Ea rth Technologies Forum 1 4

- 27

- 04 

### E nergy and Environmental Benefits of Extruded Polystyrene Foam and Fiberglass Insulation Products in U.S. Residential and Commercial Buildings

Merle F. McBride, P h .D., P.E

. O wens Corning , Granville, OH, USA 43023

A BSTRACT The use of extruded polystyrene f oam and fiberglass insulation products in U.S. residential and commercial buildings has been analyzed to determine whether they ha ve a net energy and environmental benefit. The fundamental questions are whether the

energy consumed and emissions produced t o manufacture the se product s are less than, equal to or exceed those benefits when installed in buildings. Several hundred

locations across the U.S. were selected to determine the annual energy and emission savings that are realized when extruded polystyr ene foam and fiberglass insulation product s are used in the envelopes of residential and commercial buildings. The energy savings were segregated by fuel type and the emissions are traced back to the site source. The energy and emissions to manufacture t he foam and fiberglass are evaluated the same way for consistency. The first year energy savings exceed the energy used to manufacture the insulation products. The emission savings also provide a net positive

benefit. The absolute magnitudes of the emis sion benefits are directly proportional to the expected useful life of the buildings.

INTRODUCTION The manufacturing of insulation products is an energy intensive process that results in

the generation of direct environmental emissions as well as indir ect environmental

emissions at electric al power plants . However, the use of those insulation products in residential and commercial buildings provides significant energy and environmental savings over an extended time period. The fundamental questions to answer are whether the energy consumed and emissions produced to manufacture the insulation product s are le ss than, equal to or exceed those benefits when installed in buildings

.

BACKGROUND

The benefits of insulation in residential and commercial buildi ngs include lower energy consumptions, improved thermal comfort, reductions in the first costs of the heating and cooling equipment and reductions in CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil

fuels across the United States. However, the manufacturing of in sulation products generates emissions that contribute to global warming. The issue of global warming has focused attention on the use, regulation and eventual elimination of selected materials that contribute to the greenhouse gases. Also, energy and emi ssion reductions

have received increase d focus by the building community as the concept of environmentally responsible and sustainable construction or “green” has gained popularity.

Foamed thermal insulations

, such as extruded polystyrene ( XPS)

, have co me under scrutiny relative to climate change . The blowing agents , which are used to produce the foam and contribute to its high insulating efficiency

, have both global warming andEa rth Technologies Forum 2 4

- 27

- 04 ozone depleting environmental impact. A phase d transition of ozone depleti ng material s is being directed by the Montreal Protocol [1] and the U.S. Clean Air Act [ 2 ]

. T he Kyoto Protocol [ 3 ] includes H F C’s in the “basket of gases” proposed for controlled emissions to mitigate global warming. HFC

- 134a is the next step in the blow ing agent phase transition for XPS thermal insulation under the Montreal Protocol to eliminate the use of ozone depleting substances

. The life cycle climate performance included in this paper for fiberglass and XPS will show the important role insulations , including those containing HFC ’s

, play in energy efficient construction to the ultimate benefit of

the environment

.

O BJECTIVE The objective i s to determine the net energy and environmental impact s of the manufacturing and use of foam and fiberglass insu lation products in U.S. residential and commercial buildings

.

T ECHNICAL APPROACH

T here are various technical approaches one could use to perform the analysis ranging from site specific to national averages. The site specific approach would analyze specif ic buildings in specific locations and the results would be site sensitive. To be absolutely correct one would then have to link each building site with an insulation manufacturing plant and the local utilities to calculate the emissions. This would be a n extremely complex and time consuming process.

The other end of the spectrum is the national average approach which would model a typical or average residential and commercial building to determine their energy savings and then use aggregated data for em issions from all of the insulation manufacturing plants and electric utilities. One of the challenge s with a national average approach is the difficulty in defining a single residential and commercial building

, construction features and HVAC systems that are truly representative. The fundamental problem is that energy codes require different levels of insulation by

climate zone s so there is a broad range of energy consumptions and emissions

.

The approach adopted for this study was to analyze site specif ic residential and commercial buildings in multiple locations to determine the i r energy savings because the savings are climate and HVAC system sensitive but then use national average data

for the insulation manufacturing energy and emissions as well as fo r electric al power plants. This approach is reasonable because insulation products can be shipped across broad geographical distances due to specific demands and the flow of electricity across the U.S. grid makes it extremely difficult to specify with cer tainty the generation source of the electrical energy consumed at a specific site.

