete nonsense. Rockwool is on 3 for the price of 2 at Wickes and so matches the B&Q prices well. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0000, "G&M" wrote: "Christian McArdle" wrote in message . net... Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Are you sure on this. It's just I heard the ODPM people who set the building regs were talking about as much as 450mm in the next part L. They talk about all sorts of things. This one is pure pandering to be seen to be doing something towards the Kyoto protocol. It has no basis in economics or anything else when put into the context of where domestic energy should be being saved. This is ********! The Whole House Book has a graph that says 350-400mm is the current optimum price/performance. If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. There is also the comfort factor of high insulation and that it also keeps the house cool from a loft hat may be 55C in summer. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:16:10 +0000, Dean Richard Benson wrote: I have just had my loft timbers/joists treated for woodworm, and getting the house rewired soon. After that is all done, I am going to put insulation down. However I have some questions about it. Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? The reason I ask is that my joists are 4" in height, and anything greater will mean a bit more planning to ensure that I can still walk and see the joists up there. Also, has anyone noticed a difference between rockwool and other types, such as crown wool? I have checked the u-values and such, and rockwool is a better insulator, but it is also going to cost me about 20% more than crown insulation. (b&q special offer). I really like the idea of using natural insulation such as sheep wool : (http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/ins-thermperf.php) but the price is unbelievable. Any comments/help/advice would be greatly received. Thanks. You can do the sums on this. Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. You can see that there is a huge difference between nothing and 100mm, but a rapidly diminishing return after that. This is typical worst case. However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In terms of the material cost, this provides a reasonable rate of return. However, if you set it in the context of whether the space is important to you and the cost of the timber and other means to access it, then this becomes less interesting. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. How mixed up you are. Overall the walls loose more heat than the upper ceilingof a house. That is misleading. Then look at the individual rooms below the loft. They will have a large area which is loft ceiling. Then it makes sense to heavily insulate, as these rooms will be warm in winter and cool in summer. In August the coolest place in my house was the main bedroom. No heat came down from the loft above as I have 350mm of insulation. A light wind through the two windows and it was fine in the upper rooms. In winter they are very warm. And you said a uni made you think? --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"mike ring" wrote in message 52.50... Andy Hall wrote in : You can do the sums on this. No, I can't, you do them Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. Ta However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. Put counter joists in to make it deeper for more insulation and board over. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 14/01/2004 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:59:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0000, "G&M" wrote: "Christian McArdle" wrote in message . net... Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Are you sure on this. It's just I heard the ODPM people who set the building regs were talking about as much as 450mm in the next part L. They talk about all sorts of things. This one is pure pandering to be seen to be doing something towards the Kyoto protocol. It has no basis in economics or anything else when put into the context of where domestic energy should be being saved. This is ********! You're absolutely right. It is total ******** and political game playing. The Whole House Book has a graph that says 350-400mm is the current optimum price/performance. Based on what? Show the calculations. I wasn't talking about the total environmental cost or anything of that nature, just very simple economics of a) what is the heat loss with insulation thickness X? b) what is it with thickness Y? c) what's the energy saving and what does that cost at today's prices? d) what does it cost to install insulation to achieve that? Based on the hard figures and those assumptions *only* please explain where you feel that there is a mistake in the numbers. If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. That's a separate issue. Can you suggest a rate at which fuel prices would need to rise to justify that? Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. Keep in mind that the topic here was concerning the value *today* and in the near future of increasing loft insulation. In terms of return on investment, it may be interesting to do because it is inexpensive, but then the returns are relatively little as well. My point was that focussing on this, while ignoring other much more significant losses is the wrong focus. There is not much point in saving £10 a year on what goes through the roof if £200 is going through other surfaces. Even if energy goes up in price by a factor of ten, that principle still applies. All that changes is the urgency and the economics not the priority. