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
|
|||
|
|||
Insulation, when is more not better
I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Dipper wrote:
I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? Yes. If you've correctly calculated the U value. You do know that you can't add U values to get the value of the composite wall, but have to add the R values to get a composite R value, then convert that to a U value (R=1/U) My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. U value gives you the number of watts per square meter at a 1K (1C) difference. To get the number of average watts you'll need to overcome the heat lost from the walls, you take the average temperature difference (in C), multiply by the area of the walls, multiply this by the U value, and you'r there. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:09:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish Sir IMM Even at 2.55 the insulation is costing more than the blocks/sand/cement. My outside wall has a lean on it, I intend to fill the whole space with insulation, giving some 8 - 10 inches of the stuff at the top of the wall. 8-10 inches of celotex is mind blowingly expensive. 200mm Rockwall at 0.037 = 5.54 + blocks .6666 Comes out at 0.16, getting down to 0.1 is gonna make for some very expensive walls. The idea of more insulation at the top of the walls feels good, heat rises, so the tempertaure difference is bigger at the top. My room will be 3 meters high of walls, with 2 more meters to the top of the pointed roof. Thanks Rick |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish No he shouldn't ! The L regs require 0.35. Of course doing better than this is a good thing but you are better off spending the money improving other heat losses - windows and doors for example. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"G&M" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish No he shouldn't ! He should. The L regs require 0.35. Which is pathetic and is going to be increased over the next 4 years. Of course doing better than this is a good thing Sense at last. but you are better off spending the money improving other heat losses - windows and doors for example. He is probably doing that already. He is better off getting the walls to 0.1ish, as once done it is difficult, and very expensive, to uprate. It is common simple logic. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
IMM wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish It kind of depends on the property. 0.1U would here (on all walls, floor and ceiling) result in overheating most of the time except in sub-zero temps from the ambient electrical load, and human inhabitents, not to mention solar gain. If going from 0.25 to 0.1 costs around 1500 quid extra (and incidentally knocks 50 cubic meters off the habitable space), saving me no money, unless it goes below 10C outside (heating set to 20C now) and vanishingly small amounts if it does. (currently I reckon the overall insulation is about 900W/K, with the walls having a U of about 2.4) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Aug 2004 20:34:13 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote: IMM wrote: "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish It kind of depends on the property. 0.1U would here (on all walls, floor and ceiling) result in overheating most of the time except in sub-zero temps from the ambient electrical load, and human inhabitents, not to mention solar gain. If going from 0.25 to 0.1 costs around 1500 quid extra (and incidentally knocks 50 cubic meters off the habitable space), saving me no money, unless it goes below 10C outside (heating set to 20C now) and vanishingly small amounts if it does. (currently I reckon the overall insulation is about 900W/K, with the walls having a U of about 2.4) Which works out at about 10 pence of elcetric an hour, that sounds good to me, especailly if we go geo-thermal and get it down to 2.5 pence an hour. Thanks Ian, I now see a second problem of overinsulation, overheating. Rick |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... On 20 Aug 2004 20:34:13 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote: IMM wrote: "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish It kind of depends on the property. 0.1U would here (on all walls, floor and ceiling) result in overheating most of the time except in sub-zero temps from the ambient electrical load, and human inhabitents, not to mention solar gain. If going from 0.25 to 0.1 costs around 1500 quid extra (and incidentally knocks 50 cubic meters off the habitable space), saving me no money, unless it goes below 10C outside (heating set to 20C now) and vanishingly small amounts if it does. (currently I reckon the overall insulation is about 900W/K, with the walls having a U of about 2.4) Which works out at about 10 pence of elcetric an hour, that sounds good to me, especailly if we go geo-thermal and get it down to 2.5 pence an hour. Thanks Ian, I now see a second problem of overinsulation, overheating. There is no problem of overheating. Where do they come from? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... Thanks Ian, I now see a second problem of overinsulation, overheating. This can happen in some very modern highly insulated houses but for most of us doing up existing houses it ain't going to happen. There will always be thermal bridges and so on leaking heat. And if it does happen all one has to do is use low energy lighting and so on. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish It kind of depends on the property. 0.1U would here (on all walls, floor and ceiling) result in overheating most of the time except in sub-zero temps from the ambient electrical load, and human inhabitents, not to mention solar gain. You install adequate ventilation. If going from 0.25 to 0.1 costs around 1500 quid extra (and incidentally knocks 50 cubic meters off the habitable space), saving me no money, unless it goes below 10C outside (heating set to 20C now) and vanishingly small amounts if it does. (currently I reckon the overall insulation is about 900W/K, with the walls having a U of about 2.4) 0.1ish is the point where a 2000 squ foot house does not require a full heating system. So this extra £1500 is clawed back by not installing a full heating system. As oil is not getting cheaper, it is a worthwhile investment for the future. Also the insulation will keep out heat in the summer. All makes sense. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ian