TECHNCIAL ANALYSIS There are many steps in the technical analysis to determine the energy and

environmental impact of insulation products in residential and commercial buil dings

across the U .S. The major steps are: (1) determin e the energy consumed and emissions generated during the insulation manufacturing process, (2) identif y the energyEa rth Technologies Forum 3 4

- 27

- 04 conservation features and HVAC systems for residential and commercial buildings

acros s the U

. S

. , (3) determin e the energy savings in multiple locations for residential and commercial buildings, (4) identif y the emission coefficients for the various energy sources aligned with the manufacturing process and the HVAC systems in the buildings

and (5) estimate the environmental emission savings due to the insulation energy savings. Each of these steps will be presented in detail.

Insulation Manufacturing Energy Use and Emissions Manufacturing of insulation products occurs at various geographi cal locations,

encompasses a variety of processes, consumes multiple fuels, uses various chemicals, and generates multiple emissions at each site. In addition there are indirect emissions associated with the production of the electrical energy used in the manufacturing process. A ssimilating and repor ting of these are a routine process for insulation

manufacturers. To simplify the analyses f or this paper the data have been aggregated

for six fiberglass manufacturing plants : Delmar , NY ; Eloy

, AZ ; Fairburn

, GA ; Kansas City

, KS ; Newark, OH ; and Santa Clara , CA as well as three foam insulation plants :
Ta l lmadge , OH ; Rockford, IL ; and Valleyfield

, Q C

. The measured energies consumed

, insulation material s made and the direct emissions generated are presented i n Table 1

. A lso, included in Table 1 are the projected manufacturing emissions for H F C

- 134a as a future blowing agent replacement assuming a concentration of 6.5% [4]

.

Table 1 Insulation Manufacturing Energy Consumptions

, Insulation

Productions and Dir ect Emissions

Energy Consumption Fiberglass (Measured) HCFC

- 142b (Measured) HFC

- 134a (Projected) Electricity

- kWh 1,205,803,921 39

, 045,241

Natural Gas

- DT 6,201,695 0

Steam

– GJ 3,597 0

Insulation Productions 2,084,048 ,000 lb 585,391 MBF

Direct Emissions

CO2 794.3 lb/ton 0 0 Blowing Agent 0 0.0172 lb/ lb 0.0 103lb/lb foam foam

Residential and Commercial Building Energy Conservation Features In order to simplify th e analysis all newly constructed buildings were assumed to comply with the current national energy codes. Low

- rise r esidential buildings were assumed to meet the 2003 International Energy Conservation Code prescriptive envelope criteria with the fenestration area set at 15% of the gross exterior wall area [ 5 ]

. C ommercial buildings were assumed to meet the prescriptive envelope criteria in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2001 [ 6 ]

.

The basic assumptions for the low

- rise residential building are presented in Table 2

. The definition of a residence follows the building codes

– one or two single family dwelling units, three stories or less in height.Ea rth Technologies Forum 4 4

- 27

- 04 Table 2 Low

- rise Residential Building Characteristics

Item One Story Two Story

Gross Floor Area

– ft 2484 2 2484 Ceiling Area

– ft 2484 2 1242

Gross Wall Area

– ft 1691.62 2 2 396.46

Fenestration Area

– ft 253.74 2 359.47

Door Area

– ft 60 2 60

Net Wall Area

– ft 1377.87 2 1976.99

Perimeter

– ft 211.45 140.97

The 2003 IECC prescriptive insulation levels for low

- rise residences are presented in Appendix A . The seventeen c limate zones are related to increasing values of heating degree days to base 65 o F (HDD65). For example, Zone 1 is Miami, FL (HDD65=200),

zone 7 is Atlanta, GA (HDD65=2991) and zone 14 is Chicago, IL (HDD65= 6536). The envelope sections and insulation prod ucts used in this analysis are: ceilings (fiberglass), exterior walls (fiberglass in the cavity and foam sheathing), basement walls (exterior foam), slabs (foam), and crawl spaces (exterior foam). The basements are

assumed to be conditioned for human occu pancy. Floors over unconditioned spaces were not included in the analysis since the foundations walls were assumed to be

insulated with foam.