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. It's very easy to sit down and write airy-fairy books when it's other people's money being spent. Almost anything pays for itself *eventually* - that's a very weak argument. There is also the comfort factor of high insulation and that it also keeps the house cool from a loft hat may be 55C in summer. Having any insulation will do that. It doesn't need to be knee deep to achieve it. Do the sums. The temperature differences put the heat gain in the low hundreds of watts over an entire house even with just 100mm of glass fibre. On a room by room basis, not much more than a light bulb. If people in government and elsewhere want to advocate that homeowners should put more insulation in their roofs, that's fine - as you say it's cheap and easy. However the *complete* picture, including the economics and the comparisons with other energy saving should be presented and it is not. The reality is that the government wants to demonstrate in the international conference scene that it is doing something with respect to Kyoto. There is nothing wrong with the sentiment of that, but it should be done on an honest basis, and this is not. --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:15:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"mike ring" wrote in message . 252.50... Andy Hall wrote in : You can do the sums on this. No, I can't, you do them Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. Ta However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. Put counter joists in to make it deeper for more insulation and board over. Why? In comparison to everything else, it's little more than a drop in the bucket. --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:13:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In terms of the material cost, this provides a reasonable rate of return. However, if you set it in the context of whether the space is important to you and the cost of the timber and other means to access it, then this becomes less interesting. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. How mixed up you are. Overall the walls loose more heat than the upper ceilingof a house. Obviously. The area is generally larger and the U value greater or comparable to 100mm of loft insulation That is misleading. Then look at the individual rooms below the loft. They will have a large area which is loft ceiling. They will have a large area of walls and windows as well. Then it makes sense to heavily insulate, as these rooms will be warm in winter and cool in summer. That doesn't follow at all. In August the coolest place in my house was the main bedroom. No heat came down from the loft above as I have 350mm of insulation. That doesn't follow either. Provide the dimensions of the room including the windows and the construction type of the walls and windows and we can do the sums. I would be very surprised if the difference in heat gain that you experience through having 350mm of insulation vs. 100 or 150mm is significant in comparison to gains through other surfaces. A light wind through the two windows and it was fine in the upper rooms. In winter they are very warm. And you said a uni made you think? Yes it does, as well as the ability to spot bull**** when I see it. --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also
that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. Consider using Kingspan or Celotex. Although more expensive that rockwool, 100mm will give a lot more insulation that rockwool. It is also longer lasting and less prone to sagging and soaking, as it comes in solid blocks looking a bit like expanded polystyrene. You can board straight over the top. Christian. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:59:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote: "Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:02:57 -0000, "G&M" wrote: "Christian McArdle" wrote in message . net... Is there a noticable difference in loft insulation (rockwool rolls) in insulating greater than a 4" depth? Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Are you sure on this. It's just I heard the ODPM people who set the building regs were talking about as much as 450mm in the next part L. They talk about all sorts of things. This one is pure pandering to be seen to be doing something towards the Kyoto protocol. It has no basis in economics or anything else when put into the context of where domestic energy should be being saved. This is ********! You're absolutely right. It is total ******** and political game playing. The Whole House Book has a graph that says 350-400mm is the current optimum price/performance. Based on what? Show the calculations. I wasn't talking about the total environmental cost or anything of that nature, just very simple economics of a) what is the heat loss with insulation thickness X? b) what is it with thickness Y? c) what's the energy saving and what does that cost at today's prices? d) what does it cost to install insulation to achieve that? That is what the Whole House Book did. If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. That's a separate issue. Can you suggest a rate at which fuel prices would need to rise to justify that? Hold a fdiger to the air. Fuel porices will rise. They always do. Also enviro taxes will start to bite. Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, I'm nor suggesting it. People who have done the research are. if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. Keep in mind that the topic here was concerning the value *today* and in the near future of increasing loft insulation. Near future? What will that be? Ermmm... In terms of return on investment, it may be interesting to do because it is inexpensive, but then the returns are relatively little as well. Loft insulation is cheap and very easy to do compared to other parts of the house. So it is worth packing in as much as possible. My point was that focussing on this, while ignoring other much more significant losses is the wrong focus. There is not much point in saving £10 a year on what goes through the roof if £200 is going through other surfaces. Even if energy goes up in price by a factor of ten, that principle still applies. All that changes is the urgency and the economics not the priority. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. It's very easy to sit down and write airy-fairy books when it's other people's money being spent. Almost anything pays for itself *eventually* - that's a very weak argument. In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in 1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices. As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to hold as much insulation as possible. So, install as much as possible. There is also the comfort factor of high insulation and that it also keeps the house cool from a loft hat may be 55C in summer. Having any insulation will do that. It doesn't need to be knee deep to achieve it. The bigger the temp difference on each side and the bigger the heat transfer. More insulation prevents heat transfer. If people in government and elsewhere want to advocate that homeowners should put more insulation in their roofs, that's fine - as you say it's cheap and easy. snip misguided stuff about economics. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:15:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote: "mike ring" wrote in message . 252.50... Andy Hall wrote in : You can do the sums on this. No, I can't, you do them Calculate the heat loss for the area of the ceilings. For a pitched roof plus 100mm of insulation, the U value is 0.35 So, let's say the house is 7m square for the sake of argument. Using conventional central heating temperature assumptions of -3 degrees worst case outside and 18 degrees in the upstairs rooms, the heat loss will be Area x U x temperature difference or 7 x 7 x 21 x 0.35 = 360 Watts If you have 150mm of insulation, the U value falls to 0.25 and the heat loss will be 257W. With no insulation, the U value of the pitched roof is about 2.0 and the heat loss about 2kW. Ta However, averaged over the year, the outside temperature is probably closer to 10 degrees, so assuming continuous heating at 100mm of insulation the loss is 223Watts and at 150mm about 160W. With 200mm you would get down towards 120W. 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. Put counter joists in to make it deeper for more insulation and board over. Why? In comparison to everything else, it's little more than a drop in the bucket. Not so. read other post. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message et... Thanks Andy, you've confirmed my gut feeling about losses, and also that one episode of tripping over a pipe and putting a foot through the ceiling will take a hell of a time to balance against the extra 8" insulation. Consider using Kingspan or Celotex. Although more expensive that rockwool, 100mm will give a lot more insulation that rockwool. It is also longer lasting and less prone to sagging and soaking, as it comes in solid blocks looking a bit like expanded polystyrene. You can board straight over the top. Best put Rockwool up to joist height then lay Kingspan over then loft boards. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 01:13:58 -0000, "IMM" wrote: "Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . 100W of heating by gas at a price of 1.4p per kWh works out to just over £12 per annum. In terms of the material cost, this provides a reasonable rate of return. However, if you set it in the context of whether the space is important to you and the cost of the timber and other means to access it, then this becomes less interesting. In energy terms, if you compare with the heat loss through the walls and other means, then you realise that the focus should be on other issues than this. How mixed up you are. Overall the walls loose more heat than the upper ceilingof a house. Obviously. The area is generally larger and the U value greater or comparable to 100mm of loft insulation That is misleading. Then look at the individual rooms below the loft. They will have a large area which is loft ceiling. They will have a large area of walls and windows as well. Bt what you have failed to see, is that these rooms have a large percentage of ceiling area. A ceiling that will be very cold above in winter and very hot in summer. It is worth packing in as much insulation as possible just to improve the comfort levels of these rooms alone. Then it makes sense to heavily insulate, as these rooms will be warm in winter and cool in summer. That doesn't follow at all. See above twice. In August the coolest place in my house was the main bedroom. No heat came down from the loft above as I have 350mm of insulation. That doesn't follow either. snip. He can't follow something simple, not worth going on --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Best put Rockwool up to joist height then lay Kingspan over then loft
boards. Which doesn't give the OP his required boarded area. If he was going to cover the boards, he might as well use rockwool, as it is better pricewise for the same u-Value. Christian. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message et... Best put Rockwool up to joist height then lay Kingspan over then loft boards. Which doesn't give the OP his required boarded area. If he was going to cover the boards, he might as well use rockwool, as it is better pricewise for the same u-Value. I think you misunderstood. Best put Rockwool up to joist height then lay Kingspan over the joists, this prevents thermal bridging via the joists. Then loft boards over the Kingspan. Only the part of the loft where you can walk is worth boarding, unless all the loft is used for storage. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Andy Hall wrote:
Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking. Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima. The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3. And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even those. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Andy Hall wrote: Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking. Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima. The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3. And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even those. So you studied to build bridges and design electronic boards all in one course. My, oh my. Was this skule in Toytown. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
I think you misunderstood. Best put Rockwool up to joist height then
lay Kingspan over the joists, this prevents thermal bridging via the joists. Wouldn't the boards get quite squashed where they lay on the joists? Obviously, crosslaying is the best solution. However, if the OP is only going to fit stuff between the joists, it may as well be Kingspan than rockwool. Christian. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message et... I think you misunderstood. Best put Rockwool up to joist height then lay Kingspan over the joists, this prevents thermal bridging via the joists. Wouldn't the boards get quite squashed where they lay on the joists? Many ways in which to get around that. I think Kingspan do a board which mean for floating floors so this can be used, or you can always counter baton with baton the thickness of the Kingspan and put boards over that. Obviously, crosslaying is the best solution. However, if the OP is only going to fit stuff between the joists, it may as well be Kingspan than rockwool. That is true, but There will be lost of waste with Kingspan, unless you path it all in and the remainder scatter around the loft in places that nothing is stored or walked on. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message et... However, if the OP is only going to fit stuff between the joists, it may as well be Kingspan than rockwool. Laying over the joists and taping up the joins will add it air-tightness too. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Dean Richard Benson" wrote in message newsan.2004.01.21.18.28.06.252332@spamlessharker hill.co.uk... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:29:12 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote: Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Some useful info in there. Leads me to even more questions.... - with currently having a 100mm joist height, should i either increase the joist height (cross joists) or just cross-lay the insulation over the top of the 100mm. - If you insulation up to 350mm, how are you meant to ever reach places in your loft without falling through the ceiling ;P The problem is that with a 100mm joist height you aren't meant to store anything, other than insulation in your lost. Its one of those cases where the builders use the absolute minimum they can get away in order to save a few quid and you end up with some valuable storage space that you effectively can't use! cheers David |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
The problem is that with a 100mm joist height you aren't meant to
store anything, other than insulation in your lost. Nah. I've seen loads of houses with 100mm loft joists. They're all used for storage! Floor joist sizes are so large to avoid flexing the ceiling as people move about, not to stop the things collapsing. Light or even medium storage is usually OK, as there is little movement. Any bad results are usually a few hairline cracks, not stuff piling into the room below. Obvious, large water tanks or big boxes of books need special consideration. Christian. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:36:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . They talk about all sorts of things. This one is pure pandering to be seen to be doing something towards the Kyoto protocol. It has no basis in economics or anything else when put into the context of where domestic energy should be being saved. This is ********! You're absolutely right. It is total ******** and political game playing. The Whole House Book has a graph that says 350-400mm is the current optimum price/performance. Based on what? Show the calculations. I wasn't talking about the total environmental cost or anything of that nature, just very simple economics of a) what is the heat loss with insulation thickness X? b) what is it with thickness Y? c) what's the energy saving and what does that cost at today's prices? d) what does it cost