How relevant is this book for northern European residents? I find that most things are done very differently in the Americas compared to us in the old world.
While my Florida home was still under construction we quickly realized that in the spring with 70°F outdoor temperatures the HVAC just never turned on. With spray foam insulation making the house very air tight humidity soared. We immediately installed a whole house dehumidifier with humidistat. It only runs when needed and solved the problem.
Oh, really? But maybe the problem lies more with the materials used ;) We renovated our house with materials that are air tight, but can still absorb and transmit moisture. It is no secret, not a recent technology. 1. Wood fiber insulation: has been around for 100 years soon. Good insulator against heat, can safely absorb and release moisture. 2. Clay: has been used for thousands of years. Absorbs and releases moisture to keep the rooms at 45-60 % humidity. It also can pull away moisture from wood. Now, if you look at the other materials like EPS, XPS, concrete or even that nasty foam... They can't absorb moisture, can't regulate, won't let it pass through outside. Then, when you want to get rid of it, it is not reusable, just trash. Some of it is toxic trash. I'm not sure how much is known about foam insulation, but it seems a big risk... So, if you could choose, would you still go for the second option?
@@alis49281 No, I wouldn't. The open cell foam we used has been great. In summer the attic temperatures are a few degrees above the living space as is the sealed crawl space. Most of the year the HVAC removes any normal excess moisture but when conditions cause a rise in internal humidity the dehumidifier handles it. Most of the electricity to run these systems comes from solar with lifepo4 battery backup.
@@alis49281 There's no way I'd have all those synthetics in my house - I'm Australian, so one of the big questions in any house design is "if it burns down, what are these materials going to do?" and all the plastics immediately fail the test. I'm working towards getting rid of synthetics in our household furniture for the same reason - they're a ticking bomb in a flammable landscape. The problem is that wood fibre at normal humidity is going to rot unless you've treated it with fungicides, and termites will go straight through clay to get to the wood fibre unless you've treated it with insecticides. Wood fibre (without biocides) is a good admixture in compost, but I don't want it in my house walls. And when humidity inside and out is above 50%, there's nowhere for that moisture to go that isn't a problem, so you're going to get mould and dust mite problems. I'm still researching, but at present my best answer is concrete, rockwool, and mechanical dehumidification. I'm planning to move to a much wetter climate than my current home and if I'm having damp issues here, it's going to need a lot more work to keep it dry there.
I am an Architect in UK. Some time ago I did some work with The Cranfield Institute, one of the foremost technical universities in UK, with their energy predictive modelling. I was designing a college library with classrooms and the Govt requirements for classrooms required lightweight, well insulated construction, whereas I was given a free rein on the library due to its specialist nature. For various reasons the library was a heavyweight concrete frame and floors with brick north and west facing walls with the others being single glazed with solar shading. The annual energy consumption showed that the library used less energy than the classrooms and maintained comfort level conditions all the year round with very little input. The A/C, which is vital for book storage was barely used such was the stability of the environment. During the summer the shading prevented overheating but allowed enough solar gain to warm the mass so that it emitted the heat during the night. The process was so slow that there was very limited temperature fluctuation. In the winter solar gain was allowed to heat the building and with its huge thermal capacity there was plenty to keep it warm overnight. The classrooms on the other hand had wild temperature fluctuations that at the height of summer the temperatures were intolerable and require Air Con. As Air Con costs 3x that of basic heating to run, the costs were very high. The principal problem was that the classrooms heated up during the day and couldn't give up the accumulating heat to the point where in the afternoon temperatures were getting to 38/39degC (100+degF). At night all the accumulated heat was lost and the process started over. What i took away from this was that for energy efficiency it is better to have a heavyweight building than a lightweight, highly insulated building. Our ancestors knew this when they built their cottages of stone with 2ft thick walls that to this day are magnificently cool in summer and cosy warm in winter. I do accept the points raised by this video but have to say that most builders don't understand the importance of constructing the correct detailing, even when its provided and this is all left to the site worker that simply doesn't give a damn.
That sounds like it works great in the UK, where the average daily temperature is approximately comfortable. It wouldn't work well in Texas in the summer where the average daily temperature is just hot. It wouldn't work well in North Dakota in the winter, where the average daily temperature is deadly cold. Thermal mass serves to hold a building at the average daily temperature. If the average daily temperature is not what you want, then the mass doesn't help.
@@jimmiller5600 It very much depends on where in the world you are and what local materials and skills that are available. In the example I cited, the reasons for using a heavyweight building for the library were not solely about energy performance, acoustics, structural spans and building response times all paid a part in the decision making. With regard to the classroom block, the decision to use a lightweight design was guided by the DfEE funding model. If you are looking to design a building for yourself then a whole range of decisions come into play to advise the form of construction but it is worth noting that some of the very best zero energy consumption buildings are heavyweight structures, you ought not to believe the Govt and energy companies as they have a one-size fits all agenda.
@@FreedomTalkMedia If that were true then why are the vernacular buildings in the American south and Mexico built with thick adobe walls, with this style of building being common throughout Nera and Middle East? Those thick mud walled buildings are generally wonderfully cool in the day. Also, you will find that comfort conditions are a broader range than those expected by most Americans In the northern climes, the predominance of timber often dictates the basic building materials but still the vernacular buildings were heavyweight utilising large baulks of timber instead on vast quantities if sawn timber that supports the heavyweight ethos. In those places where timber is less prevalent and stone building is common, thick stone buildings provide cosy warm places during sub-zero temperatures and comfortable temperatures during the summer.
As a person who has had her health destroyed by mold, I am looking forward to changes to building codes that recognise that current codes are not safe. It seems that the insurance industry has become aware of the potential financial impact mold awareness would have on them and they are showing a real interest in - how do we say this? - managing how mold levels are assessed, with an interest in limiting the cost to their industry. So, it will become more difficult to get a useful assessment of and compensation for mold damage. The protocol for managing mold sickness is complicated and it seems that the best we can hope for is remission, not a total return to pre-infection levels of health. Please, ASIRI Designs, keep speaking up. If there is such a thing as 'God's work', this probably qualifies.
You should look into clay plaster and lime (true pH >11) colours. It inhibits any growth to a certain degree when applied thick enough. Other than that you are fighting a losing battle in the USA, because it seems to be forbidden to build houses with natural, non-toxic materials. In Europe that's a rising trend and we even develop high-tech natural materials.
I moved on, step by step, to an interest in deep insulation cavity parallel chord sidewall truss / modified roof scissor truss unified rigid frame structure. Ground level assembly / tilt up frame construction. On building site "1" step "manufactured" and installed finely shredded wood fiber to super insulation levels, ventilated and or vapor permeable exterior solid wood sheathing panels. Looking to the future of affordable high quality, low cost, energy efficient "Swiss chalet" style housing made possible with a "refined" , relatively low cost, equipment package ... A properly scaled, vertically integrated urban and rural forest restoration / "free wood" harvesting system to small scale sawmill system to home building "system". New Era Home building for building New Era Community.
To summary: if you do it, do it right. Over here in Germany, air tightness is one of the most important topics in newly built homes. Ventilation is not mandatory, only a concept for ventilation which may contain manual ventilation through the windows. In practice, the necessary air exchange can only be reached by controlled ventilation and in the last years basically all new homes have some type of ERV. For older homes, decentralized ERV can be a good idea
In Denmark active ventilation was obligatory since around 2005. Have several new appartments and it works! Also, heating bills are ridicously low. Less than 300€ per year for heating and hot water for a 204m2 appartment with very large window panes. Could hardly believe it at first.
Take a look at the picture with the corner of a window and rotted sheeting. Either the picture is upside down or the window was installed upside down. You can see the weep hole cover on the window frame. I use to do service for a window manufacturer and saw plenty of square picture windows installed upside down, even saw sliders installed like double hung. Also the accepted standard leakage for a 3' x 5' is .3 cuft/min that is essentially equivalent to having a 3' x 5' piece of plywood wood with a 7/8" hole drilled in it. Tested at 25 mph at 70F. Not real world, just standardized. They will leak severely when walls are well sealed. The company I worked for lost a large account when a builder used ICF to the roof, but did not use hrv. Even when I explained the well sealed, well ventilated requirements of high efficiency homes, they would not believe it and blamed the windows and cancelled their account. This was before you were around, I could have just directed them to you for an education. Ignorant labor is the weakest link in the high efficiency home market
There’s a dearth of training and education at many levels. I work at county level building inspection, and plan review, and I’m constantly educating people in all levels about the intricacies of this constantly evolving industry. Watching the code cycle evolution is a better place to start from at all points in the build. From architects and engineers, the GC’s project managers and engineers, to the carpenter out there wearing the fall gear. Code is written in blood, and it’s the MINIMUM called for, going above and beyond is never discouraged except by the money people in the projects.
This is a very important warning for remodelers and those using newer constructions techniques and materials. "Build tight, ventilate right" is the saying in weatherization, but too often there is a lack of understanding of what constitutes "right." The tighter you make the envelope, the more attention you have to pay to movement (or lack thereof) of air. Of course, one could eschew the modern building materials---most of which were designed to follow existing building traditions in the most profitable way---and use breathable natural materials, like hemp-lime. A well-made hemp-lime wall structure avoids the complexity of modern, multi-layer, multi-material walls system while providing moisture management through natural permeability; they provide insulative value and comfort through thermal mass; and they reduce the toxicity and carbon footprints of buildings. A hemp-lime wall can be formed in place (cast) or assembled from pre-made blocks. Exterior and interior finishes of lime-based renders can protect the structure from the elements while maintaining moisture permeability. Hemp-lime is not load-bearing, so some sort of framed structure is needed. But another benefit of this methodology is that the construction crew needn't be skilled tradespeople: a few hours of hands-on instruction from a single skilled foreperson is all that is required to deputize a hemp-lime building crew. The possible downside of such building methods don't necessarily lend themselves to the economic realities surrounding our housing shortage (in the U.S. and elsewhere). How can we build the volume of housing that we need at the pace that we need it? Perhaps local communities can organize hemp-lime building cohorts that can supply labor to local housing developments. The labor need not be skilled to the same extent that a traditional stick-frame house requires, so perhaps that is an advantage? I'm eager to see how hemp-lime can be integrated into modern construction. It's such a beneficial material, and truly carbon-negative.
For viewers to avoid confusion: it's not stated but the video is applicable to the UNITED STATES. References to "The Department of Energy" mean "The United States Department of Energy" etc.
This is a very strange video. In Europe we build with insulation in the walls and use barriers that let moisture escape. Balanced ventilation keeps the moisture out without adding a extra dehumidifier. There are so many confusing and seeming false information here just to sell you stuff.
Thanks for covering this. One other idea I've considered for a more durable house is to extend the eaves much further than is common today. I believe that I've read that wall failures are almost guaranteed within a century if the gutter is on the side of the house, but a house with two foot eaves will rarely have problems. I've also seen enough termites using foam insulation as highways to wood that I don't intend to use it anywhere near the foundation of the house. Not to mention that it makes houses much more flammable. I didn't realize that they had exterior rockwool, and I plan to consider using that. It seems that rockwool is a healthy replacement for asbestos.
@@SlaviJordanov Not that it couldn't be a poor study, but I read one where they filled the air with rockwool fibers and had rats breathe it for a substantial length of time. They found that their lungs could (slowly) clear it out of their bodies.
A good HRV also manages to reduce the humidity difference. The answer here can be to insulate in different ways, but also use better practices to prevent moisture in undesirable locations, which should be done regardless. An AC or heat pump, especially a variable speed system, can be used to properly manage humidity by running it at a very low speed.
moisture management is critical for sure. We recently started rennovating our basement. Even though it was technically finished, it was cold AF in the winters and had no air barrier between the foundation and the living space. Given that we live in area with some of the worst radon issues in Canada, insulating the basement as best we can was paramount. We started with the utility room that had exposed concrete flooring and now that it's done, the room feels great to be in, but we needed a dehumidifier to keep moisture out. It runs 24/7 and collects a little less than a pint a day.
Nailed it. I did 2 layers of 1" xps staggered seams cuz rockwool is not possible to get for a non contractor. Wish I did 2 layers of 1.5". I'm in Minnesota zone 6. It was a pain to do but it's a 90 year home and knew I had to be careful as you can rot a house if you do it wrong. Air sealing is super critical from the outside to stop that insane amount of water vapor that can penitrate. I wish I paid more attention to that but it seems good, for now. Love your videos. Keep em coming.
@@ProleDaddythat's what code says now, but it's changing slowly. Never ever use poly. Smart barriers only. Poly should be illegal to use. Doesn't allow trapped moisture to escape and I don't care what you do short of stainless steel sheets welded, you are t sealing everything like you hope. I believe next code update is r10 exterior for 2x4 and class 2 vapor inside. So primer and paint or membrane or a smart vapor retarder
I remember researching this for Ohio. The goal is to have it thick enough so the dew point would be inside the foam so water vapor would not condense on the back side of the foam, against the sheeting. I ended up using 3", 2 1.5 layers. I'm sure he has covered this in one of the multiple videos available
@Jaker788 the rockwool for continuous exterior insulation comfortboard is very hard to get your hands on at least this was 2 years ago due to supply chain issues. Now they seem available at Lowes.
The kind of video that makes me happy to live in a country with cold and dry winters. Four-five months a year with the average temperatur below zero and a dry spring tend to prevent any mold issues unless the parts are directly exposed to rain.
Those are great PhD results for building a house but those workers don't have a PhD. The assumption that the work is being executed without errors is flawed. In essence, the concept must not only bee robust against climate and weather but also against tolerances and errors during the build process.
Disagree, IF you are building the house yourself. We shouldn't accept work done to the lowest common denominator. You tell the builder what you expect, and they are expected to deliver. That said, for mass produced cookie cutter homes where you aren't really involved, you are most definitely going to get a lot of homes built by rubber stampers and workers who are not competent.
My old house, over 100 years is hard to insulate, but having a woodstove is the best thing ever. My house really works well on old technology. Not everything new is good or better than old tech.
@@Omniverse0 I take it you've never lived with a wood stove. In my experience a single candle pollutes the indoor air more than a halfway decent wood stove. You might get a tiny bit of smoke escaping when you first fire it up, but once it's warm there's such a strong suction from the flue pipe that any leak will only pull fresh air in. Smoke does not leak into the room. Some old wood stoves can be bad for local outdoor air quality, but modern ones burn very clean as long as the fuel is of good quality. But man, heating a poorly insulated home with a wood stove can get very expensive. Firewood typically isn't free. My parents used to do that. In the winter they'd easily go through a sack of firewood every day. They cut that heating costs in half simply by re-insulating the living room. Turned out the walls had originally been slapped together with very little insulation. Later they installed a simple air to air heat pump, cutting heating costs even further. Now they only need that wood stove for the absolute coldest days of the year.
I put in a wood stove a couple years ago and it was the best thing I ever did. It's a lifestyle. Wood stoves aren't for modern people in subdivisions but land owners who manage land and know how to use a chainsaw that uses gas. lol I will always have a wood stove from now on.
Interesting. In Poland for example we built a lot of buildings for people working in heavy industry, mines or ironworks. They were built really quickly and cheaply out of prefabricated slabs of concrete - so called "Large panel system building". At some point 12 mln people were living in such buildings, and it was like 30% of total population. Some estimated that they will last like 40-70 years. And since they were built from 60' to 90', some of them would be already due to deconstruction by now. But they were insulted. And it extended lifespan of these buildings for many years to come, and they still stand without any problem. Even in areas with heavy ground movements due to mining.