The low

- rise residential heating and cooling equipment efficiencies used an AFUE of

80% for all gas and oil fu rnaces and boilers, a SEER of 10 for central cooling with either air conditioners or heat pumps and a HSPF of 6.8 for heating with heat pumps.

All electric heating systems used 100% efficiency levels. The insulation requirements

for the air distribution systems follow the IECC while the heating and cooling duct

distribution efficiencies were obtained from ASHRAE Standard 90. 2 [ 7 ]

. Each duct efficiency was a function of the duct insulation level, the location of the duct (attic, crawl space or basement) a nd whether heating or cooling was being modeled.

Commercial buildings were assumed to meet the prescriptive envelope criteria in

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2001 , see Appendix B

. The prescriptive criteria are presented

as insulation R

- values for 26 climat e zones and thirteen classes of construction. Each climate zone is defined as a range of HDD65 and CDD50. Zone 1 represents the most severe cooling conditions (outside the U.S.) while zone 2 is Miami, FL , zone 13 is St. Louis, MO and zone 26 (Barrow, AK ) represents the most severe heating conditions. The criteria contained in boxes are for continuous foam insulation, e.g. above roof deck, wall sheathing, mass walls and slab edges. T hirteen classes of construction were

modeled and the insulation materia ls that were used are presented in Table 3

. For each of these construction classes a one square foot of each section was modeled and then the results were scaled according to the total square footage of construction activity for

each of the 3 18 locations analyzed

.Ea rth Technologies Forum 5 4

- 27

- 04 Table 3 ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2001 Opaque Construction Classes and

Insulation

Roofs

Insulation Above Deck

- Foam Metal Buildings

- F/G

Attic and Other

- F/G Floors

Mass

- Foam

Steel Joist

- F/G

Wood Framed and Other

- F/G
Walls, Above Grade

Mass

- Foam Metal Building

- F/G

Steel Framed

- F/G + Foam

Wood Framed and Other

- F/G + Foam Slab

- On

- Grade

Unheated

- Foam

Heated

– F o am Wall, Below Grade

Below Grade Wall

- Foam

There are multiple e nergy sources and various HVAC equipment types that can be used in commercial buildings. A detailed analysis of these choices was completed using the number of building s and the total floor area as weighting factors from both the U.S.

Census Bureau [ 8 ] an d DOE [ 9 ]

. Heating e nergy sources were limited to electricity

, natural gas and propane and fuel oil . These three categories accounted for 93

- 97% of the total energy sources. Neglected in the analysis were district heat ing and cooling systems and wood. The final w eighting factors used were: 10.4 % electric, 74.1% natural gas and propane and 15.6% fuel oil. Cooling energy was all electricity.

The HVAC equipment types and efficiencies match those used to develop the criteria

for ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2 001. The average efficiency used for the heating equipment was 81%. This was reasonable considering national average values for all existing commercial buildings are 9.2% heat pumps (COP=3.1) , 60.3% f urnaces, individual space heaters and packaged heating units (AFUE=80%) and 20.6% boilers (Eff iciency = 80%) . The average SEER used for the cooling equipment was 10.3

. Again, t his was reasonable considering national average values for all existing commercial buildings are 67.4% residential type central unit s (SEER=9.5)

, 10.9% heat

pumps (SEER=8.8) and 14.7% central chillers (COP=4.45)

.

Residential and Commercial Building Energy Analysis The determination of energy savings due to the installation of foam and fiberglass

insulation in residential and commerc ial buildings is a complex analysis. The low

- rise residential energy saving calculations utilized the ASHRAE Standard 90. 2

- 2001 methodology

. A data base of 3 2 8 Metropolitan Statistical Areas ( MSA ) was used as weighting factors to aggregate the individual city results to a national level , see Figure

2 [ 10 ]

. These 3 2 8 MSA s represent 1,0 05,206 single family housing starts which were considered adequate to characterize the national housing starts across the U.S. Specific housing characteristics for the type of HVAC system and fuel sources, number of stories and foundation types were defined by state averages [ 1 1 ]

.Ea rth Technologies Forum 6 4

- 27

- 04 Figure 1 Location of Residential and Commercial
Buildings plus Insulation Plants

25 30 35 40 45 50

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Longitude - Degrees WestLatitude - Degrees North