to install insulation to achieve that? That is what the Whole House Book did. Then please explain how it arrived at figures that justify these figures, because it is not based on the parameters that I have detailed. If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. That's a separate issue. Can you suggest a rate at which fuel prices would need to rise to justify that? Hold a fdiger to the air. Fuel porices will rise. They always do. Also enviro taxes will start to bite. This is arm waving. Yes we know all of that, but the figures are not solid. Do you have energy price projections for 5 and 10 years time? You can make some guesses and take a punt, but that is all it is. In this instance, the cost of totally filling the roof with insulation if you want is not significant so it doesn't matter. My point was that focussing on this alone is misleading. Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, I'm nor suggesting it. People who have done the research are. Based on what? If it includes all of the ecological factors involved in manufacturing insulation as well then that is another discussion. It can be a valid one for people for whom that is an important concern, but it is separate nonetheless to the simple economic argument. if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. Keep in mind that the topic here was concerning the value *today* and in the near future of increasing loft insulation. Near future? What will that be? Ermmm... Exactly. Who knows. In terms of return on investment, it may be interesting to do because it is inexpensive, but then the returns are relatively little as well. Loft insulation is cheap and very easy to do compared to other parts of the house. So it is worth packing in as much as possible. I didn't dispute that it was cheap or easy to do, but does result in loss of space or extra timbers etc. to make it usable. It doesn't make sense to make an energy saving of 100W in the loft when several kW are going out through the walls. My point was that focussing on this, while ignoring other much more significant losses is the wrong focus. There is not much point in saving £10 a year on what goes through the roof if £200 is going through other surfaces. Even if energy goes up in price by a factor of ten, that principle still applies. All that changes is the urgency and the economics not the priority. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. It's very easy to sit down and write airy-fairy books when it's other people's money being spent. Almost anything pays for itself *eventually* - that's a very weak argument. In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in 1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices. Based on what? As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to hold as much insulation as possible. So, install as much as possible. Again based on what? There is also the comfort factor of high insulation and that it also keeps the house cool from a loft hat may be 55C in summer. Having any insulation will do that. It doesn't need to be knee deep to achieve it. The bigger the temp difference on each side and the bigger the heat transfer. More insulation prevents heat transfer. Yes. There is a simple equation covering this, and it is easy to demonstrate that the major difference is between no insulation and some rather than some and twice or three times as much. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
David Moodie wrote:
"Dean Richard Benson" wrote in message newsan.2004.01.21.18.28.06.252332@spamlessharker hill.co.uk... On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:29:12 +0000, Christian McArdle wrote: Yes. The law of diminishing returns says that 350mm is the best environmentally speaking. Any more and the environmental cost of manufacturing and transporting the insulant is higher than the energy saved. 100mm is definitely on the low side. 200mm would be better. The difference between 200mm and 350mm isn't that great. Some useful info in there. Leads me to even more questions.... - with currently having a 100mm joist height, should i either increase the joist height (cross joists) or just cross-lay the insulation over the top of the 100mm. - If you insulation up to 350mm, how are you meant to ever reach places in your loft without falling through the ceiling ;P The problem is that with a 100mm joist height you aren't meant to store anything, other than insulation in your lost. Its one of those cases where the builders use the absolute minimum they can get away in order to save a few quid and you end up with some valuable storage space that you effectively can't use! Yes, and that is where cross laying more joists , maybe herringbone bracing and a few hangers up to teh ridge/radfters makes sense. Total insulation depth comes up to maybe 8 inches with only where the joists cross as 'cold bridges' and boardiong out the loft stops draughts getong in any less than perefectly insulated places. I have just complete boarding out my loft with 150mm insulation (rockwool) and its made a lot of difference. Its icy up there when the wind blows (silly building regs vents are enough to take every ounce of moist air out in about 1.2 seconds). Once you get to this sort of insulation depth, the real danger is tiny cracks that allow air movement alongside celotex and through the rockwool. If yu have as I have, hollow rockwool filled walls, you then discover that things like e.g. power sockets, or the odd crack round a window frame, lets in a tiny icy draught...from air moving THROUGH the insulation and getting into the rooms. Going to IMMlike levels of insulation only works if you can stop up each and every one of these micro draughts: This takes patience, and decorators caulk and frame sealer inside, and attention to detail up in the loft as well. I sometimes wonde if much more limited ventialtion, and an electrical dehumidifier in the loft might not be a more energy efficient way to keep a cold roof dry, and allow the loft airspace itself to become an insulator... cheers David |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