If built correctly those shitty panel buildings are incredibly strong. I saw one damaged by a gas explosion on the ground floor. Some panels were blown off and the whole floor was destroyed. So it had to be demolished. They evacuated the nearby buildings and used explosives. The explosives were only installed on that floor because of flying debris risk. When they were se off the building became one floor shorter like in the cartoons. In the end it had to be taken apart panel by panel as the quantity of explosives needed would also damage the surrounding buildings.
Great overview essay. My problem with it is that your narrative drifted away from “energy efficiency” for existing buildings into the typical fetishization of BTU chasing in super high efficiency NEW buildings. BTW…THE most important moisture issues in typical residential construction in typical (say Zone 5) locations where indoor humidity fluctuates seasonally are THESE three things: Bulk water, bulk water and bulk water.
Setting up the insulation on the outside of the walls has always been an idea I've been wanting to explore anyways , And as a contractor I have seen this moisture and mold problem you're discussing when insulation was not thought out properly , But as far as the air conditioner is concerned all that needs to be done there is simply make it smaller or the get a multi-stage Unit that can fulfill heavy load requirements and allow for dehydration functionality .
In eastern or northern europe only heritage buildings are insulated inside, in scandinavia frame houses are more prevalent so of course they are insulated inside the frame, while where I live its usually calcium silicate blocks that make up the building walls and the walls are either insulated with wool or sometimes wrongly with polystyrene.
Crappy building is a huge problem. Dominant big companies and smaller builders alike are using unqualified labor to throw up poorly-built, shoddy homes that, despite some attempts at using modern building techniques, are going to be leaky.
My crawl space if uninsulated. It is also prone to soil moisture. Of course it would be best to solve the moisture by lining the space. It is a very tight and complicated space. We have a mild climate. In fact the coolness of the space keeps most of the house cool so we hardly use the air conditioner (second story sometimes). The only problem is cold floors. It may not be worth the risk of insulating a floor that is in good condition for over 40 years.
@@pcatfulCrawlspaces can be a completely different animal, since you're constantly dealing with moisture and soil gasses migrating inwards, and you can't effectively dry into the crawlspace. We have a whole video dedicated to this if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/3YOIzEzEwWo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
water water everywhere but not a drop to drink.. Damp, mould and humidity are important factors. Here in UK we have a very wide variety of building constructions, many dating from pre-USA, so some real challenges! Most people (inc many engineers) aren't really aware of how the balance of concerns has "flipped" and why things like ACH (air changes per hour) are having such an impact (and dehumidification..). We are going back to 'keeping the cold out', rather than 'keeping the heat in' ;-)
Finally!!! Someone stating the intrinsically flawed strategy embraced by our entire residential building industry. So the last 30- odd years of home building has been one long experiment with a very concerning balance of failures to successful initiatives. The resolution would seem to be to eliminate cellulose from the building process. We now need to totally re-think the residential home building template.
@@PatrickKQ4HBD concrete breaks down and leaks nearly as badly as wood. Stone would be the best bet strength and longevity wise, but its very limited in its supply if the goal is reducing environmental impact.
Maybe it is time to look beyond USA's borders. We have buildings that work well, even in wood frame construction. We didn't stray too far from the original way we build houses and we know how to build not just for generations, but for centuries. And concrete has indeed proven to be a poor choice. Burned clay, wood or raw clay are extremely long lasting when maintained properly. The roof needs to be big enough (yeah, to protect the walls from rain and it helps against heat too) and when it is maintained it can last centuries. How has the USA forgotten to build proper homes?
Unfortunately we operate under the ludicrous belief that nothing is a "flawed strategy" as long as it's making money. No where is that more evident than in our residential housing market.
great explainer for any builder or client who its about to embark on the path of passive house building or energy efficient construction, it can be a real trap if not done properly. thanks for your insight
It’s important to realize that the approach for hot-dry climates is very different. In particular, an impermeable moisture barrier is counterproductive. Most videos and books are discussing concepts for cold-wet or hot-wet climates.
Leaving aside the cost or reconstruction or repair, rotting buildings are also an incredible health hazard. People will be badly affected by mold and mildew long before anybody realizes its there.
Every time i see technology being used in houses and cars it think how many sensors and circuit boards are going to malfunction in the products lifetime.
I probably would dismiss this video, but this summer I replaced oil burner for hot water with hot water tank. And that tank insulated so well that temperature in boiler room dropped significantly and we got a problem with condensation on (cold) water pressure tank and cold water pipes. So we had to remediate it It is definitely something that is often overlooked, we didn’t even consider such consequences
Interesting video. I presume that cardinal points exposure could also drive the exterior insulation planning? A "southern" exposure exterior wall would have a far different heat/cool cycle compared to its "northern" opposite wall.
This is an interesting video and I’ve got quite a long comment here so bear with me as I ramble a bit. FYI I’m no expert on anything really but this is just my thoughts on building practices that I feel are common sense (although could be completely wrong as I say again, I’m not expert). I love reading about new wonder materials, building practices toting energy efficiency, quicker build times, etc etc true marvels in technology to the days of old. But once the twinkle in my eye starts to lose its luster and I sit back after watching “the latest and greatest” I begin to think, “is this actually good for us?” I live in a relatively old home built in 1923, no insulation besides old cellulose board underneath a pine tongue and groove interior and plaster walls. I live in a rural area and am blessed with being able to burn wood to heat my home. I watch and listen to videos just like this one explaining smart vapor barriers, wonder insulation, dehumidification, fresh air, etc etc. then I start to think, are these homes actually energy efficient and durable? I understand that not everyone can beat with wood and they shouldn’t, however all of these gadgets you must have to keep your house from falling apart seems very expensive to maintain and consume lots of energy. I imagine most homeowners are neglectful when it would come to maintain all this equipment and could easily see a system failing in this very complicated system just to keep a house from falling apart and bingo now you have tens of thousands of dollars in repairs and a moldy home. Air sealing is another thing that worries me, maybe an expert could chime in here but I just don’t think I have ever heard of a product that could seal something completely for the duration of time a home should last. When I hear air sealing I think of that rubberized undercoating you can buy for the frame of your car that will eventually crack and become permeable, allowing moisture and salt to eat away your frame from the inside out. Homes shift, are exposed to extreme temperatures/uv moisture you name it. What happens when a tiny amount of area in your home air sealed is no longer working? Moisture gets in but can’t get out so destroys your home. I saw in comments here also about the materials we build with, how they could easily be and are poisonous. Makes me wonder if in 30 or so years you’re going to be seeing a new round of something similiar to those mesothelioma ads and everyone and their brother is paying huge costs for abatement on their homes. I understand that we can’t build homes exactly like we used to, and that inefficient drafty old houses aren’t exactly something somebody enjoys. But there has got to be a way to apply old building techniques that we know work and work very well, to new efficiency standards. Homes filled with mechanical/electrical gadgets to keep your house from rotting and needing to seal everything from keeping your house from being destroyed in my opinion, is a disaster. Wood needs to breathe and to be able to dry and no man made material is ever going to be able to completely seal everything up (at least not for decades and decades I would think). I also think that instead of trying to squeeze every last bit of “energy efficiency” and paying top dollar for every new hot item, we should start thinking about ways to just reduce are consumption. I know it’s hard to hear and many people won’t like this but maybe wearing a sweater in the house isn’t such a bad thing after all when you feel cold, and keeping the thermostat down low (to a safe level of course) and just using a small space heater to heat the area you are currently in isn’t a bad idea either bs trying to keep a large space like an entire home heated to an “ideal” temp all the time. Anyways these are just some thoughts and ramblings I like to think about from time to time
Adequate ventilation will prevent mold growth in all but the most humid climates. Air conditioning acts as dehumidification, but people weren't all living in moldy houses prior to AC.
You say you understand that everyone shouldn't heat with wood, but you don't really. Yeah, if we would accept a house being hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and wear clothes, that would mitigate a lot. You can't assume that. It's inhuman.
