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
W
Wanderdüne19 Nov 2014 09:29Saruss schrieb:
There is a very real pollution problem with plastic bags, especially in water bodies, because many people dispose of them improperly.If I catch someone stealing my plastic bag from the recycling bin and then just throwing it into the North Sea, Atlantic, or Pacific...
D
DerBjoern19 Nov 2014 09:59Ellie schrieb:
Apart from that, I recommend the program "Germany’s Insulation Mania" (ZDF production), which covers topics such as "EIFS as hazardous waste," "Algae growth and fungicide treatment," and "The contradiction of having an airtight building envelope in itself."However, the program on ZDF originates from the same mindset...
D
DerBjoern19 Nov 2014 11:00And anyone who believes that other insulation materials are significantly better in terms of harmful substances should avoid researching further, or they might end up feeling completely uncomfortable in their own home. Glass wool and mineral wool are also considered hazardous waste, which means they must be disposed of at a hazardous waste facility. They can only be recycled if they are reused again as insulation material. An alternative is landfill disposal... This is partly due to the fact that they do not consist of purely natural materials as many believe, but require "artificial" additives to maintain their structure. For example, phenol-formaldehyde resin (a type of plastic) is used as a binder. Formaldehyde should be well known. Phenol serves as an intermediate in the production of plastics and is also considered toxic. When heated above 200°C (392°F), these substances are released as vapors. Okay, the smoke may not be black, but I certainly wouldn’t want to inhale it either 😉
B
Bauexperte19 Nov 2014 14:30Hello,
You need to look beyond your own horizon; that means you should check information from neighboring countries. Where polystyrene is banned as external wall insulation; if you don’t speak another language, the Swiss websites will do in a pinch. Interesting in this context: the Prognose research institute was commissioned by KfW to prepare a study showing the pros and cons. After publication, KfW’s leadership did not like the results, and promptly issued a rebuttal—of course, much to the applause of the insulation industry, which makes billions with its polystyrene boards. As an honest remark @DerBjoern: regarding the Fraunhofer Institute, I have come down to earth; somewhat disillusioned.
The symposium at the EMPA Academy in Dübendorf on March 22, 2000, primarily dealt with well-known building defects caused by mold inside buildings and algae growths on facades. The actual causes were not revealed to the attendees. One of the contributors to these damages is EMPA itself, because by exclusively favoring pure thermal insulation materials to supposedly save energy in heated buildings, it neglects the established principles of building science. EMPA, as the research department of the ETH, has long neglected the technically necessary investigations in this field. Mold and algae growth on exterior walls are the direct consequences of using unsuitable materials applied to facades to reduce energy consumption.
Mostly, polystyrene is used for external insulation.
The durability of the applied synthetic render is low because organic binders are not weather-resistant. To avoid cracking, usually only light or white renders are used, which largely reflect sunlight, resulting in poor use of passive solar energy.
Polystyrene as facade insulation poses, as several fire incidents have demonstrated, an unacceptable fire hazard, and resonance effects lead to disturbing construction defects in terms of acoustics. Since polystyrene is waterproof and therefore prevents moisture transport through external walls, indoor relative humidity rises to over 60 percent in winter, favoring the formation of dust mites.
Source: Dipl.-Ing. and architect Paul Bossert*, Dietikon
The same study also concluded:
The costs of energy-efficient building renovations significantly exceed the savings, according to a study by the Prognose research institute commissioned by the state development bank KfW on the costs and benefits of the energy transition, which "Welt" has obtained. The additional expenses for new, highly energy-efficient residential buildings will also not pay off.
Investments cannot be "financed solely from the saved energy costs," KfW writes in the report. The German federal government aims to reduce heating energy consumption in residential buildings by 80 percent by 2050 to cut carbon dioxide emissions. For this reason, the Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV) has repeatedly been tightened in the past. Since 1993, according to the Federal Association of Thermal Insulation Composite Systems, 769.1 million square meters of insulation panels have been applied to German houses—a surface area larger than the city-state of Hamburg.
However, whether these enormous costs are justified has never been examined by any government. The Prognose study is the first calculation on this. To meet the energy-saving targets, "housing industry investments" totaling 838 billion euros will be required by 2050. However, energy cost savings of only 370 billion euros were calculated by the Prognose researchers.
This results in a total net loss of 468 billion euros. Owners, tenants, and taxpayers will have to cover these costs directly, indirectly, or through funding programs, contributing to the energy transition. "The study shows that the energy-saving requirements are devoid of any economic reason," says Thomas Beyerle, chief researcher at the real estate company IVG. According to calculations by the German Energy Agency, for a single-family home built to current Energy Saving Ordinance standards, out of total costs of 400 euros per square meter of living space, 115 euros are due to energy-saving additional costs alone. For an especially efficient new building, which consumes only 55 percent of the allowable calculated energy use, this price rises to 540 euros per square meter, of which 250 euros are additional energy-saving measures. There is no end in sight to price increases: in 2014 and 2016, the federal government planned to raise requirements by 12.5 percent each time.
Source: Financial news and dts news agency 2013
Why only up to 30 years (sorry, that was a typo) is very well explained in this book:
Thermal Insulation Regulation and Economic Efficiency. Comparison of External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems and Cavity Wall Construction
Menkhoff, Herbert; Essen; Private publication
Dismantling = removing the system, cutting the anchors, breaking off remaining mortar lumps
This takes time and has nothing to do with the executing craft business.
Regards, Bauexperte
Wanderdüne schrieb:Hardly, because the ETICS will be outdated by then...
Either the next generation will thank us for the energy stored in the building insulation on the house wall, or...
Wanderdüne schrieb:I would have expected those questions from other users, not from you (probably because my question regarding your professional qualifications is still open, and I don’t want to make assumptions about anyone).
And why should that stuff be removed at all? A service life of 20 years? That’s the first time I’m hearing that – where does that number come from?
You need to look beyond your own horizon; that means you should check information from neighboring countries. Where polystyrene is banned as external wall insulation; if you don’t speak another language, the Swiss websites will do in a pinch. Interesting in this context: the Prognose research institute was commissioned by KfW to prepare a study showing the pros and cons. After publication, KfW’s leadership did not like the results, and promptly issued a rebuttal—of course, much to the applause of the insulation industry, which makes billions with its polystyrene boards. As an honest remark @DerBjoern: regarding the Fraunhofer Institute, I have come down to earth; somewhat disillusioned.
The symposium at the EMPA Academy in Dübendorf on March 22, 2000, primarily dealt with well-known building defects caused by mold inside buildings and algae growths on facades. The actual causes were not revealed to the attendees. One of the contributors to these damages is EMPA itself, because by exclusively favoring pure thermal insulation materials to supposedly save energy in heated buildings, it neglects the established principles of building science. EMPA, as the research department of the ETH, has long neglected the technically necessary investigations in this field. Mold and algae growth on exterior walls are the direct consequences of using unsuitable materials applied to facades to reduce energy consumption.
Mostly, polystyrene is used for external insulation.
The durability of the applied synthetic render is low because organic binders are not weather-resistant. To avoid cracking, usually only light or white renders are used, which largely reflect sunlight, resulting in poor use of passive solar energy.
Polystyrene as facade insulation poses, as several fire incidents have demonstrated, an unacceptable fire hazard, and resonance effects lead to disturbing construction defects in terms of acoustics. Since polystyrene is waterproof and therefore prevents moisture transport through external walls, indoor relative humidity rises to over 60 percent in winter, favoring the formation of dust mites.
Source: Dipl.-Ing. and architect Paul Bossert*, Dietikon
The same study also concluded:
The costs of energy-efficient building renovations significantly exceed the savings, according to a study by the Prognose research institute commissioned by the state development bank KfW on the costs and benefits of the energy transition, which "Welt" has obtained. The additional expenses for new, highly energy-efficient residential buildings will also not pay off.
Investments cannot be "financed solely from the saved energy costs," KfW writes in the report. The German federal government aims to reduce heating energy consumption in residential buildings by 80 percent by 2050 to cut carbon dioxide emissions. For this reason, the Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV) has repeatedly been tightened in the past. Since 1993, according to the Federal Association of Thermal Insulation Composite Systems, 769.1 million square meters of insulation panels have been applied to German houses—a surface area larger than the city-state of Hamburg.
However, whether these enormous costs are justified has never been examined by any government. The Prognose study is the first calculation on this. To meet the energy-saving targets, "housing industry investments" totaling 838 billion euros will be required by 2050. However, energy cost savings of only 370 billion euros were calculated by the Prognose researchers.
This results in a total net loss of 468 billion euros. Owners, tenants, and taxpayers will have to cover these costs directly, indirectly, or through funding programs, contributing to the energy transition. "The study shows that the energy-saving requirements are devoid of any economic reason," says Thomas Beyerle, chief researcher at the real estate company IVG. According to calculations by the German Energy Agency, for a single-family home built to current Energy Saving Ordinance standards, out of total costs of 400 euros per square meter of living space, 115 euros are due to energy-saving additional costs alone. For an especially efficient new building, which consumes only 55 percent of the allowable calculated energy use, this price rises to 540 euros per square meter, of which 250 euros are additional energy-saving measures. There is no end in sight to price increases: in 2014 and 2016, the federal government planned to raise requirements by 12.5 percent each time.
Source: Financial news and dts news agency 2013
Why only up to 30 years (sorry, that was a typo) is very well explained in this book:
Thermal Insulation Regulation and Economic Efficiency. Comparison of External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems and Cavity Wall Construction
Menkhoff, Herbert; Essen; Private publication
Wanderdüne schrieb:🙄
A whole 40 sqm per day, I once knew such a slow company too...
Dismantling = removing the system, cutting the anchors, breaking off remaining mortar lumps
This takes time and has nothing to do with the executing craft business.
Regards, Bauexperte
B
Bauexperte19 Nov 2014 14:44Hello,
Mineral wool should be disposed of in landfill classes I and II => with very low and low organic content 😉
Regards, Bauexperte
DerBjoern schrieb:I’m not sure about glass wool; it’s not my area of expertise.
Glass wool and mineral wool are both considered hazardous waste => disposal via residual waste collection center.
Mineral wool should be disposed of in landfill classes I and II => with very low and low organic content 😉
Regards, Bauexperte
Similar topics