ᐅ Creating a Plan for Insulating an Old Building – How to Proceed?
Created on: 30 Aug 2022 10:30
T
Tobibi
Hello,
I’m currently trying to make a plan for how to best improve the insulation of our house. I hope I can write everything down clearly so that some of you might be able to give me tips or suggest different approaches.
We bought a large house from 1982, about 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) of living space. There is an approximately 6-year-old heat pump for heating and hot water, and a small wood stove in the living room. The ground floor and first floor have underfloor heating, while three basement rooms and a converted room above the garage have radiators. These radiators have a separate heating circuit with their own flow temperature and are rarely used, actually not at all in the basement.
In the main bedroom on the first floor, the previous owner opened the ceiling a few years ago, creating a high space that goes up to the roof ridge. The roof was insulated at that time, but I don’t have any documentation on how well. The rest of the house remains in its original condition, so basically uninsulated.
The walls are solid brick. The wooden windows have double glazing. Many windows and the front door do not seal well, allowing noticeable drafts at some windows. The top floor ceiling is not concrete but made of joists, covered underneath on the first floor with drywall and boards on top. Between the joists, there appears to be rock wool insulation packed in.
We have a 9 kWp photovoltaic system with battery storage, which the previous owner also installed. As it currently stands, the electricity from the photovoltaic system cannot be used for the heat pump, only for other household electricity. There is a separate meter with a heating electricity contract. Surplus electricity is fed back into the grid.
I recently received the heating electricity bill, showing that from March 2021 to March 2022—one full year—we used about 12,500 kWh for heating and hot water, which I find quite high. I definitely want to take action, especially since electricity prices are rising sharply. I’m not an experienced DIYer, but I can assist and have very helpful father and father-in-law who have a lot of skills. So, some things could be done ourselves, although time is always a factor.
A no-brainer seems to be replacing the window seals and adjusting them so they close tightly again. I am already in contact with a company for this.
Next, I’m thinking about insulating the roller shutter boxes. I would probably get a company to do this as well.
I’m considering insulating the basement ceiling with insulation boards that can be glued or fixed with plugs. If there are instructions available, we would rather do that ourselves. Or should I focus on insulating the top floor ceiling or installing insulation between the rafters? Or both? Probably not at the same time—maybe one this year and the other in a year or two. What would be the better order?
Would it make sense to modify the photovoltaic system so that the electricity can be used for the heat pump? I would have to hire an electrician for that, which costs money. But then the electricity would be usable for heating, and there would be only one basic fee. On the other hand, the yield in winter is not very good, and I would lose the cheaper heating electricity tariff. I once tracked generated, fed-in, self-used, and purchased electricity over a longer period and basically concluded that the conversion might not be worthwhile. But now electricity prices are rising dramatically.
Insulating the facade and/or installing new windows is honestly too expensive for me right now. On the other hand, we will need to have the entire exterior repainted next year or the year after. That costs several thousand when done professionally, which would almost offset the cost of external wall insulation. But presumably, these two should go together—insulation and new windows—because doing only one is not sensible and could cause problems with condensation.
So, that turned out to be quite a long message. I hope it’s understandable. How would you proceed? If I forgot anything, just ask. I might also add a follow-up later.
Best regards,
Tobi
I’m currently trying to make a plan for how to best improve the insulation of our house. I hope I can write everything down clearly so that some of you might be able to give me tips or suggest different approaches.
We bought a large house from 1982, about 200 sqm (2,150 sq ft) of living space. There is an approximately 6-year-old heat pump for heating and hot water, and a small wood stove in the living room. The ground floor and first floor have underfloor heating, while three basement rooms and a converted room above the garage have radiators. These radiators have a separate heating circuit with their own flow temperature and are rarely used, actually not at all in the basement.
In the main bedroom on the first floor, the previous owner opened the ceiling a few years ago, creating a high space that goes up to the roof ridge. The roof was insulated at that time, but I don’t have any documentation on how well. The rest of the house remains in its original condition, so basically uninsulated.
The walls are solid brick. The wooden windows have double glazing. Many windows and the front door do not seal well, allowing noticeable drafts at some windows. The top floor ceiling is not concrete but made of joists, covered underneath on the first floor with drywall and boards on top. Between the joists, there appears to be rock wool insulation packed in.
We have a 9 kWp photovoltaic system with battery storage, which the previous owner also installed. As it currently stands, the electricity from the photovoltaic system cannot be used for the heat pump, only for other household electricity. There is a separate meter with a heating electricity contract. Surplus electricity is fed back into the grid.
I recently received the heating electricity bill, showing that from March 2021 to March 2022—one full year—we used about 12,500 kWh for heating and hot water, which I find quite high. I definitely want to take action, especially since electricity prices are rising sharply. I’m not an experienced DIYer, but I can assist and have very helpful father and father-in-law who have a lot of skills. So, some things could be done ourselves, although time is always a factor.
A no-brainer seems to be replacing the window seals and adjusting them so they close tightly again. I am already in contact with a company for this.
Next, I’m thinking about insulating the roller shutter boxes. I would probably get a company to do this as well.
I’m considering insulating the basement ceiling with insulation boards that can be glued or fixed with plugs. If there are instructions available, we would rather do that ourselves. Or should I focus on insulating the top floor ceiling or installing insulation between the rafters? Or both? Probably not at the same time—maybe one this year and the other in a year or two. What would be the better order?
Would it make sense to modify the photovoltaic system so that the electricity can be used for the heat pump? I would have to hire an electrician for that, which costs money. But then the electricity would be usable for heating, and there would be only one basic fee. On the other hand, the yield in winter is not very good, and I would lose the cheaper heating electricity tariff. I once tracked generated, fed-in, self-used, and purchased electricity over a longer period and basically concluded that the conversion might not be worthwhile. But now electricity prices are rising dramatically.
Insulating the facade and/or installing new windows is honestly too expensive for me right now. On the other hand, we will need to have the entire exterior repainted next year or the year after. That costs several thousand when done professionally, which would almost offset the cost of external wall insulation. But presumably, these two should go together—insulation and new windows—because doing only one is not sensible and could cause problems with condensation.
So, that turned out to be quite a long message. I hope it’s understandable. How would you proceed? If I forgot anything, just ask. I might also add a follow-up later.
Best regards,
Tobi
parcus schrieb:
W·m−1·K−1 compared to thermal conductivity = W/(m·K).Sorry, but what is there to criticize? What else, please, do negative exponents mean if not a fraction?parcus schrieb:
A thermal imaging camera is useless anyway, . . .If you want to criticize our colleague Adam properly: Why can’t thermal imaging cameras be conclusive? Because they only reflect one type of heat loss according to the laws of thermodynamics, namely radiative heat loss.Akillo! schrieb:
If you want to criticize our colleague Adam, do it properly: Why can thermal imaging cameras not be fully reliable? Because they only reflect one type of heat loss according to the laws of thermodynamics, namely radiative losses. Thermal imaging cameras do provide information, but it is not always as clear as it often seems. The images always require a legend, since the color scale adjusts to the maximum and minimum temperatures depending on the settings. Therefore, the images always need to be interpreted.
As I have already mentioned, my interpretation of the images from Adam’s report is that the window frame is better insulated than the walls after treatment with his miracle product, which should not be the case according to calculations. I am open to being convinced otherwise.
Since this topic will likely be searched for by many home builders here: The transmission heat losses of a building occur through conduction, convection, and radiation losses.
A thermal imaging camera can only meaningfully demonstrate reductions in a building’s heating load if the type of insulation reduces all three loss factors proportionally to their share of the total loss.
For XPS/EPS/rigid wool/glass wool/hemp/straw/sawdust insulation, this is generally the case. If you measure the new infrared radiation value after insulation, its reduction corresponds to the total expected reduction in the heating load.
The space industry (from which nanocoatings originate) has faced the challenge of managing the vastly different thermal stresses on spacecraft since the invention of satellites. With a nanocoating, meaning a simple paint, it is possible to equalize the thermal conditions on the sun-facing and shaded sides of, for example, the ISS. The key point, however, is that in space there is no convection or heat transfer through conduction due to the vacuum environment. In other words, it can be arranged so that no one burns their hand on the inside of the sun-exposed side of the ISS, nor freezes their backside by pressing it against the shaded side.
But why do high-temperature resistant ceramic materials protect the space capsule during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere? The answer: Not because NASA or Elon Musk are careless, but because the nanocoating only blocks radiant heat, not convection or conduction.
Nanocoatings therefore reduce the proportion of radiation in transmission heat losses—and they do so quite effectively. Precise values for the infrared portion in masonry/wood/plastic/metal sheets are not available online. The convection share likely depends heavily on wind exposure. The conduction share depends on the moisture content of the outside air. So, depending on weather conditions, these shares fluctuate. Ironically, when the heating load increases due to weather (wind chill/heavy rain), the infrared proportion decreases. This involves longwave infrared radiation, whereas solar gains come from shortwave infrared radiation.
The reduction of longwave infrared radiation achievable through a nanocoating probably accounts for a low single-digit percentage of transmission heat losses and would not be a practical recommendation compared to the obvious costs, even assuming an efficiency close to 100%—expressed as a pseudo-lambda value of about 0.000049.
Extremely high insulation levels exist in high-vacuum thermal storage units, which have a half-life of up to nine months. They are suitable for seasonal storage of sensitive heat. Their design is clear: double-walled with the space in between filled with an infrared-reflective granulate.
Similarly, vacuum insulation panels claim to achieve a lambda value of 0.004. If the creation of a sufficiently high vacuum inside the material is actually feasible from a processing standpoint, such a value is realistic. However, their cost is likely not attractive. They are sensible when space is limited or a slim, aesthetically pleasing design is desired.
A thermal imaging camera can only meaningfully demonstrate reductions in a building’s heating load if the type of insulation reduces all three loss factors proportionally to their share of the total loss.
For XPS/EPS/rigid wool/glass wool/hemp/straw/sawdust insulation, this is generally the case. If you measure the new infrared radiation value after insulation, its reduction corresponds to the total expected reduction in the heating load.