@@kanucks9 What is "inhuman" about wearing season-appropriate clothing and only heating the room you're currently in? Sure, the whole population isn't going to do it on their own while fossil-fuel energy is cheap, but if/when energy becomes expensive, people will naturally think twice before heating the entire house to 72F/22.5C.
We should be living in underground or ' in the ground' , which sounds correct. Properly designed , constructed and with quality materials will yield a near no maintenance home "exterior" that doesn't need insuring while providing security against mother nature ,most acts of God, and the human element.
Im a builder and I hear from all the old and some new builders how bad all these new energy codes are for the buildings longevity. The problem is them. They still build the same way they have their whole lives. And air sealing and vapor permeability is huge. Get it right.
What about radiant barriers like Attic foil? I’ve been thinking about installing some in my 1950s built home in Savannah GA. I would think it would be ok as the attic would still have airflow as the foil has perforations and the beams would still get hot allowing them to dry out.
question, doesn't the perfect wall system result in condensation on the "cold side"? which in somewhere like the south would be the interior side of the insulation or is it assumed that the exterior insulation is, and always will be air tight?
If the inside is the cold part (in a hot climate) there is probably some cooling being done, extracting humidity in the process. Here in Europe, there is s lot being built with foil/plastic that stops most moisture getting through, and can do that in a certain direction.
Excellent content as usual. Locally in the Midwest I’ve been seeing commercial building move away from lumber and towards steel framed and fiber cement sheathed structures. This solves the wood rot and structure compromising effects of moisture laden assemblies but doesn’t fix the mold issues. Is the solution really that exterior insulation is THE only solution to solve both structural damage and organic material growth?
The short answer is yes. Because even if the framing is steel most structures will have paper backed drywall, moisture sensitive in-wall insulation that can mold or under perform when wet, moisture sensitive flooring (carpet, wood, subfloor, etc). Even if you made everything from water resistant materials, it's not simply a matter of having materials that hold up during water damage, it's also a matter of health and air quality as mold can grow on dust. Moisture resistance and drying factors are 2nd to preventing condensation to begin with and exterior insulation is the best way to do that. This video focuses on the drying advantages of this assembly category but there are many other reasons that this assembly category outperforms. For example, it excels with water and air tightness to begin with (in addition to drying if water or vapor does get through). It excess at reducing thermal bridging which makes specifications easier to compute/model and more reliable/accurate modeling. It also works in various climate zones for humidity control by reducing vapor and reducing hvac loads (helps keep house dry in humid climate and moist enough in dry climate, or moist enough during extreme hot and cold when heavy hvac loads might overdry). etc etc etc In mild climates you can build however you want to build. If you are willing to use lots of energy you can live in a log cabin. But if you want to tick all the boxes that humanity is trying to tick (extreme comfort and control, low energy use, durability, cost) this is the way to go.
Great video! Any further suggestions about construction with SIP's? The video talked about exterior insulation to keep the condensing surface warm, but on a SIP would that be somewhat redundant or expensive because all of your insulation is in the panel itself? Do you think using a WRB on the exterior of the panel with a vented cavity system behind the cladding would be sufficient to prevent moisture issues? This would be a building in climate zone 5, 6, or 7.
We actually have a whole video on SIPs that got posted a couple weeks ago, you can find it here: th-cam.com/video/EMtKTAXM6eo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Nice to finally hear some common sense, instead of just the usual, rabid, must-save-energy-at-all-costs. Need this same kind of common sense with modern (junk) appliances, where, not only do they not last, but often their energy savings over old, well made equipment is a lie (to encourage replacement), and their performance is inferior.
Yeah I just watched the video that explains why an air conditioner only lasts about half as long today as it did in 1990. Part of it is because they are made with lighter weight parts in order to make them more efficient. Lighter weight parts wear out faster. So then you have to spend $7,000 replacing it in 10 years instead of in 30 years. I think the actual number is that they last 13 years now.
More recommended reading on this subject (other than the Author's book): "Buildings Don't Lie" by Henry Gifford. A nice succinct primer on building science for the layperson.
Don't you have cellulose or wood fiber insulation in the US? It's a common solution for poorly insulated wooden houses here in Norway, either blown into cavities or as sheets. It requires a vapour barrier that's somewhat diffusion open on the inside, and an air/moisture barrier on the outside that's more diffusion open, often fiberboard sheathing, which also requires an air gap behind the cladding. I would never ever insulate with foam or anything that doesn't transport moisture horizontally, as wood/cellulose does. Wood/cellulose is much more forgiving, whereas artificial materials require a perfect installation and no punctures or you will get mold and rot. From an environmental perspective, it's also much better than plastic or glass based insulation, being made from waste products. As for insulation specs, it's better at heat buffering, retaining heat absorbed during the day and slowly releasing it back during the night. There's less sharp rise/fall of temperatures indoors. Unintuitively, it's also more fire proof (thanks to borax additives). I think it's just a superior insulation material! For old houses especially.
I live in washington state, on the West side of seattle in the rain forrests, and can tell you that this is 100% correct. I've had the remarkable experience of being able to build my own tiny house on leased land in old growth forests and the only way to not have everything you own rot in a traditional home is by constantly moving it around and giving 6" of space from the wall from anything natural fiber based to prevent mold. I am also a mycologist and know how to grow mushrooms, so can tell you that mushrooms are happy at any humidity above 65% which is very easy to acquire after a few rains in late summer. I've lived in so many old homes in my 20s that I can say the only ones which didnt suffer from mold were the ones that didn't have insulation, and those homes were not insulated because in the early 1900's the cost of heating a home was less than the cost of insulating, plus the technology of insulation was not adequate, they were using shredded wood for the love of God. So the only way to properly insulate your home is to essentially have an exoskeleton with an inner tent of insulation, and the insulation will still rot if not protected by Dupont's ground breaking teflon technology, which essentially turns a home's skin under the clad into a raincoat full of holes from the penetration of cladding on the exterior. Even if the tyvek weren't penetrated by the cladding nails, it still gets clogged up after a decade or more of particles flowing through it's pores, so it is only a temporary prevention method to the reality of dealing with nature. I believe houses are build entierly improperly for Washington, but they are also designed for cost effectiveness in a suburb enviornment, which is why they do not work when you put them out in the rain forests. Metal is the only solution to the modern housing dilemma. Anything less than metal is going to be gone in 30 years and cause issues to you in the long term as your lungs filter out the contaminates. Houses need to be designed to be temporary and modular, it is a disservice to our earth to fill it full of fiberglass landfills, and you will realize this anytime you google a genertic suburb, then realize that each house is littered with cancer causing chemical insulation, and so is every other house on the block of all the other millions of suburbs that exist. What a crime of nature. on top of all the rambling I have done, I'm convinced, ontop of the toxic food most people are eating, the reason why most of society is becoming ill is due to the toxins within their household, and how it all becomes present in their daily life because of the design of their shelter.
Is it an American thing to only think about extremely badly thought out wooden shacks AKA "houses"? You build a house from brick. You use concrete and rebar if you eastern European. Those houses last for centuries and have no mould or rot problems. I live in a very cheaply made house in the UK, build about 50 years ago. I think it has the right balance of insulation and ventilation, where the house is pretty easy to keep warm and improvement to the efficiency will save less than £1 per day, at best. The house has zero rot or damp issues, zero mould. Yes, it does mean I have to open a window once in a while (something the native English people are vehemently against) but I think that's a very good balance and any more technology is just asking for trouble!
@@todorkolev7565 you see brick in rural areas because people actually built those houses, but most people live in subdivisions that are thrown up as quickly and cheaply by developers as possible. If I ever get the opportunity to build a house I'm doing a commie pod with some cheap exterior siding to blend in lol.