Residential Commercial 6 Fiberglass Plants

U.S. Boundary 3 Foam Plants

The energy savings analysis for commercial buildings utilized the methodology presented in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2001 . A data base from F.W. D odge for 3 18 locations with 23 building types was used as the weighting factors to aggregate the individual city results to a national level , see Table 4 [ 1 2 ]

. These 3 18 locations

represent 1,580,80 7 ,000 square feet of U.S. commercial building constructio n activity

in 2001 and are also shown in Figure 1

. In each location these constructions were aggregated into the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 classes: nonresidential

- commercial buildings (1

- 21 ), high

- rise residential

- four or more stories (22 ) and warehouses

- semi

- heated to 50 o F and not air

- conditioned (23 ).

Table 4 F. W. Dodge Commercial Building Types

No. Description No. Description

1 Arenas 13 Office

2 Auto Service 14 Parking Garage

3 Capitols 15 Police/Fire Station

4 Detention Facilities 16 Post Offi ce
5 Dormitories 17 Religious Buildings

6 Exhibition Halls 18 Retail

7 Food/Beverage Service 19 Schools/Universities

8 Gyms/Field Houses 20 Theaters

9 Hospitals/Health Care 21 Transportation Service Terminals

10 Hotel/Motel 22 Apartments (High

- rise R esidential)

11 Libraries 23 Warehouses (Semi

- heated)

12 MuseumsEa rth Technologies Forum 7 4

- 27

- 04 Emission Factors and Greenhouse Gas Coefficients Use of acceptable coefficients is essential to any analysis that calculates emissions. The coefficients used in the study are presente d in Table 5

. These coefficients were

extracted from multiple sources [ 13, 14, 15

, 16 and 17 ]

. Coefficients for the electric power plants are composites for the entire U.S. based on a mixture of fuel sources [ 1 8 ]

.

Table 5 Emission Coefficients

Greenhou se Gas Fuel Coefficient Units Application

CO2 Natural Gas 120,000 lb/million ft All 3

#2 Oil 22,300 lb/1000 gal All

Mixture 1.34 lb/kWh Elec. Power Plants

N2 O Natural Gas 2.2 lb/million ft Small Boiler 3

Natural Gas 2.2 (E) lb/million ft Resident ial Furnace 3

#2 Oil 0.11 (B) lb/1000 gal Small Boiler

#2 Oil 0.05 lb/1000 gal Residential Furnace

Mixture 0.0192 lb/mi llion Wh Elec. Power Plants

CH4 Natural Gas 2.3 lb/million ft Commercial Boiler 3

Natural Gas 2.3 (B) lb/million ft Residential Furnace 3

#2 Oil 0.216 lb/1000 gal Commercial Boiler

#2 Oil 1.78 lb/1000 gal Residential Furnace

Mixture 0.0111 lb/million Wh Elec. Power Plants Note: Letters in parenthesis reflect confidence in the values:(A) = highest, (E) = lowest.

The global wa rming potentials for the greenhouse gases were set for a time horizon of 100 years us ing the coefficients presented in Table 6 [ 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17]. These

coefficients are the basis for estimates of emissions presented in the Inventory of U.S.

Greenhou se Gas Emissions and Sinks [15], which are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR)

and updates of 1995 and 1996. The GWPs typically have an uncertainty of roughly

+ 35%.

Table 6 Global Warming Po tential Values

Source GWP100

CO2 1

C H4 21

N2O 310

HFC

- 134 a 1300

H C FC

- 142b 2000

R ESULTS The key results are the net energy and environmental impacts. In order to reach these

final results the intermediate results of the major steps need to be pres ented. ThoseEa rth Technologies Forum 8 4

- 27

- 04 steps are the weighted average pounds of insulation used, the weighted average energy savings and the weighted average emissions generated and saved

.

Insulation The weighted average pounds of fiberglass and foam used in the residential and commercial buildings are presented in Table 7 . The low

- rise residential pounds are for the ceiling s , above

- grade wall s, basement wall s, crawl space walls and slab edge s for one and two story dwelling units . The commercial pounds presented in Table 7

repr esent the insulation for one square foot of each of the thirteen construction classes previously presented in Table 3 . The foam is divided into two different densities. The

1.6 lb/ft 3 foam is used in roofs while the 1.8 lb/ft 3 foam is used in walls.

Tab le 7 Insulation Material Used Building Type Fiberglass ( lb ) Foam ( lb ) Foam

- roofs (lb @

1.6 lb/ft 3 Foam

- walls

) (lb @

1.8 lb/ft 3 )

Low

- rise Res. 147 4.95 343.94 343.97

Commercial

Nonresidential 2.43 1.06 0.4 0 0.66 High

- rise Res. 2.66 1.3 3 0.4 0 0.93

Warehouse 1.43 0.34 0.11 0.23

Sum 6.52 2.73 0.91 1.82

Annual Energy Savings The weighted average annual energy savings achieved by insulating the residential and commercial buildings are presented in Table 8 . The results are br oken out for heating and cooling for the fiberglass and foam insulation materials in order to properly

determine the emissions that can be saved because the buildings have been insulated

.

Table 8 Annual Energy Savings due to Insulation

Commercial

Fibergl ass Heating

- therms Cooling

- kWh Equivalent

Total

- kWh Total

- kWh/lb

Nonresidential 10.03 26.2 320 131.7 High

- rise Res

. 5.04 46.52 194 73.0

Warehouse 0.95 0 28 19.5

SUM 16.02 72.72 542 83.1

Commercial

– Foam Heating

- therms Cooling

- kWh Equival ent

Total

- kWh kWh/ lb

Nonresidential 2.39 14.8 85 80.0 High

- rise Res. 3.31 24.98 122 91.8

Warehouse 0.4 0 12 34.5

SUM 6.1 39.78 219 80.1

Low

- rise

Residential

– Fiberglass Energy Energy

Content BTU/gal Equiv alent

Total

- kWh kWh/lb

Gas

– therms 1

, 23 7.61 36,262Ea rth Technologies Forum 9 4

- 27

- 04 Electricity

– kWh 11

, 842.18 11,842

Oil

– gal 79.67 140,000 3,268

SUM 51,372 34.8

Low

- rise

Residential

– Foam Energy Energy

Content BTU/gal Equiv alent

Total

-

kWh kWh/lb

Gas

– therms 31 7.68 9,3 0 8 Electricity

– kWh 3

, 170.34 3, 17 0

Oil

– gal 2 4.20 140,000 993

SUM 13, 471 39.5

In order to determine the net impact of these energy savings they need to be compared directly to the energy required to manufacture the insulation. Those results are

summarized in Table 9 . To simplify the comparisons all of the energy savings and manufacturing energy are presented in the same units of kWh/lb. Also presented are the ratios of the annual energy savings divided by the manufacturing energy. This allows one to immediately comprehend the n et energy benefits.

Table 9 Comparison of Annual Energy Savings vs. Manufacturing Energy Annual Energy Savings Fiberglass F oam

Commercial Buildings kWh/lb Annual Energy Savings/ Mfg. Energy kWh/lb Annual Energy Savings/ Mfg. Ene rgy Nonresidential 131.7 91 80.0 168 High

- rise Residential 73.0 50 91.8 193

Warehouses 19.5 13 34.5 72 Weighted Average 83.1 57 80.1 168

Low

- rise Residential 34.8 24 39.2 82 Manufacturing Energy 1.451 0.476

Clearl y, both fiberglass and foam insulations have extremely positive net energy benefits for all residential and commercial buildings. The annual energy saved far exceeds the energy required for manufacturing in all cases. It is important to recognize

that th ese insulation energy savings benefits v ary for each city due to the application (ceiling, wall, or foundation)

, the stringency of the energy codes , the HVAC systems and the construction weighting factors

.

Emissions The emissions generated in the manufacturing process of fiberglass and foam insulation are presented in Table 1 0

. The direct emissions generated in the manufacturing of fiberglass are primarily comprised of the carbon dioxide emissions due to the combustion of natural gas and/or fu el oil, as well as liberated in the glass melting process. By and large, the GHG emissions are determined using emission factors from widely accepted literature [13] . Since GHG emissions are not required to be measured or reported in the U.S., very littl e effort has occurred to further quantify them

.Ea rth Technologies Forum 10 4

- 27

- 04 However, estimates of CH4 and N20 from the manufacturing process are included in the analysis. Furthermore, the indirect emissions generated at electrical power plants include additional greenhouse gases an d th ose are included in the results.

Table 1 0 Insulation Manufacturing Emissions

GHG Direct Mfg.