Stirling wrote: If going from 0.25 to 0.1 costs around 1500 quid extra (and incidentally knocks 50 cubic meters off the habitable space) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Given that more than a few buildings are constrained by having to be x from the boundary or some other limitation, increasing the wall insulation thickness reduces the internal floor area. This is more than just 'incidental' IMO. -- Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
IMM wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish 0.3 is adequate. Imm is talking ********. Don't ingore the rest of the walls either. They make a significant, but not dominating, contribution. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... IMM wrote: "Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K 0.255 is poor. You should be aiming for 0.1ish 0.3 is adequate. Imm is talking ********. You really don't, know do you. 0.1ish is the aim. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Aug 2004 17:39:33 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote: Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? Yes. If you've correctly calculated the U value. You do know that you can't add U values to get the value of the composite wall, but have to add the R values to get a composite R value, then convert that to a U value (R=1/U) My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. U value gives you the number of watts per square meter at a 1K (1C) difference. To get the number of average watts you'll need to overcome the heat lost from the walls, you take the average temperature difference (in C), multiply by the area of the walls, multiply this by the U value, and you'r there. Thanks I got U values by doing 100mm blocks / 0.15 (from makers website) = .6666 50mm celotex / 0.023 = 2.1739 60mm rockwall / 0.037 = 1.6216 All those up = 4.4621 1/4.4621 = 0.224 on a cold winters day, 24 degress difference, 75 square meters of wall 75*24*0.224 = 40.32 watts required of heat input to maintain stable temperature assuming no loss from other means. That does not sound very much to me, the coolong from wind will be close to zero, the house is well sheltered desined so the windy side has no doors/windws at all, and the insulation is protected with some 600mm of stone walls. Any idea of the values for a slate/lime mortar stone/rubble wall ? Thanks Rick |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Dipper wrote:
On 20 Aug 2004 17:39:33 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote: Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? Yes. If you've correctly calculated the U value. You do know that you can't add U values to get the value of the composite wall, but have to add the R values to get a composite R value, then convert that to a U value (R=1/U) My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. U value gives you the number of watts per square meter at a 1K (1C) difference. To get the number of average watts you'll need to overcome the heat lost from the walls, you take the average temperature difference (in C), multiply by the area of the walls, multiply this by the U value, and you'r there. Thanks I got U values by doing 100mm blocks / 0.15 (from makers website) = .6666 50mm celotex / 0.023 = 2.1739 60mm rockwall / 0.037 = 1.6216 All those up = 4.4621 1/4.4621 = 0.224 Assuming you've got the above numbers correct (and they look ballpark) then that's right. on a cold winters day, 24 degress difference, 75 square meters of wall 75*24*0.224 = 40.32 watts required of heat input to maintain stable temperature assuming no loss from other means. Sounds about right. That does not sound very much to me, the coolong from wind will be close to zero, the house is well sheltered desined so the windy side has no doors/windws at all, and the insulation is protected with some 600mm of stone walls. Any idea of the values for a slate/lime mortar stone/rubble wall ? A 1m sandstone wall has a U of about 2.4. In other words, it's slightly worse than 50mm of celotex. (rather higher thermal mass though) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... A 1m sandstone wall has a U of about 2.4. Yes In other words, it's slightly worse than 50mm of celotex. Nope. 50mm of Celotex has a U value of 0.46 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
G&M wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... A 1m sandstone wall has a U of about 2.4. Yes In other words, it's slightly worse than 50mm of celotex. Nope. 50mm of Celotex has a U value of 0.46 For large values of slightly I think I meant to type 10mm, but got confused. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. For heat loss purposes, the stone wall inner face will have an averaging effect on the temperature as seen by the outside of the insulation Assuming that you can accomodate the extra thickness of Rockwool and don't mind working with it I would do the same heat loss calculations for the roof and compare the overall figures. Normally the roof space and the totality of the windows have about the same heat losses as one another and account together for approximately the other half vis-a-vis the walls. It does all depend on sizes of course. ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:19:22 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. For heat loss purposes, the stone wall inner face will have an averaging effect on the temperature as seen by the outside of the insulation Assuming that you can accomodate the extra thickness of Rockwool and don't mind working with it I would do the same heat loss calculations for the roof and compare the overall figures. Normally the roof space and the totality of the windows have about the same heat losses as one another and account together for approximately the other half vis-a-vis the walls. It does all depend on sizes of course. Thanks Andy, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, the stone wall is on the outside, I think you think its on the inside. Doing the figure for the roof sort of imples that we have designed it, we have some sketches and strength caculations but have not got much further, thats for a cold winters night. .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:24:48 GMT, Rick Dipper
wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:19:22 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. For heat loss purposes, the stone wall inner face will have an averaging effect on the temperature as seen by the outside of the insulation Assuming that you can accomodate the extra thickness of Rockwool and don't mind working with it I would do the same heat loss calculations for the roof and compare the overall figures. Normally the roof space and the totality of the windows have about the same heat losses as one another and account together for approximately the other half vis-a-vis the walls. It does all depend on sizes of course. Thanks Andy, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, the stone wall is on the outside, I think you think its on the inside. No, sorry. I did mean that the wall is on the outside as you describe but did not describe it as well as I should have done. What I meant was that if you treated the outside wall as not existing as you were for insulation calculation, you have outside temperature. If you add the wall back in, you have not only its U value (which will make things better), but more importantly a huge thermal mass. The effect of that will be to stabilise the temperature to some extent at the point where the insulation meets the outer wall. Therefore, looking at your model of effectively ignoring the wall, the effect will be to give a much more stable "outside" temperature - in other words you won't need to account for the extremities of temperature unless they last a long time. It is hard to say whether this has a big overall effect on energy use averaged over time, but if the temperature can be maintained in a more stable way inside, you are less likely to want to reach for the thermostat. Doing the figure for the roof sort of imples that we have designed it, we have some sketches and strength caculations but have not got much further, thats for a cold winters night. There are tables of U values for roof structures in the building regulations. To a first approximation, you can simply factor in the U value of the insulation. By comparing the relative areas and losses of the walls roof and windows, you can then figure out where the cost/benefit comes. .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl ..andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... What I meant was that if you treated the outside wall as not existing as you were for insulation calculation, you have outside temperature. If you add the wall back in, you have not only its U value but not much - even 2 feet of stone has a very poor insulation value. but more importantly a huge thermal mass. This is more important though. However one has to be careful not to end up with a thermal lag so bad that south facing living rooms stay cold all day and need more heat than expected to keep them warm until evening when they suddenly warm up dramatically. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"G&M" wrote in message ... "Andy Hall" wrote in message ... What I meant was that if you treated the outside wall as not existing as you were for insulation calculation, you have outside temperature. If you add the wall back in, you have not only its U value but not much - even 2 feet of stone has a very poor insulation value. but more importantly a huge thermal mass. This is more important though. However one has to be careful not to end up with a thermal lag so bad that south facing living rooms stay cold all day and need more heat than expected to keep them warm until evening when they suddenly warm up dramatically. If south facing you enlarge windows and use passive solar gain. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:06:11 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:24:48 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:19:22 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. For heat loss purposes, the stone wall inner face will have an averaging effect on the temperature as seen by the outside of the insulation Assuming that you can accomodate the extra thickness of Rockwool and don't mind working with it I would do the same heat loss calculations for the roof and compare the overall figures. Normally the roof space and the totality of the windows have about the same heat losses as one another and account together for approximately the other half vis-a-vis the walls. It does all depend on sizes of course. Thanks Andy, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, the stone wall is on the outside, I think you think its on the inside. No, sorry. I did mean that the wall is on the outside as you describe but did not describe it as well as I should have done. What I meant was that if you treated the outside wall as not existing as you were for insulation calculation, you have outside temperature. If you add the wall back in, you have not only its U value (which will make things better), but more importantly a huge thermal mass. The effect of that will be to stabilise the temperature to some extent at the point where the insulation meets the outer wall. Therefore, looking at your model of effectively ignoring the wall, the effect will be to give a much more stable "outside" temperature - in other words you won't need to account for the extremities of temperature unless they last a long time. It is hard to say whether this has a big overall effect on energy use averaged over time, but if the temperature can be maintained in a more stable way inside, you are less likely to want to reach for the thermostat. Doing the figure for the roof sort of imples that we have designed it, we have some sketches and strength caculations but have not got much further, thats for a cold winters night. There are tables of U values for roof structures in the building regulations. To a first approximation, you can simply factor in the U value of the insulation. By comparing the relative areas and losses of the walls roof and windows, you can then figure out where the cost/benefit comes. Thanks Andy, now I understand. The building your own house is a good way to learn how this stuff works. Experience in the bit of the house we live in now suggest that once its hot inside it stays hot, but getting it up from cold is a real nightmare. At a guess, - the underfloor heating needs massive insulation below it, as its the hottest place, the area being much smaller than the walls its also quite cheep to do. - The windows need to be good, especially the one in the point of the roof where all the heat rises too. and the sliding door in the master bedroom. This one needs some thinking about, windows can eat up *LOTS* of money. - The roof itsself will need pleanty, not only to stop loss in winter, but to stop gain in summer. The ammount of money I can save on the extra 12% in the wall, will double the insulation in the roof. - Also the money saved can be better spent insulating the 2 rooms that we have not rebuilt, that simply have stone walls. Thanks for all your advice, I feel much happier now. I really did not want to save a pile of cash now so I could regret it for 25 years to come. Rick .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl .andy To email, substitute .nospam with .gl |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Dipper wrote:
