canadiancontractor
An argument in favour of wood fibre insulation for a “breathing” house
Andreas argues for wood fibre insulation, rather than "petroleum-based" insulation, in order for a house to breathe properly.
This is a comment in response to John Bleasby’s post last week, “Does a house need to breathe? Can it be too tight?”
Hello John,
I appreciate your posts and following them very closely. However, I would like to give my input to your post last week in which you assert that “Homes don’t breathe: people do.”
Saying a house should ‘breathe’ is not wrong. A real breathing home has a somewhat permeable wall/roof system. This cannot be provided with any foam insulation and petroleum-based membrane products. This can only be achieved with “real green and sustainable” products like wood fibre insulation and similar products.
All of us were told as a toddlers never to put plastic bags over our heads. Obviously, we wouldn’t survive, right? Why then do we want to live in a ‘plastic bag moisture trap home’ instead of a comfortable and healthy environment?
Nevertheless, a great air ventilation system is a great asset.
Andreas Herrmann
Advertisement
Print this page
Andreas Herrmann makes good points. The Grenfell Tower insulation/cladding contained the energy equivalent of 30,000 liters of gasoline and gave off hydrogen cyanide. Other examples of costly mistakes in the pursuit of energy efficiency without due diligence include leaky condo and asbestos and urea formaldehyde insulation. In addition, if in the near future, we are able to harness unlimited energy from the sun via technology (Tesla shingles, better batteries) does it matter if homes are super-insulated?
Hello Casey,
In my opinion it is even with all these technologies a huge matter since there are no or just little solutions for recycling such materials. if we do not care now, our next generation has a larger hassle to deal with, and I think that’s not what we want, right?
Andreas