Emissions Emission

Coefficient

(Table 5) Indirect Electricity

Emissions GWP

100 Indirect

CO2

Emissions Total

GWP CO2 Equivalent Fiberglass lb/ton lb/ton lb/ton

CO2 794.3 1.34 1,551 1 1,551 2,345

C H4 0.3 0.0111 0.0 128 21 0.3 7

N2 O 3.675 0.0192 0.0 221 310 7.0 1,146

SUM 1,558 3,498

Foam lb/lb lb/lb L b/MBF

CO2 0 1.34 0.638 1 0.638 92.2

C H4 0 0.0111 5.2 88 E

- 06 21 0.000 0.016

N2 O 0 0.0192 9.147E

- 06 310 0.003 0.410

HCFC

- 142b Mfg. Process 0.0172 2000 34.4 4 ,816

SUM 35.0 4,909

The annual emissions avoided due to insulation are presented in Table 1 1

.

Following the approach used to compare the net energy impacts

, the net emission impact s a re summarized in Table 1 2

. Also presented are the ratios of the annual emission savings divided by the manufacturing emissions. This allows one to immediately comprehend the net emission benefits. Projections for HFC

- 134a have

been calculated and are al so presented. The HF C

- 134a cal culations used a 6.5%

concentration of the blowing agent and a GWP100 of 1300.Ea rth Technologies Forum 11 4

- 27

- 04 T able 1 2 Comparison of Insulation Emission Savings vs Manufacturing Emissions Fiberglas s Foam

HCFC

- 142b Foam

HFC

- 134a (Projected)

Annual Em ission Savings Total

GWP100

CO2

– lb/ton Annual

Emission Savings/

Mfg.

Emissions Total

GWP100

CO2

– lb/MBF Annual

Emission Savings/

Mfg.

Emissions Total

GWP100

CO2

- lb/MBF Annual

Emission Savings/

Mfg.

Emissions

Commercial 90,468 26 7,777 1.6 7,777 3.8

Low

- rise Res. 43,318 12 3,728 0.8 3,728 1.8 Mfg. Emissions 3,498 4,909 2,029

Total Out g asing 31,315 12,205

Clearly, the fiberglass insulation has an extremely positive net emissions benefit for

both commercial and low

- rise residentia l buildings. The first year e missions saved by fiberglass insulation far exceed the e missions required for manufacturing it in all cases. In simple terms the annual e mission savings exceed the manufacturing e missions by

factors of 12 to 26 which mean net emission benefits can be achieved with in 1 4 to 29 days.

The emission story for the foam is more complex because the foam continues to outgas

over time

. Eventually, the blowing agent will completely outgas so the total emissions

were evaluated. All of t he emission results can best be summarized by determining the time required to achieve a net positive benefit, see Table 13.

Table 13 Time to Achieve Net Positive Emission Benefits Fiberglass HCFC

- 142b HF C

- 134a (Est.)

Comm. Res. Comm. Res. Comm. Res.

Years Years Years Years Years Years

M anufacturing 0.0 4 0. 08 0.6 1.3 0.3 0. 5 Complete Outgassing 4.0 8. 4 1. 6 3. 3

The emission savings from commercial buildings exceeds the total H C FC

- 142b

emissions within four year s while low

- rise residen tial emissi on savings exceed s the

total HCFC

- 142b emissions in 8 .4 years . Similar analyses for HFC

- 134a show that commercial buildings have a net emission savings within 1. 6 year s and low

- rise

residen ces have a net emission savings in 3. 3 year s

.

C ONCLUSIONS

A com prehensive analysis has been completed to determine the net energy and emissions impact of fiberglass and foam insulation products in U.S. residential and commercial buildings . The analysis was based on representative residential and commercial buildings in over 300 locations using prescriptive envelope criteria from the current national energy codes. The results for each location were appropriately weighted using current construction activity measures to obtain national average values.Ea rth Technologies Forum 12 4

- 27

- 04 The manufacturing energy consumed and emissions generated were based on measured

data from six fiberglass plants and three foam plants. Emission coefficients for the greenhouse gases were obtained from current reports published by federal government agencies. Both direct and indirect emissions were included in order to make the analysis complete.