- Also the money saved can be better spent insulating the 2 rooms that we have not rebuilt, that simply have stone walls. Having just had to buy loads of foil faced PIR foam, one thing worth doing is shopping around. I saved over 1500 quid on the price of celotex as quoted by a builders merchant! It is still not cheap (about 12 quid for a 8x4 50mm sheet) but a factor of two to three times variation in price between suppliers is not uncommon it seems. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:06:11 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:24:48 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:19:22 +0100, Andy Hall wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. For heat loss purposes, the stone wall inner face will have an averaging effect on the temperature as seen by the outside of the insulation Assuming that you can accomodate the extra thickness of Rockwool and don't mind working with it I would do the same heat loss calculations for the roof and compare the overall figures. Normally the roof space and the totality of the windows have about the same heat losses as one another and account together for approximately the other half vis-a-vis the walls. It does all depend on sizes of course. Thanks Andy, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, the stone wall is on the outside, I think you think its on the inside. No, sorry. I did mean that the wall is on the outside as you describe but did not describe it as well as I should have done. What I meant was that if you treated the outside wall as not existing as you were for insulation calculation, you have outside temperature. If you add the wall back in, you have not only its U value (which will make things better), but more importantly a huge thermal mass. The effect of that will be to stabilise the temperature to some extent at the point where the insulation meets the outer wall. Therefore, looking at your model of effectively ignoring the wall, the effect will be to give a much more stable "outside" temperature - in other words you won't need to account for the extremities of temperature unless they last a long time. It is hard to say whether this has a big overall effect on energy use averaged over time, but if the temperature can be maintained in a more stable way inside, you are less likely to want to reach for the thermostat. Doing the figure for the roof sort of imples that we have designed it, we have some sketches and strength caculations but have not got much further, thats for a cold winters night. There are tables of U values for roof structures in the building regulations. To a first approximation, you can simply factor in the U value of the insulation. By comparing the relative areas and losses of the walls roof and windows, you can then figure out where the cost/benefit comes. Thanks Andy, now I understand. The building your own house is a good way to learn how this stuff works. Experience in the bit of the house we live in now suggest that once its hot inside it stays hot, but getting it up from cold is a real nightmare. At a guess, - the underfloor heating needs massive insulation below it, as its the hottest place, the area being much smaller than the walls its also quite cheep to do. - The windows need to be good, especially the one in the point of the roof where all the heat rises too. You can fit a duct that is built into the wall that fans this hot air back to ground level. and the sliding door in the master bedroom. This one needs some thinking about, windows can eat up *LOTS* of money. - The roof itsself will need pleanty, not only to stop loss in winter, but to stop gain in summer. The ammount of money I can save on the extra 12% in the wall, will double the insulation in the roof. It is not a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. You insulate properly, 0.1ish for the walls. Buy the book, The Whole House Book, all is there, all the figures. Don't rely on the advise of inexperienced people making it up. - Also the money saved can be better spent insulating the 2 rooms that we have not rebuilt, that simply have stone walls. Thanks for all your advice, I feel much happier now. I really did not want to save a pile of cash now so I could regret it for 25 years to come. Spend more on insulation and eliminate a full hearting system. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Andy Hall" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:43:23 GMT, Rick Dipper wrote: I have worked out the U values of the insulation I intend to use in my cavity walls, I have 2 solutions 1) Blocks -celotex-rockwall = 0.224 W/m2K 2) Blocks -2 * rockwall = 0.255 W/m2K I did not take account of the external wall, plaster, mortar or wall ties in working out these figures. The external walls are 600mm stone walls. Normally I would go for option 1, but its arround twice the cost of option 2, a whole lot more difficult to install (I am building the inner wall second) and there is not a big difference in the insulation values. Any ideas on how I work out if its worth it ? Is it as simple as working out the temperature difference, the surface area of the wall, to work out the loss via the wall, and then mutiply by the cost of a watt of heat ? My thoughts right now are to save the money, and use it to put extra into the roofspace. Thanks Rick taking Ian's point that you have to add the reciprocals of the U values of the different insulations and then the reciprocal of that to combine them, and assuming the figures you have above are right, then the discussion is about the second decimal place and in effect a 12% difference. This is not significant.. You also have the effect of the stone. By insulating, you are altering the thermal time constant of the inside of the house. It will heat up and cool down quickly. Not that quickly as he has block on the inside. He should use normal plaster on the block to give access to the thermal mass of the blocks. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