@todorkolev7565 It's a matter of historical availability. When America was settled wood was plentiful. So wood was use across the states as they were settled and developed. Around the 1890-1920 we started using bricks a lot more but then wars happened and the Great depression. All of that followed by the baby boom post WW2 and we just needed housing built fast and wood is fast. Thus I guess we've kept trying to fix the problem with wood with out realizing that the wood is the problem I personally think that a concrete structure that is externally insulated with an HVAC system would the peak for a single family home.
I am currently looking into installing an ERV into our top level apartment to get better air without pushing all our heat outside. Insulation of the roof is minimal and the other owners of our five apartment complex don't want to insulate in the near future, leaving us doing what can be done from our side.
It won´t fix all problems, but building out of aerated concrete like Ytong is so much better then wood/OSB/plasterboard. Great heat insulation, extremly easy to work with, super durable, you can hang very heavy stuff anywhere, almost soundproof, well drying, water resistant... And insulating it is so easy. Just stick mineral wool onto it (or polystyrene or something, but wool is best IMHO), then put a glue for aerated concrete over it and you are golden. This is not me hating on you, but really, I don´t understand why whole northern America uses wood. Seriously, if I were to have a construction company in the US, I would try my best to get hands on this and make my name by building from aerated concrete blocks.
Kudos for bringing attention to the issue of ACTUAL sustainability. I'm so tired of seeing single-variable optimization of things, whether it's for "zero SHMOVID", "green buildings" and other "green" products which are really more about maximizing short-term profits rather than selling products that actually have less long-term cost, all things considered. How is it better to have cars with recycled plastic parts or something ridiculous like that if the item itself is NOT REPAIRABLE and lasts a fraction of the "old school" designs.We can't assume it's better. Unless we're talking metal & glass, so much of what we use doesn't get recycled because it's not feasible due to economics.
If you do the insulation properly, you can almost eleminate the risks you outlined. However, that‘s not an easy task to do. You indeed need dry materials, they need to be able to transport e.g. condensed water in- and outwards. An active ventilation in your house (with heat recovery) also a good investment to stay really dry inside, which in turn makes it easy for any remaining water vapor to get out of your construction into the inside and then being flushed out via ventilation.
Great points to note that are failure modes of wooden structures. Just even more reason to build with ICF, insulated concrete forms, as they have none of those failure modes.
Good stuff. The Passive House airtigtness of .6 ach50 pascals was established as much for the controll of moist air in the wall as it is for energy savings. The idea is at that air tighness level every significant hole will be discovered and delt as it will lead to condensation over time.
If you don't have good insulation in the cold weather you will have moisture issues also you need to make sure you have the proper ventilation in the attic and fresh air make up and proper exhaust for the bathroom and kitchen
We need to rethink this scenario. I built a new house about 8 years ago. Did all the requirements and made sure that the house was up to the current codes. Now I have a daily fight to keep the Co2 level in the safe level. Having to leave a window open all day with a bath fan running to help turn over the poor air quality defeats the purpose.
In a cold climate why put a water and vapor impermeable surface-insulation on the outside? Seems like a great way to trap moisture in the wall. Interior vapor barriers don't work because air flow is inevitable, and it carries a lot more water.
Very glad to see someone talk about remodels. I read too much and figured some of this out on my own, but having a professional opinion is great. I'm doing "opportunistic" upgrades on my 100 year old house as i get things repaired. It seems like the main thing is to make it work as it was supposed to when it was first built. After that, you can tweak some. Last big upgrade was A/C (St. Louis, Missouri) and installed a two-stage outdoor unit to help increase run time, and a multi-speed air handler to circulate air 24X7 to help control basement humidity and make up somewhat for not having zones. Next will be to insulate the roof of the stand-up storage attic with vapor open mineral wool to about R-15 with ventilation between the top of the insulation and the roof deck from the eaves to the ridge vent. That should permit drying. It's not R-48 but it's way better than what we have now. After that I think a range hood. I think the house leaks enough i don't have to do much about make-up air, but that *would* be great. Thanks for your work.
yea trends tend to push for shifting to new methods with out checking viability or unforeseen circumstances leading to poor outcomes. though this is definitely also a situation where rapid shift means money for those selling the trend so ultimately no surprise.
Don't forget radon. You might be able to add better insulation to an older home, but can you really make sure the radon doesn't get in and stay there? Also, is it really cheaper to seal the heck out of everything then install and maintian a ERV or HRV? Some things make much more sense in new construction.
I can only tell you from my German POV. I stalled 3 decentralised HEV in my last house and the present one. These are boxes (60x40x10 cm) the run on approximately 5 W. I don’t have to worry about ventilation/ heat loss. Asthmatic visitors commented positively. It is also about CO2 and chemicals getting out not only moisture. Radon of course as well. Opening the windows alone is inefficient and has a number of drawbacks. I think Sweden has a mandatory Code to include forced ventilation. I think the health benefits in the long run outweigh the initial/ running costs.
@@BobPritchard Here's the building science Corp article which has the tables and breaks it down even further, it's free: buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insights-newsletters/bsi-100-hybrid-assemblies
Another banger! Would be curious if you've looked at the impact on lifecycle on retrofits? I sometimes wonder if the embodied carbon of all that work is enough to overcome the savings in operational carbon if the building were simply allowed to continue operating normally (inefficiently). That is even with the benefit of assuming the durability is not compromised, something you demonstrate here is not the always the case.
I build icf (insulated concrete forms) houses. I build a lot of houses that are icf all the way to the truss. There is no thermal break with properly installed windows and doors.
exteriour insulation is just way too expensive; probably because there is high demand. something to note though, is animal / pests LOVE insulation. so before you know it, you'll basically end up with 2 full walls side by side, with sacrificial sheathing. metal siding is cheap and creates a inherent rainscreen via the corrogation, so the exteriour wall could probably just skip the sheathing and use metal siding.
1) Replace windows with Nordic ones 2) Install Geothermal heat pump (especially in cooler climates). One kWh of electricity becomes 4-6 kWh of heat 3) Install solar panels to generate excess electricity. 4) Install home battery storage when it becomes financially viable. No need to insulate further and you have slashed your heating costs by 80%.
I live in New Zealand where the government building regulations were so poor we have a generation of rotting homes called "leaky house syndrome" We lived off grid in a remote rural area. Out living areas were two 40 foot refrigerated reefers. These were no longer refrigerated but being made from stainless steel inside and outside with 4 inches of urethane foam in the middle. No thermal bridges and no moisture ingress. The waste heat from computer, microwave and fridge kept the inside at about 19 deg C. A small fan driven heat exchanger supplied fresh air, the few windows were argon double glazed. Humidity and mold problems were non-existent. We had lots of other space as work shop, hot house gardens etc so small living space was not a hassle. Living in shipping containers is semi-illegal here, so much for wisdom. I now live in town in a 20 foot reefer inside my commercial building. It is warm, dry, quiet and comfortable.
@@howardsimpson489 When you say shipping containers, if that refers to used containers, and not purpose-built, the illegality probably has to do with the treatment commercial containers have, to make them fire and pest resistant. Those chemicals are almost always wildly carcinogenic, and there's also the stuff that may have been transported, which could've been unhealthy. I've not researched the numbers, but purpose-built containers for habitation appear to be on par cost-wise compared to traditional construction, with the added benefit of being transportable. I'll be happy to see an actual comparison of pros and cons, but in the end for urbanized areas, it's the cost of the land that's problematic, and not the residence that would be built.
@@herbertherb9904 regular windows for us in EU. Triple glazing, argon filled, alu frame plastic cover and rubber sealing. Space technology for USA with single pane sliding windows.
Water always finds a way :) Polyester block is absorbent free material to avoid water accumulation inside insulation that reduces insulation efficiency 5 folds at minimum.
Ventilation is extremely improtant: It prevents the build of: Humidity, mold, CO2, PMCs, Radon and other gases and substances. Heat exhcangers help keep thermal loss of ventilation at a minimum.
