|
Posted by J. Clarke on January 29, 2008, 11:59 am
Please log in for more thread options Jeff wrote:
> Terryc wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Terryc wrote:
>>
>>> No point in insulating the walls if the insulation is going to get
>>> soaked the first time it rains.
>>
>> Err,sounds like you've just posted your major problem. Obviously
>> you
>> fix the roof first. Caveat, if you are replacing timbers, make sure
>> it s adequate for the final load; ie, corrugated iron, versus tile,
>> vs PV installation, etc
>>
>>> Which is beside the point. Maybe you are wealthy enough that
>>> moving
>>> all of your possessions out of your house, tearing it down,
>>> rebuilding it according to your ideas, and then moving back in is
>>> an option. If so I'm happy for you but you are decidedly in the
>>> minority. Most people take what's on the market at the price they
>>> can pay.
>>
>> Well, the banks view was 6x times what we felt comfortable
>> borrowing, so I guess I'm not most people.
>>
>> Over here, peep just build the new house around the old as they
>> demolish it, bit by bit. frankly, few people do that as they either
>> lack the skills or confidence.
>
> Well, I live in a 1920 house and my dad built his house so I
> understand these concepts.
>
> The way houses are renovated is that you usually don't tear out
> everything at once. You tear down one wall or one room at a time if
> you are living in it! If you want to add a room, you preserve the
> load
> bearing elements and add on. Then you fix the load.
That's adding a room, not decreasing energy consumption by thirty
percent.
> As far as insulating walls, there's no reason to tear the walls
> down. Blown in cellulose is fabulous stuff and requires only
> drilling
> one inch holes. It also is tolerant of dampness. And it is cheaper
> than fiberglass. I did my 2000SF over about 3 days with a helper (~
> $300). If your walls aren't insulated, and this is common in old
> homes, I highly recommend it. Payback will be a couple years,
> perhaps
> sooner in a cold climate.
>
> Now, you can update R13 walls to R19 with a great deal of effort,
Most houses built in the US since the '60s (at least in New England)
already have R13 walls. Upgrading to R19 requires that great deal of
effort, and that alone is not going to save thirty percent.
> but a better return is in fixing air leaks (there's nothing cheaper
> to do that will yield greater results) and by attacking the other
> weak links.
Yep, air leaks are a good thing to fix. But fixing them creates other
problems. If the house is really tight now your range hood stops
working unless you open a window or go to a reciruculating hood that
doesn't remove moisture and does a poor job on smoke and odors.
Bathroom vents stop working effectively too, so you get humidity
building up. In extreme cases the furnace may not be able to get
enough air to vent properly, leading to carbon monoxide buildup. Then
there's the whole radon thing .l. .
So don't just seal everything unless you're sure you understand the
consequences.
> One R1 window will lose as much heat as the rest of an
> insulated wall. Heatshrink film is cheap and will cut a window's
> loss
> in half. Add some insulation to that window and you've nearly
> eliminated it's heat loss.
Are you talking about putting cellulose or fiberglass over a window?
Yes, that will cut the loss but it also (a) defeats the purpose of the
window, (b) has to be removed to get ventilation through that window
in the summer, and (c) eliminates any possibility of solar gain
through that window.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap