Hello everyone,
I am really not a fan of "construction documentaries," as they mostly consist of entertaining horror stories based on real cases (I know quite a few productions) ... but tonight it’s worth checking out a public broadcasting program; here on WDR1.
At 8:15 p.m., there will be a report about who really benefits from external wall insulation. Here is a brief description of the program:
If you want to protect the climate and save money at the same time, you absolutely have to insulate your house walls. At least that is what politicians and the industry claim.
A little over a year ago, WDR presenter Dieter Könnes started researching the topic of external wall insulation. He quickly developed serious doubts about the above statement. Dieter Könnes was able to prove that the savings promises from the industry are exaggerated and that the commonly used material—polystyrene—can be dangerous. In the event of a fire, polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, is very difficult to extinguish.
Following his first film on the subject of external wall insulation, there were strong reactions from insulation manufacturers, who legally challenged the research and the film. This was another reason for Dieter Könnes to continue exploring the insulation of house walls and to find out: What are we actually sticking onto our walls? Do the materials deliver what the industry promises? How has the industry managed to establish such a controversial product on the market? Who profits from the massive consumption of polystyrene insulation boards? The environment? The consumers? Or just the industry?
In his new film, Dieter Könnes meets industry insiders who provide insights behind the scenes of the insulation industry and its questionable business practices. He also questions the role of politics: Why is a single, highly controversial measure subsidized with billions in taxpayer money when it saves far less energy than promised?
Dieter Könnes reveals how closely industry, politics, and lobby groups cooperate regarding thermal insulation. Is everyone really fighting for the climate—or just for their own profit?
So definitely tune in—at least those of you who are considering masonry + ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system).
Best regards, Bauexperte
I am really not a fan of "construction documentaries," as they mostly consist of entertaining horror stories based on real cases (I know quite a few productions) ... but tonight it’s worth checking out a public broadcasting program; here on WDR1.
At 8:15 p.m., there will be a report about who really benefits from external wall insulation. Here is a brief description of the program:
If you want to protect the climate and save money at the same time, you absolutely have to insulate your house walls. At least that is what politicians and the industry claim.
A little over a year ago, WDR presenter Dieter Könnes started researching the topic of external wall insulation. He quickly developed serious doubts about the above statement. Dieter Könnes was able to prove that the savings promises from the industry are exaggerated and that the commonly used material—polystyrene—can be dangerous. In the event of a fire, polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam, is very difficult to extinguish.
Following his first film on the subject of external wall insulation, there were strong reactions from insulation manufacturers, who legally challenged the research and the film. This was another reason for Dieter Könnes to continue exploring the insulation of house walls and to find out: What are we actually sticking onto our walls? Do the materials deliver what the industry promises? How has the industry managed to establish such a controversial product on the market? Who profits from the massive consumption of polystyrene insulation boards? The environment? The consumers? Or just the industry?
In his new film, Dieter Könnes meets industry insiders who provide insights behind the scenes of the insulation industry and its questionable business practices. He also questions the role of politics: Why is a single, highly controversial measure subsidized with billions in taxpayer money when it saves far less energy than promised?
Dieter Könnes reveals how closely industry, politics, and lobby groups cooperate regarding thermal insulation. Is everyone really fighting for the climate—or just for their own profit?
So definitely tune in—at least those of you who are considering masonry + ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system).
Best regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
Sorry, that is not correct. The discussion was about facade insulation in general, whether for renovation or new construction. That is also not correct. The topic was facade insulation using ETICS. At least until the point where I fell asleep a long time ago. Mineral wool was mentioned once as an alternative; I don’t think other alternatives were brought up at all.Putting aside the slightly lower insulation value, the obvious fraudulent practices, and the close ties between industry and testing institutes and research labs—which unfortunately exist everywhere—a particular aspect is quite disappointing: if I understood the article correctly, it mentioned that fire protection regulations are more lenient in private residential construction, meaning that private homeowners could be affected by Germany’s classification of polystyrene as "hardly flammable." Apart from that, I recommend the program "Germany’s Insulation Frenzy" (a ZDF production), which covers topics such as "EIFS is hazardous waste," "algae growth and fungicide treatment," and "the contradiction of an airtight building envelope itself."
So, think carefully before insulating endlessly!
By the way, I didn’t find the film presentation particularly appealing either; it felt unnecessarily sensational.
So, think carefully before insulating endlessly!
By the way, I didn’t find the film presentation particularly appealing either; it felt unnecessarily sensational.
B
Bauexperte18 Nov 2014 16:46Ellie schrieb:
It was mentioned that fire protection regulations are more relaxed in private residential construction, so private homeowners can also be affected by Germany’s classification of polystyrene as "hardly flammable." Yes, that was mainly my point. Whether the post was presented in a "broadcast-friendly" way (otherwise no one will pay attention) doesn’t matter to me at all ;-)Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
Bauexperte schrieb:
Yes, that was mainly my point. I don’t care at all whether the post was “media-ready” (otherwise unfortunately nobody pays attention) ;-)
Best regards,
Bauexperte
BauexperteSo show me burning façades (which were properly installed/plastered) of SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.
And for example, the fire insurance rates masonry single-family houses without external insulation systems and prefabricated houses with external insulation systems the same.
Are there statistics showing that single-family houses with external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS) catch fire more often or behave differently in fires than those without—and that more people get injured?
In the high-rise fires, the ETICS were not installed correctly, for example, without proper firebreaks.