IMM wrote:
"Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. No, it's not. If you end up living in a 2m*2m*1m box, and having to constantly actively cool, then you've probably put too much on. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. Dave -- Some people use windows, others have a life. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Dave 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. -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
IMM wrote:
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message 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. It is safe to assume you will still want hot water, hence you still need a boiler. Yes you can fit fewer or smaller radiators but that does not represent much capital cost saving (given that you can install a full heating system for under 3K - you may only save 1K capital outlay). You seem to be recommending spending several times that cost in PIR foam alone before you get onto ventilation with heat recovery. It may take a lifetime to recover the capital costs in reduced energy usage. 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, Sorry - but this is nonsense. No amount of insulation will have a "cooling effect". More insulation will reduce the rate of heat gain inside the house, but will also ensure that once it has gained the heat (which it inevitably will) it will be harder to dissipate it. It will only take a few days of hot humid weather to get the inside of the house unpleasantly hot - no matter how well you insulate it. You still need windows (which are not going to have u values of 0.1), you still get solar gain, and you still need to open doors to get in and out of the building, allowing air changes. Insulation to the point of not requiring a full heating system is a win, win Not if you reach the point of never recovering from the environmental impact of building the thing, during the lifetime of the property. Not if you never recover the capital outlay in lower energy bills. situation all the way. All the knowledgeable experts who write on this subject all agree that superinsulation is well worth it. Where "knowledgeable" = supports your point of view no doubt? You can generally find experts who will support any point of view you choose, so this is not really adding any weight to the argument. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! ??? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Tom" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! ??? Sorry, I was just making the point that whereas increasing the insulation on a plane surface is always additive hence your supposition "more is better", on a pipe it is not so. Sorry to butt in. Cheers Tom |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Tom" wrote in message ... "IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! ??? Sorry, I was just making the point that whereas increasing the insulation on a plane surface is always additive hence your supposition "more is better", on a pipe it is not so. It depends on what you want to do with the insulation around the pipe. If you want to prevent heat from a pipe heating up say a cupboard, then more is better. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Tom wrote:
"IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! Even around a pipe, but to a much, much lower degree. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Tom wrote: "IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! Even around a pipe, but to a much, much lower degree. On a pipe, I assume the surface area of the insulation increases by a factor of approx 6.3 times the thickness of the insulation, I'm afraid my maths is not good enough to work out at which point it starts to be non effective. Perhaps there are some mathematicians out there that can help on this one.? Tom |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Tom wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message ... Tom wrote: "IMM" wrote in message ... "Rick Dipper" wrote in message ... More is always better. Except around a pipe!! Even around a pipe, but to a much, much lower degree. On a pipe, I assume the surface area of the insulation increases by a factor of approx 6.3 times the thickness of the insulation, I'm afraid my maths is not good enough to work out at which point it starts to be non effective. Perhaps there are some mathematicians out there that can help on this one.? It never starts to be non-effective, it's always better than air. It rapidly starts to have a vanishingly small effect. Consider the heat flow. The heat flow from the surface of the pipe is the same as the heat flow from the surface of the insulation. (once it's all reached steady temps) This means that the temperature difference across the last little bit of insulation depends on its area. So, at ten times the pipe diameter, the insulation is only doing 1/10th as good a job as that just next to the pipe. If you need a very well insulated pipe (or worse, tank that's small compared to the insulation) then it usually pays to buy some really expensive insulation to put next to the pipe, For example, considering the insulation at various numbers of times the pipe diameter from the surface of the pipe. (1 is next to the pipe) Distance from pipe Relative insulation 1 1 2 1/2 3 1/3 4 1/4 5 1/5 Total=2.28 (this is inaccurate, finer and finer graduations would give a more accurate idea, but this is ballpark) So the last fifth has contributed about a tenth. But it's a third of the total volume. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Idea for crawl INSULATION falling down | Home Repair | |||
Is it possible to find wire insulation faults without a visual exam? | Home Repair | |||
Is it possible to find wire insulation faults without a visual exam? | Home Ownership | |||
Best possible insulation for 2x4 walls? | Home Ownership | |||
Fixing loft boarding *through* insulation and derating cable. | UK diy |