Your videos are consistently high-quality. If I may, it appears the input gain is too low or something is causing sibilance on the voice track. Please consider looking into it 🙏
Another consideration is wildlife. Modern sealed up, foam-stuffed attic buildings leave no room for the bats and birds that have for centuries roosted in the roof spaces of our buildings and is a major factor in the alarming decline of bat populations in particular. When modernising a building, please take the time to put some bat bricks or roost boxes up as part of the renovations, for our fuzzy little friends 🧡
All these new super sealed up houses seems great when new, but lets see how they hold up when all those waterproofing materials are 50+ years old. Only time will tell.
Apparently you are supposed to reapply waterproofing periodically. Need to do that in my own home before winter: we are getting moisture ingress around windows.
If you want true longevity, resource saving and energy efficiency: - Let current wood houses degrade and be demolished over the next 1 to 3 generations. - Replace those with buildings of stone, earth, cement blocks or brick. - Place new structures to make full use of seasonal sunlight angles, avoid wind gullies and issues with rainwater flows. - Bring back the multi-generational households of the past, thus reducing the need for new housing by at least 50%. Trying to find solutions to a problem they caused is silly. Do it right the first time, follow historical methods if need be.
Wooden homes can last for centuries. Just look at any European city that was not leveled in WW2, they have many buildings that are older than the concept of a United States of America ;)
Mold is still an issue in a brick house, if you have double glazed windows. It just doesnt't destroy the structural integrity, unless you have wooden beams for your roof.
@@dillpickle1308 It's not required in those warmer climate zones for condensation control since it's seldom cold enough for condensation to form on the backside of the sheathing. You ofcourse can install rigid insulation outboard as a thermal break to prevent heat gain from the hot sun through the conductive structural components.
Actually hempcrete is the best way to construct a building, it insulates and breathes and is extremely durable. It is completely natural and non toxic.
I think the Passive House Institute would take exception to your claim they don't take moisture management into consideration. Of course they do. Still, it always remains with the designers, architects, envelope consultants, builders and inspectors to ensure the right details and materials for the conditions. Passive House focusses on insulation, thermal bridging, air tightness and ventilation because it's the cheapest way to get the best results. Once you have a great envelope, other systems to generate and use energy can be smaller and less expensive. You did allude to that. Otherwise, good advice. Vancouver, where I live, suffered greatly in the 1980s and 90s because many buildings were built without the necessary understanding of moisture management. It was called the leaky condo crisis. Many assumed the "leaky" referred to rainwater, which was only partly true. Much of it was air leakage carrying moisture into the envelope where it condensed.
This video is so funny to me. Because everything mentioned in it has been solved over 100 years ago in europe. Insulating homes from teh outside? Well nobody wanted to loose inside space so ofcourse it goes outside. Loss of ventilation? Well just open your windows for a bit each day. There even is a german word for taht "Stoßlüften" (shock ventilation) which serves only the singular purpose of getting out the mois air inside your house during winter and replace it with fresh air without wasting excessive amounts of energy. Ofcourse a proper passive ventilation system is even better. The US needs to change building materials first and foremost. Wood is THE worst building material for a sustainable house. It has 0 energy retention, 0heat shielding and is excessively prone to heat, cold and moisture. Amercians never learned to ventilate their houses because it would loose them a lot of heat. A stone house or better yet one build using hightly energy dense stones would retain most of the heat you put into the stone during the winter reducing the need to reheat your house after opening a window for 5 minutes. The same goes in the summer. A/C are pretty uncommon in europe and you wonˋt find them in 99% of residential buildings in germany. Stone keeps out the heat from the outside for a long while, especially if insulated from the outside. Building a "net zero" or "net positive" house in germany required no changes to how a house is build. it was just a question of quality. Making sure everything is airtight (and I mean air tight. You literally fill the houese with smoke to test if any of it leaks out, it only passes if none leaks.)
Americans build homes from wood because it is available here. new build stone and brick houses are prohibitively expensive because both the materials and skilled labor to assemble them are not as widely available as they are in Europe. Not to mention, building new homes is not land or resource efficient when we have all these existing homes that we could simply improve upon.
Wood is an excellent building material. Heck Gutex is made in Germany and is amazing. Wood shouldn’t rot, if it does there are moisture issues that need to be dealt with regardless if using stone or metal, etc.
Great point made, well explained. Example from Germany, new windows and doors are expertly sealed for energy efficiency, but the seals have cutouts to allow ventilation. So you build sealed components in order to compromise the seal or install forced ventilation. Great logic.
So cool how many machines we need to save us from the absent benefits of - Lots of Brick, some stone , lots of Mud, some wood and a whole lot Ca O' lime. A few thousand saved on a building site, on plastic & ply. tens of to run these sheds, like buildings.
When I saw the City at night I guessed Seattle... the 'Wheel' and Piers with large buildings looked familiar... yup Google Map and Google Earth confirmed my guess...
As the price of residential solar power drops, it's becoming uneconomical to add insulation when we could just add panels. Then we must raise the question: Why are we going through all this effort, cost, and exposure to toxic materials for the sake of using crappy materials like OSB? Why not just stuff a little fiberglass in the attic and walls and focus on the solar patio or carport?
As a homebuilder of 25 years, we have added through energy regulations, significant cost to building a home. This is why new homes are so expensive and why insurance is through the roof. If you're in a hurricane zone, the codes on windows, doors, and strapping also add significant cost.
Those regulations are mostly there to make it more safe for the inhabitants. You'd have weigh the upfront building cost against a rough estimate of money saving trough better insulation. Maybe there are even government grants that support better insulated houses.
Only we haven’t done so all that scientifically or even wisely. For instance, the government constantly picks winners among materials and products rather than more intelligently demanding a needed performance. Furthermore, we rarely even try to do a real, soup to nuts to landfill examination of energy and pollution for the new products. Poorly made double pane windows are a great example. Changes in light bulbs have been rather fraught. And, the real killer was subsidies for solar panels made in factories powered by coal then shipped half way around the planet which often got installed poorly creating damage and finally causing degradation of the grid.
That is right. But see it as a longtime investment. The inhabitants will be healthier on average in the longtime. (CO2/ Radon/ Chemical odours/ moisture/) Also the energy consumption will be reduced. The price of energy will only go up in the future. These houses will be more valuable when sold.
@@karl-heinzblass6098 In the meantime, we have raised the cost of home ownership through the roof (hehe). It would be great if the extra costs of every code improvement didn’t get multiplied by several factors, but those factors (corruption, taxes, inefficiency, over regulating, insurance, lawyers, etc.) are pretty much unavoidable. The simple, but politically impossible fix would to be to stop taxing and burdening labor, but that won’t happen. It might also be nice if over regulation did not cause everyone to want to live in the same places to get the jobs privileged with protection from competition and the favor of the government.
Can you do a video for insulation when you are in climate zone 1 and 2??? I am trying to figure out the best way to keep the heat out in the summer and whaat the best roof/wall assembly would be.
Is putting thick insulation in the outside of the structure really more durable? Thick insulation of any material is not going to carry the loads of the siding well, and let’s forget any masonry or cementitious siding. Building quality long-term structures is sadly counter to our throw away economy in the US, it depends on replacing the cheap failing junk we install so that the factories making it stay full. Aldous Huxley put it best, “The more stitches, the less riches.”
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Spend some time thinking about and researching why human inhabit climate extremes. It's not as simple as you are making it to be. If it were as simple as you are making it then people would not have lived in extreme climates prior to the fossil fuel age.
@@weliveonearth8012 that's not what i meant, the point was to EMBRACE nature, not to fight against it. any and all homes built in a common tornado area should be a steel and concrete construction, homes built in deserts should be mostly underground ect...
@loligagger85 You don't know what you are talking about. The cost to build a tornado proof house would be astronomical and people wouldn't be able to afford a home worse than they already can now.