The net impact s in terms of energy w ere that both fiberglass and foam insulation have positive net benefit s . The first year energy savings for fiberglass exceeds the energy

req uired to manufacture the insulation by factors ranging from 13 to 9 1 depending upon the building type. The first year energy savings for foam exceeds the energy required to manufacture the insulation by factors ranging from 72 to 1 93 depending upon the

bu ilding type.

The net impact s in terms of emissions w ere that both fiberglass and foam insulations

have positive net benefit s

. The emissions from fiberglass manufacturing are offset by

the reduction in emissions due to residential energy savings in less t han 0. 08 years. The emissions from manufacturing foam with HCFC

- 142b are offset by the reduction in

emissions due to residential energy savings in less than 1.3 years. When H F C

- 134a is used the manufacturing emissions are offset within 0.5 years. The li miting case for the

foam emissions was to assume that all of the blowing agent will eventually out gas. This worst case analysis showed that the reductions in emissions due to residential energy savings offset the total blowing agents in 8.4 years for H C F C

- 142b and 3.3 years for H F C

- 134a

. All of the times required for commercial applications to achieve positive net emission benefits are even less than those required for residential applications

. This means that all residential and commercial building s whe n evaluated over their normal life span will have net positive reduction s in emissions for all

insulation materials

.

RECOMMENDATIONS The use of fiberglass and foam insulation product s in residential and commercial buildings has a n enormous net energy bene fit within the first year and should continue to play a predominate role in achieving energy conservation

. Fiberglass and foam

insulation products also ha ve net positive benefit s relative to greenhouse gas emissions and play an important role in advancing the “green” building philosophy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author acknowledge s the following colleagues for their invaluable contributions in the development of the technical data and analyses of this pap er: Robin Edmiston

Bennett, Barb Fabian, Frank M. Kri stie, Don R. Miller, Pat Rynd, L eonard Suharl i

, Jo seph B. Vocke, Francesco M. Vigo and Stan ley J. Wolfersb e rger.

ACRONYMS

, SYMBOLS AND UNIT MEASURES

AFUE

- Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (dimensionless, capacity/input)

ASHRAE

- American Society of He ating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers

BF

- Board Foot (1 inch thick by 1 ft 2

B tu

- British Thermal Unit )Ea rth Technologies Forum 13 4

- 27

- 04 CDD50

- Cooli ng Degree Days to base 50 o

CH4

- Methane F

CO2

- Carbon Dioxide

COP

- Coefficient of Performance (dimensionless, capacity/electric input)

DOE

- U.S. Department of Energy

DT

- Dekatherm (10 therms)

EPA

- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

F/G

- Fib erglass

GHG

- Green h ouse Gas

GJ

- Gigajoules (10 9

GWP

- Global Warming Potential joules)

HFC

- H ydrofluorocarbon

HFC

- 134a

- H ydrofluorocarbon 134a (1,1,1,2

- tetrafluoroethane)

HCFC

- 142b

- H ydrochlorofluorocarbon (chlorodifluoroethane)

HDD65

- Heating D egree Days to base 65 o

HSPF

- Heating Season Performance Factor (Btu/watt

- hour) F

HUD

- Housing and Urban Development

HVAC

- Heating, Ventilating and Air

- Conditioning

ICC

- International Code Council

IECC

- International Energy Conservation Code

MBF

- Thousands of Board Feet

MSA

- Metropolitan Statistical Area

N2O

- Nitrous Oxide

R

- value

- Thermal Resistance (Btu/hr

- ft 2

- o F)

SEER

- Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (Btu/watt

- hour) - 1

THERMS

- 100,000 B tu
TON

- 2000 pounds

XPS

- Extruded Polystyrene

REFERENCES [1] United Nations Environment Programme , “ The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ”

, Amended 1997, Nairobi, Kenya, 2000

. [2] U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments, Title VI, Public Law 101

- 549, November 5, 1990. [3] United Natio ns Framework Convention on Climate Change

, “ Kyoto Protocol to the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ”

, FCCC/CP/1997L.7Add.1,

December 10, 1997. [4] Polasky, M., “Owens Corning Foam Plant Line Trials, January 2000 to March

2004 ” , Owens Co rning, Tallmadge, OH, 2004.
[ 5 ] International Code Council, “International Energy Conservation Code”, Country Club Hills, IL, January, 2003.
[ 6 ] ASHRAE, “ ANSI/ ASHRAE /IESNA Standard 90.1

- 2001 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low

- Rise Residential Buildin gs ” , American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers, Inc. , Atlanta, GA, 2001.
[ 7 ] ASHRAE, “ ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 90.2

- 2001 Energy

- Efficient Design of New

Low

- Rise Residential Buildings ” American Society of Heating, Refrigerating a nd Air

Conditioning Engineers, Inc , Atlanta, GA, 2001

.Ea rth Technologies Forum 14 4

- 27

- 04 [ 8 ] U.S. Department of Commerce, “Statistical Abstract of the United States”, The National Data Book, 122 nd

[ 9 ] U .S. Department of Energy, “Buildi ngs Energy Databook”, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C., August 2003. Edition, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., 2002.

[ 10 ] U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Characteristics of New Housing

– Current Construction Reports, 1999”, Washington, D.C., 1999.
[ 1 1 ] U .S. Dep artment of Energy, “1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey”, Energy Information Agency, Washington, D.C., 1997.
[ 1 2 ] F.W. Dodge, “Commercial Building Construction Activity in the United States for 1999, 2000 and 2001”, McGraw

- Hill Construction Dodge, a division of The McGraw

Hill Companies, New York, NY, 2003.
[ 1 3 ] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors”, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP

- 42, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 29, 2003. [1 4 ] Rand, “Contribution of Greenhouse Gases to Climate Forcing Relative to CO 2

[1 5 ] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming

P otential Values”, Excerpt from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks:

1990

- 2000 , U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program, Office of Atmospheric Programs,

EPA 430

- R

- 02

- 003, Washington, DC, April, 2002. ”, Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study, Arlington, VA., January
17, 2002.

[1 6 ] U.S. Department of Energy, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”, Energy Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, Washington, DC, October, 2003. [1 7 ] Air & Waste Management Association, “Air Pollution Engineering Manual”, Van

Nostrand Rei nhold, New York, NY , 1992

. [1 8 ] U.S. Department of Energy, “Instructions for Form EIA

- 1605 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases for Data Through 2001”, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., February 2002.Ea rth Technologies Forum 15 4

- 27

- 04 APPENDIX A

2003 International Energy Conservation Code Prescriptive Envelope Criteria

Table A

- 1 IECC Prescriptive Envelope Criteria

Window Area 15 Percent of Gross Exterior Wall Area

Zone HDD65 Ceiling Ext.

Wall 1 Floor B asement

Wall Slab

2 Per imeter Crawl

2 Wall 2

R R R R R

- f ee t R

1 0

- 499 13 11 11 0 0

- 0 0

2 500

- 999 19 11 11 0 0

- 0 4 (5)

3 1000

- 1499 19 11 11 0 0

- 0 5

4 1500

- 1999 26 13 11 5 0

- 0 5

5 2000

- 2499 30 13 11 5 0

- 0 6 (7.5)

6 2500

- 2999 30 13 19 6 (7.5) 4

- 2 (5) 7 (7.5)

7 3000

- 3499 30 13 19 7 (7.5) 4

- 2 (5) 8 (10)

8 3500

- 3999 30 13 19 8 (10) 5

- 2 10

9 4000

- 4499 38 13 19 8 (10) 5

- 2 11 (12.5)

10 4500

- 4999 38 16 (13+3) 19 9 (10) 6

- 2 (7.5) 17 (17.5)

11 5000

- 5499 38 18 (13+5) 19 9 (10) 6

- 2 (7.5) 17 (17.5)

12 5500

- 5999 38 18 (13+5) 21 10 9

- 2 (10) 19 (20)

13 6000

- 6499 38 18 (13+5) 21 10 9

- 4 (10) 20

14 6500

- 6999 49 21 21 11 (12.5) 11

- 4 (12.5) 20

15 7000

- 8499 49 21 21 11 (12.5) 13

- 4 (15) 20

16 8500

- 8999 49 21 21 18 (20) 14

- 4 (15) 20

17 9000

- 12999 49 21 21 19 (20) 18

- 4 (20) 20

Notes: 1

– R

- values in parenthesis ar e fiberglass cavity insulation plus foam products.

2

– R

- values in parenthesis are the foam products analyzed to meet the prescriptive criteria

.

A PPENDIX B

ASHRAE Standard 90.1

- 2001 Prescriptive Envelope Criteria (Opaque Elements)Ea rth Technologies Forum 16 4

- 27

- 04