Also, in general: I often smile at some people with their eco-obsession against vapor barriers in prefabricated houses, ETICS, etc.—for the sake of the "indoor climate." But brand-new fleece and functional jackets from Wolfskin & Co. are made of plastic ;-)
B
Bauexperte18 Nov 2014 22:06Good evening,
Perhaps it was misunderstood. I don’t want to badmouth ETICS; every homeowner must decide for themselves what they want to use or not! I simply don’t like the material and would never include it in my offering.
Firstly, it is hazardous waste. Prof. Bielefeld from Siegen University summed it up well: “Currently, we install approximately 40 million square meters of external thermal insulation composite systems each year in Germany, and someday, when the next generation has to renovate these houses, we will have a major economic problem because we will have to remove this hazardous waste from the façades. The removal of insulation is extremely labor-intensive, as shown by a Hamburg new construction project where the insulation boards had to be stripped off before the first resident could move in. 10,000 square meters were improperly glued. The removal took about a year.” [Quote from October this year] To recall: the expected lifespan of ETICS is around 30 years, which roughly corresponds to the payback period. Thus, the question of disposal for every such insulated single-family house is manageable but significant.
What seems even more important to me are the health issues that can arise from styrofoam. Every kilogram contains about seven grams of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). It is intended to prevent fire from spreading quickly on the façade in case of a blaze. HBCD accumulates in the environment and organisms and is suspected of damaging reproductive health. For this reason, the United Nations have imposed a global ban on HBCD. This concerns hardly anyone here. AND – which should not be underestimated – according to the European Union, the use of styrofoam on single-family houses is prohibited because it is classified as combustible in the EU. Germany takes a special approach because otherwise hardly any homeowners could afford the insulation for their homes. However, it does not allow the use of any other material than mineral wool for insulating its public buildings.
If there is a fire (No, I don’t believe houses with ETICS catch fire more often than solidly built structures), we certainly do not need to discuss the black smoke 😉
I could also just laugh about the debate on banning plastic bags right now 🙄
Edit: There is a typo in this post: it should say the lifespan of ETICS is about 30 years, not 20 years; which corresponds roughly to the payback period.
Sorry & best regards, Bauexperte
Cascada schrieb:Ask your local fire department, or I can gladly ask my son-in-law (professional firefighter) to briefly explain the burning process of styrofoam.
So show me burning façades (which were installed/rendered correctly) of SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES.
Perhaps it was misunderstood. I don’t want to badmouth ETICS; every homeowner must decide for themselves what they want to use or not! I simply don’t like the material and would never include it in my offering.
Firstly, it is hazardous waste. Prof. Bielefeld from Siegen University summed it up well: “Currently, we install approximately 40 million square meters of external thermal insulation composite systems each year in Germany, and someday, when the next generation has to renovate these houses, we will have a major economic problem because we will have to remove this hazardous waste from the façades. The removal of insulation is extremely labor-intensive, as shown by a Hamburg new construction project where the insulation boards had to be stripped off before the first resident could move in. 10,000 square meters were improperly glued. The removal took about a year.” [Quote from October this year] To recall: the expected lifespan of ETICS is around 30 years, which roughly corresponds to the payback period. Thus, the question of disposal for every such insulated single-family house is manageable but significant.
What seems even more important to me are the health issues that can arise from styrofoam. Every kilogram contains about seven grams of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). It is intended to prevent fire from spreading quickly on the façade in case of a blaze. HBCD accumulates in the environment and organisms and is suspected of damaging reproductive health. For this reason, the United Nations have imposed a global ban on HBCD. This concerns hardly anyone here. AND – which should not be underestimated – according to the European Union, the use of styrofoam on single-family houses is prohibited because it is classified as combustible in the EU. Germany takes a special approach because otherwise hardly any homeowners could afford the insulation for their homes. However, it does not allow the use of any other material than mineral wool for insulating its public buildings.
If there is a fire (No, I don’t believe houses with ETICS catch fire more often than solidly built structures), we certainly do not need to discuss the black smoke 😉
Cascada schrieb:That’s nothing new ;-)
Also generally: I often smile at some people with their eco-rants against membranes in prefabricated houses, ETICS, etc. – all because of the “indoor climate.” But brand new fleece and performance jackets from Wolfskin & Co. – made from plastic ;-)
I could also just laugh about the debate on banning plastic bags right now 🙄
Edit: There is a typo in this post: it should say the lifespan of ETICS is about 30 years, not 20 years; which corresponds roughly to the payback period.
Sorry & best regards, Bauexperte
W
Wanderdüne18 Nov 2014 23:48Bauexperte schrieb:
...a major economic issue because we have to remove the hazardous waste from the façades again...Or the next generation will thank us for the energy stored in the building envelope, and so on...
And why should this material be removed at all?
Bauexperte schrieb:
Removing the thermal insulation is extremely labor-intensive...10,000 square meters (107,640 square feet) had been improperly glued. The removal takes about a year."Only 40 sqm (430 sq ft) per day—I've known projects that slow as well...
Bauexperte schrieb:
Just as a reminder: a service life of about 20 years is assumed for external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS); roughly the payback period. This means the disposal issue for each insulated single-family home remains manageable.A lifespan of 20 years?
That’s the first time I’m hearing that—where does this figure come from?
Bauexperte schrieb:
...Each kilogram contains approximately seven grams of the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)...That stuff is really serious, even if it’s supposedly permanently bound within the insulation boards.
WD
Similar topics