Heat Recovery Ventilators are code required in all new homes across Canada. They lower relative humidity. As a designer, I do not use rigid insulation on the exterior of walls. In some builds, I delete plywood or OSB sheathing and substitute with steel wind bracing and two layers of spun Olifin fabric.\ (eg. tyvek). I use Corning Foamular rigid R10 insulation attached to the inside of the studs. This product is a rated air barrier and Vapor retarder, and provides a Code required continuous thermal break at the studs. XPS type insulation should not be applied to the exterior in cold climates since it is a vapour retarder and traps water vapour between the outer surfaces of sheathing and insulation thus leading to potential mildew on the exterior sheathing. My opinion for what it is worth.
*A Guide To Moisture Management For Residential Remodels eBook:* asiri-designs.com/shop/ols/products/moisture-management-for-residential-remodels
How relevant is this book for northern European residents? I find that most things are done very differently in the Americas compared to us in the old world.
Insulation, airtightness, mechanical ventilation, and vapour management, have to be done together. Otherwise you will destroy your house.
While my Florida home was still under construction we quickly realized that in the spring with 70°F outdoor temperatures the HVAC just never turned on. With spray foam insulation making the house very air tight humidity soared. We immediately installed a whole house dehumidifier with humidistat. It only runs when needed and solved the problem.
Oh, really? But maybe the problem lies more with the materials used ;)
We renovated our house with materials that are air tight, but can still absorb and transmit moisture. It is no secret, not a recent technology.
1. Wood fiber insulation: has been around for 100 years soon. Good insulator against heat, can safely absorb and release moisture.
2. Clay: has been used for thousands of years. Absorbs and releases moisture to keep the rooms at 45-60 % humidity. It also can pull away moisture from wood.
Now, if you look at the other materials like EPS, XPS, concrete or even that nasty foam... They can't absorb moisture, can't regulate, won't let it pass through outside. Then, when you want to get rid of it, it is not reusable, just trash. Some of it is toxic trash. I'm not sure how much is known about foam insulation, but it seems a big risk...
So, if you could choose, would you still go for the second option?
@@alis49281 No, I wouldn't. The open cell foam we used has been great. In summer the attic temperatures are a few degrees above the living space as is the sealed crawl space. Most of the year the HVAC removes any normal excess moisture but when conditions cause a rise in internal humidity the dehumidifier handles it. Most of the electricity to run these systems comes from solar with lifepo4 battery backup.
@@alis49281 There's no way I'd have all those synthetics in my house - I'm Australian, so one of the big questions in any house design is "if it burns down, what are these materials going to do?" and all the plastics immediately fail the test. I'm working towards getting rid of synthetics in our household furniture for the same reason - they're a ticking bomb in a flammable landscape.
The problem is that wood fibre at normal humidity is going to rot unless you've treated it with fungicides, and termites will go straight through clay to get to the wood fibre unless you've treated it with insecticides. Wood fibre (without biocides) is a good admixture in compost, but I don't want it in my house walls. And when humidity inside and out is above 50%, there's nowhere for that moisture to go that isn't a problem, so you're going to get mould and dust mite problems.
I'm still researching, but at present my best answer is concrete, rockwool, and mechanical dehumidification. I'm planning to move to a much wetter climate than my current home and if I'm having damp issues here, it's going to need a lot more work to keep it dry there.
Bang on, vapor barriers and ventilation with heat exchangers. This is well understood and not worthy of a sensationalist ideo like this.
You just distilled months of watching the build show network into 7 and a half minutes. Bravo.
Plus he doesn't shill every product every brought him just for some ad cash
@ People are allowed to make money 🙄
I am an Architect in UK. Some time ago I did some work with The Cranfield Institute, one of the foremost technical universities in UK, with their energy predictive modelling. I was designing a college library with classrooms and the Govt requirements for classrooms required lightweight, well insulated construction, whereas I was given a free rein on the library due to its specialist nature. For various reasons the library was a heavyweight concrete frame and floors with brick north and west facing walls with the others being single glazed with solar shading. The annual energy consumption showed that the library used less energy than the classrooms and maintained comfort level conditions all the year round with very little input. The A/C, which is vital for book storage was barely used such was the stability of the environment. During the summer the shading prevented overheating but allowed enough solar gain to warm the mass so that it emitted the heat during the night. The process was so slow that there was very limited temperature fluctuation. In the winter solar gain was allowed to heat the building and with its huge thermal capacity there was plenty to keep it warm overnight. The classrooms on the other hand had wild temperature fluctuations that at the height of summer the temperatures were intolerable and require Air Con. As Air Con costs 3x that of basic heating to run, the costs were very high. The principal problem was that the classrooms heated up during the day and couldn't give up the accumulating heat to the point where in the afternoon temperatures were getting to 38/39degC (100+degF). At night all the accumulated heat was lost and the process started over.
What i took away from this was that for energy efficiency it is better to have a heavyweight building than a lightweight, highly insulated building. Our ancestors knew this when they built their cottages of stone with 2ft thick walls that to this day are magnificently cool in summer and cosy warm in winter.
I do accept the points raised by this video but have to say that most builders don't understand the importance of constructing the correct detailing, even when its provided and this is all left to the site worker that simply doesn't give a damn.
What does it cost per square to build a heavy versus lightweight building?
That sounds like it works great in the UK, where the average daily temperature is approximately comfortable. It wouldn't work well in Texas in the summer where the average daily temperature is just hot. It wouldn't work well in North Dakota in the winter, where the average daily temperature is deadly cold. Thermal mass serves to hold a building at the average daily temperature. If the average daily temperature is not what you want, then the mass doesn't help.
Thermal Mass gets the pass.
@@jimmiller5600 It very much depends on where in the world you are and what local materials and skills that are available. In the example I cited, the reasons for using a heavyweight building for the library were not solely about energy performance, acoustics, structural spans and building response times all paid a part in the decision making. With regard to the classroom block, the decision to use a lightweight design was guided by the DfEE funding model.
If you are looking to design a building for yourself then a whole range of decisions come into play to advise the form of construction but it is worth noting that some of the very best zero energy consumption buildings are heavyweight structures, you ought not to believe the Govt and energy companies as they have a one-size fits all agenda.
@@FreedomTalkMedia If that were true then why are the vernacular buildings in the American south and Mexico built with thick adobe walls, with this style of building being common throughout Nera and Middle East? Those thick mud walled buildings are generally wonderfully cool in the day. Also, you will find that comfort conditions are a broader range than those expected by most Americans
In the northern climes, the predominance of timber often dictates the basic building materials but still the vernacular buildings were heavyweight utilising large baulks of timber instead on vast quantities if sawn timber that supports the heavyweight ethos. In those places where timber is less prevalent and stone building is common, thick stone buildings provide cosy warm places during sub-zero temperatures and comfortable temperatures during the summer.
As a person who has had her health destroyed by mold, I am looking forward to changes to building codes that recognise that current codes are not safe. It seems that the insurance industry has become aware of the potential financial impact mold awareness would have on them and they are showing a real interest in - how do we say this? - managing how mold levels are assessed, with an interest in limiting the cost to their industry. So, it will become more difficult to get a useful assessment of and compensation for mold damage.
The protocol for managing mold sickness is complicated and it seems that the best we can hope for is remission, not a total return to pre-infection levels of health.
Please, ASIRI Designs, keep speaking up. If there is such a thing as 'God's work', this probably qualifies.
You should look into clay plaster and lime (true pH >11) colours. It inhibits any growth to a certain degree when applied thick enough.
Other than that you are fighting a losing battle in the USA, because it seems to be forbidden to build houses with natural, non-toxic materials.
In Europe that's a rising trend and we even develop high-tech natural materials.