The space industry (from which nanocoatings originate) has faced the challenge of managing the vastly different thermal stresses on spacecraft since the invention of satellites. With a nanocoating, meaning a simple paint, it is possible to equalize the thermal conditions on the sun-facing and shaded sides of, for example, the ISS. The key point, however, is that in space there is no convection or heat transfer through conduction due to the vacuum environment. In other words, it can be arranged so that no one burns their hand on the inside of the sun-exposed side of the ISS, nor freezes their backside by pressing it against the shaded side.
But why do high-temperature resistant ceramic materials protect the space capsule during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere? The answer: Not because NASA or Elon Musk are careless, but because the nanocoating only blocks radiant heat, not convection or conduction.
Nanocoatings therefore reduce the proportion of radiation in transmission heat losses—and they do so quite effectively. Precise values for the infrared portion in masonry/wood/plastic/metal sheets are not available online. The convection share likely depends heavily on wind exposure. The conduction share depends on the moisture content of the outside air. So, depending on weather conditions, these shares fluctuate. Ironically, when the heating load increases due to weather (wind chill/heavy rain), the infrared proportion decreases. This involves longwave infrared radiation, whereas solar gains come from shortwave infrared radiation.
The reduction of longwave infrared radiation achievable through a nanocoating probably accounts for a low single-digit percentage of transmission heat losses and would not be a practical recommendation compared to the obvious costs, even assuming an efficiency close to 100%—expressed as a pseudo-lambda value of about 0.000049.
Extremely high insulation levels exist in high-vacuum thermal storage units, which have a half-life of up to nine months. They are suitable for seasonal storage of sensitive heat. Their design is clear: double-walled with the space in between filled with an infrared-reflective granulate.
Similarly, vacuum insulation panels claim to achieve a lambda value of 0.004. If the creation of a sufficiently high vacuum inside the material is actually feasible from a processing standpoint, such a value is realistic. However, their cost is likely not attractive. They are sensible when space is limited or a slim, aesthetically pleasing design is desired.
C
chand198624 Jul 2024 15:58Akillo! schrieb:
Because this topic will surely be searched for by many home builders here: The transmission heat losses of a building occur through conduction, convection, and radiation losses.
A thermal imaging camera can only meaningfully demonstrate reductions in a building’s heating load if the type of insulation reduces all three loss factors proportionally to their share of the total loss.
With XPS/EPS/mineral wool/glass wool/hemp/straw/sawdust insulation, this is generally the case. Measuring the new infrared radiation value after insulation corresponds to the total expected reduction in heating load.
The aerospace industry (from which nano coatings originate) has faced the challenge of managing strongly varying thermal stresses on spacecraft since the invention of the satellite. With a nano coating—simply a paint—it is possible to balance the thermal conditions on the sun-facing and shaded sides of, for example, the ISS. The crucial point is that in space there is neither convection nor heat dissipation because of the vacuum. Figuratively speaking, this means that no one inside the ISS burns their hand on the sun-facing interior side, nor freezes their backside on the shaded side. But why do high-temperature-resistant ceramic materials protect the space capsule during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere? The answer: not because NASA or Elon Musk are uninformed, but because the nano coating only blocks radiant heat, not convection or conduction.
Nano coatings therefore only reduce the radiation component of transmission heat losses—and quite effectively at that. Exact values for the infrared share in masonry/wood/plastic/metal surfaces are not available online. The convection component likely varies greatly depending on wind exposure. The conduction component depends on the moisture content of the outside air. Thus, depending on weather conditions, the shares fluctuate. And precisely when the heating demand increases due to weather (wind chill/heavy rain), the infrared radiation component decreases. This concerns long-wave infrared radiation, whereas solar gains consist of short-wave infrared radiation.
The long-wave infrared radiation reduced by a nano coating probably accounts for a low single-digit percentage of the transmission heat losses and, even assuming an almost 100% effective performance — expressed in a pseudo lambda value of, for example, 0.000049 — does not offer a real recommendation compared to the obvious costs.
Extremely high insulation exists in high vacuum storage units, which can retain half of their heat for up to nine months. They are therefore suitable for seasonal storage of sensitive heat. Their design is clearly double-walled, with the cavity filled with an infrared-reflective granulate.
Similarly, vacuum insulation panels claim a lambda value of 0.004. Provided that a sufficiently high vacuum can actually be achieved during production, such a value would be realistic. However, the price is likely prohibitive. In tight spaces or where a slim aesthetic is desired, they may make sense. All correct. I’m just taking the liberty to translate the whole thing:
Radiation accounts for by far the smallest portion of heat losses in a building. But only these radiation losses are affected by the coating.
Fun fact: In our atmosphere, with water vapor and CO2, this effect is actually minimized by the greenhouse effect of these two gases, because part of the radiation emission in the long-wave infrared range is effectively slowed down, making radiation losses even less significant.
The claimed effect at its alleged magnitude is physically impossible, as has already been explained multiple times to the enthusiastic “salesperson” here. Physics applies even to those who chose to skip it. Learning effect: zero
Similar topics