Christian McArdle wrote:
The problem is that with a 100mm joist height you aren't meant to store anything, other than insulation in your lost. Nah. I've seen loads of houses with 100mm loft joists. They're all used for storage! Floor joist sizes are so large to avoid flexing the ceiling as people move about, not to stop the things collapsing. Light or even medium storage is usually OK, as there is little movement. Any bad results are usually a few hairline cracks, not stuff piling into the room below. Obvious, large water tanks or big boxes of books need special consideration. This is very true. Timber will suffer unacceptable deformation long before it breaks. Especually on longish spans (a couple of meters or more) Christian. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
IMM wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Andy Hall wrote: Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking. Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima. The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3. And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even those. So you studied to build bridges and design electronic boards all in one course. My, oh my. Was this skule in Toytown. Yes. It was in Cambridge. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. That's a separate issue. Can you suggest a rate at which fuel prices would need to rise to justify that? Hold a finger to the air. Fuel prices will rise. They always do. Also enviro taxes will start to bite. This is arm waving. But arm waving with realism. All I read is that energy will become more scarce and more expensive. As it becomes more exp[expensive so will insulation too. best pack it in now while it is cheap enough. You will not regret it in the future. Yes we know all of that, but the figures are not solid. Do you have energy price projections for 5 and 10 years time? You can make some guesses and take a punt, but that is all it is. See above. In this instance, the cost of totally filling the roof with insulation if you want is not significant so it doesn't matter. My point was that focussing on this alone is misleading. Who said focus on this alone?I never. I said pack in as much as you can while it is cheap as it will not be, neither will energy, in the future. probably sooner than later too. Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, I'm nor suggesting it. People who have done the research are. Based on what? See above. In terms of return on investment, it may be interesting to do because it is inexpensive, but then the returns are relatively little as well. Loft insulation is cheap and very easy to do compared to other parts of the house. So it is worth packing in as much as possible. I didn't dispute that it was cheap or easy to do, but does result in loss of space or extra timbers etc. to make it usable. That is still cheap and easy to do, even for a DIYer. It doesn't make sense to make an energy saving of 100W in the loft when several kW are going out through the walls. It does, as you can tackle the loft easily and cheaply. You plug as many holes as you can, even the small ones. My point was that focussing on this, while ignoring other much more significant losses is the wrong focus. There is not much point in saving £10 a year on what goes through the roof if £200 is going through other surfaces. Even if energy goes up in price by a factor of ten, that principle still applies. All that changes is the urgency and the economics not the priority. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. It's very easy to sit down and write airy-fairy books when it's other people's money being spent. Almost anything pays for itself *eventually* - that's a very weak argument. In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in 1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices. Based on what? "at the then current fuel prices" As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to hold as much insulation as possible. So, install as much as possible. Again based on what? That is clear above. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Going to IMMlike levels of insulation Not mine. Experts on the topic conclude this. only works if you can stop up each and every one of these micro draughts: I have always said caulk every hole into the loft: around pipes, cables, etc. Also fit a vapour barrier on the loft floor, stapling down, then put insulation over. I sometimes wonde if much more limited ventialtion, and an electrical dehumidifier in the loft might not be a more energy efficient way to keep a cold roof dry, and allow the loft airspace itself to become an insulator... I have always though that may be beneficial. Seal up all vents and install one. The BCO would not like at, as if the de-humidifier fails you have problems. An accurate humidistat would need to be fitted to reduce running costs. There again install a vapour barrier on the loft floor to prevent vapour getting in. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Andy Hall wrote: Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking. Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima. The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3. And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even those. So you studied to build bridges and design electronic boards all in one course. My, oh my. Was this skule in Toytown. Yes. It was in Cambridge. A bulldozer should be run through the lot of it. --- -- Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:54:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message .. . If fuel rises, which it will as cheap energy is coming to an end, then this is meaningless and 450-500mm is the optimum. That's a separate issue. Can you suggest a rate at which fuel prices would need to rise to justify that? Hold a finger to the air. Fuel prices will rise. They always do. Also enviro taxes will start to bite. This is arm waving. But arm waving with realism. All I read is that energy will become more scarce and more expensive. As it becomes more exp[expensive so will insulation too. best pack it in now while it is cheap enough. You will not regret it in the future. This is all qualitative stuff. Yes we know all of that, but the figures are not solid. Do you have energy price projections for 5 and 10 years time? You can make some guesses and take a punt, but that is all it is. See above. In this instance, the cost of totally filling the roof with insulation if you want is not significant so it doesn't matter. My point was that focussing on this alone is misleading. Who said focus on this alone?I never. I said pack in as much as you can while it is cheap as it will not be, neither will energy, in the future. probably sooner than later too. At some point it may well be interesting to do this, but at a saving of a tenner a year, when several hundred quids worth of heat is going out through the walls means that the focus should be on that now and situations where there is no roof insulation at all. Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, I'm nor suggesting it. People who have done the research are. Based on what? See above. Quantitative arguments not qualitative. In terms of return on investment, it may be interesting to do because it is inexpensive, but then the returns are relatively little as well. Loft insulation is cheap and very easy to do compared to other parts of the house. So it is worth packing in as much as possible. I didn't dispute that it was cheap or easy to do, but does result in loss of space or extra timbers etc. to make it usable. That is still cheap and easy to do, even for a DIYer. It doesn't make sense to make an energy saving of 100W in the loft when several kW are going out through the walls. It does, as you can tackle the loft easily and cheaply. You plug as many holes as you can, even the small ones. That is not a reason. It's the difference between turning a light on or not - in cost terms a very small light. My point was that focussing on this, while ignoring other much more significant losses is the wrong focus. There is not much point in saving £10 a year on what goes through the roof if £200 is going through other surfaces. Even if energy goes up in price by a factor of ten, that principle still applies. All that changes is the urgency and the economics not the priority. Ecohouse - A Design Guide says there is no upper limit to insulation, as it will pay for itself eventually. It's very easy to sit down and write airy-fairy books when it's other people's money being spent. Almost anything pays for itself *eventually* - that's a very weak argument. In the book EcoHouse - A Design Guide, they gave a study that calculated in 1987 200mm was the optimum in walls at the then current fuel prices. Based on what? "at the then current fuel prices" On the immediate energy cost or with everything taken into account including replacement sandals for the author? As fuel prices rise and the insulation manufacturing costs too, the whole payback calcs were skewed somewhat. So they calculated insulation levels on energy to make insulation. They came to the thickness of 650mm. The conclusion was that what constrains you is the detailing of the structure to hold as much insulation as possible. So, install as much as possible. Again based on what? That is clear above. You haven't made a convincing case at all. --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Loft Insulation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:03:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Andy Hall wrote: Even if energy loss through the roof were reduced to zero by going to the ridiculous lengths that you are suggesting, if the walls and window losses are not reduced then the difference made is worthless. IMM's uni only taught him about straight lines and binary thinking. Its no good talking to him about curves and maxima/minima. The only curves he ever takes notice of, are on page 3. And when he switched to the socialist worker, he lost track of even those. So you studied to build bridges and design electronic boards all in one course. My, oh my. Was this skule in Toytown. Yes. It was in Cambridge. A bulldozer should be run through the lot of it. Philistine...... --- ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fixing loft boarding *through* insulation and derating cable. | UK diy | |||
Loft insulation | UK diy | |||
Loft Insulation - Best Type and Tips for Installation | UK diy | |||
Loft insulation | UK diy |