I moved on, step by step, to an interest in deep insulation cavity parallel chord sidewall truss / modified roof scissor truss unified rigid frame structure. Ground level assembly / tilt up frame construction. On building site "1" step "manufactured" and installed finely shredded wood fiber to super insulation levels, ventilated and or vapor permeable exterior solid wood sheathing panels. Looking to the future of affordable high quality, low cost, energy efficient "Swiss chalet" style housing made possible with a "refined" , relatively low cost, equipment package ... A properly scaled, vertically integrated urban and rural forest restoration / "free wood" harvesting system to small scale sawmill system to home building "system". New Era Home building for building New Era Community.
You dont need more codes, there are plenty of options available to choose from.
Always blaming "big companies" instead of politicians on the take!
@@pyhead9916 rather the opposite, contractors taking the cash for subpar work paid for by politicians.
To summary: if you do it, do it right.
Over here in Germany, air tightness is one of the most important topics in newly built homes. Ventilation is not mandatory, only a concept for ventilation which may contain manual ventilation through the windows. In practice, the necessary air exchange can only be reached by controlled ventilation and in the last years basically all new homes have some type of ERV. For older homes, decentralized ERV can be a good idea
In Denmark active ventilation was obligatory since around 2005. Have several new appartments and it works! Also, heating bills are ridicously low. Less than 300€ per year for heating and hot water for a 204m2 appartment with very large window panes. Could hardly believe it at first.
Oh yes, instead of letting the heat out through a draft, let it out purposely, instead of an heat recovery air exchanger.
Take a look at the picture with the corner of a window and rotted sheeting. Either the picture is upside down or the window was installed upside down. You can see the weep hole cover on the window frame. I use to do service for a window manufacturer and saw plenty of square picture windows installed upside down, even saw sliders installed like double hung. Also the accepted standard leakage for a 3' x 5' is .3 cuft/min that is essentially equivalent to having a 3' x 5' piece of plywood wood with a 7/8" hole drilled in it. Tested at 25 mph at 70F. Not real world, just standardized. They will leak severely when walls are well sealed. The company I worked for lost a large account when a builder used ICF to the roof, but did not use hrv. Even when I explained the well sealed, well ventilated requirements of high efficiency homes, they would not believe it and blamed the windows and cancelled their account. This was before you were around, I could have just directed them to you for an education. Ignorant labor is the weakest link in the high efficiency home market
Labor would have installed an HRV if directed to. Seems like the issue is primarily with designers.
There’s a dearth of training and education at many levels. I work at county level building inspection, and plan review, and I’m constantly educating people in all levels about the intricacies of this constantly evolving industry. Watching the code cycle evolution is a better place to start from at all points in the build. From architects and engineers, the GC’s project managers and engineers, to the carpenter out there wearing the fall gear. Code is written in blood, and it’s the MINIMUM called for, going above and beyond is never discouraged except by the money people in the projects.
4:48
This is a very important warning for remodelers and those using newer constructions techniques and materials. "Build tight, ventilate right" is the saying in weatherization, but too often there is a lack of understanding of what constitutes "right." The tighter you make the envelope, the more attention you have to pay to movement (or lack thereof) of air. Of course, one could eschew the modern building materials---most of which were designed to follow existing building traditions in the most profitable way---and use breathable natural materials, like hemp-lime.
A well-made hemp-lime wall structure avoids the complexity of modern, multi-layer, multi-material walls system while providing moisture management through natural permeability; they provide insulative value and comfort through thermal mass; and they reduce the toxicity and carbon footprints of buildings. A hemp-lime wall can be formed in place (cast) or assembled from pre-made blocks. Exterior and interior finishes of lime-based renders can protect the structure from the elements while maintaining moisture permeability.
Hemp-lime is not load-bearing, so some sort of framed structure is needed. But another benefit of this methodology is that the construction crew needn't be skilled tradespeople: a few hours of hands-on instruction from a single skilled foreperson is all that is required to deputize a hemp-lime building crew. The possible downside of such building methods don't necessarily lend themselves to the economic realities surrounding our housing shortage (in the U.S. and elsewhere). How can we build the volume of housing that we need at the pace that we need it? Perhaps local communities can organize hemp-lime building cohorts that can supply labor to local housing developments. The labor need not be skilled to the same extent that a traditional stick-frame house requires, so perhaps that is an advantage? I'm eager to see how hemp-lime can be integrated into modern construction. It's such a beneficial material, and truly carbon-negative.
For viewers to avoid confusion: it's not stated but the video is applicable to the UNITED STATES. References to "The Department of Energy" mean "The United States Department of Energy" etc.
etc "Buildings these days IN THE UNITED STATES are made a lot more moisture sensitive materials, like OSB"
Yeah. The video is really weird.
This is a very strange video. In Europe we build with insulation in the walls and use barriers that let moisture escape. Balanced ventilation keeps the moisture out without adding a extra dehumidifier. There are so many confusing and seeming false information here just to sell you stuff.
Yea, strange video. Only a problem in a country with their own weird building habits.
this comment thread is a massive circle jerk
Thanks for covering this. One other idea I've considered for a more durable house is to extend the eaves much further than is common today. I believe that I've read that wall failures are almost guaranteed within a century if the gutter is on the side of the house, but a house with two foot eaves will rarely have problems.
I've also seen enough termites using foam insulation as highways to wood that I don't intend to use it anywhere near the foundation of the house. Not to mention that it makes houses much more flammable.
I didn't realize that they had exterior rockwool, and I plan to consider using that. It seems that rockwool is a healthy replacement for asbestos.
That’s what I thought about rockwool, but it turns out that the stone fibers are very similar to asbestos
@@SlaviJordanov Not that it couldn't be a poor study, but I read one where they filled the air with rockwool fibers and had rats breathe it for a substantial length of time. They found that their lungs could (slowly) clear it out of their bodies.
A good HRV also manages to reduce the humidity difference. The answer here can be to insulate in different ways, but also use better practices to prevent moisture in undesirable locations, which should be done regardless. An AC or heat pump, especially a variable speed system, can be used to properly manage humidity by running it at a very low speed.
moisture management is critical for sure. We recently started rennovating our basement. Even though it was technically finished, it was cold AF in the winters and had no air barrier between the foundation and the living space. Given that we live in area with some of the worst radon issues in Canada, insulating the basement as best we can was paramount. We started with the utility room that had exposed concrete flooring and now that it's done, the room feels great to be in, but we needed a dehumidifier to keep moisture out. It runs 24/7 and collects a little less than a pint a day.
And where I live we have to run humidifiers :) But my house is not airtight and will not be - I like sleeping with open window even in winter
Radon is a real killer!
Nailed it. I did 2 layers of 1" xps staggered seams cuz rockwool is not possible to get for a non contractor. Wish I did 2 layers of 1.5". I'm in Minnesota zone 6. It was a pain to do but it's a 90 year home and knew I had to be careful as you can rot a house if you do it wrong. Air sealing is super critical from the outside to stop that insane amount of water vapor that can penitrate. I wish I paid more attention to that but it seems good, for now.
Love your videos. Keep em coming.
I'm in MN. I thought we did the vapor barrier on the inside. Isn't it always supposed to be on the "warm in winter" side?
@@ProleDaddythat's what code says now, but it's changing slowly. Never ever use poly. Smart barriers only. Poly should be illegal to use. Doesn't allow trapped moisture to escape and I don't care what you do short of stainless steel sheets welded, you are t sealing everything like you hope. I believe next code update is r10 exterior for 2x4 and class 2 vapor inside. So primer and paint or membrane or a smart vapor retarder
I remember researching this for Ohio. The goal is to have it thick enough so the dew point would be inside the foam so water vapor would not condense on the back side of the foam, against the sheeting. I ended up using 3", 2 1.5 layers. I'm sure he has covered this in one of the multiple videos available
Not sure what you mean by not possible to get Rockwool. It's sold at Lowe's and Home Depot.
@Jaker788 the rockwool for continuous exterior insulation comfortboard is very hard to get your hands on at least this was 2 years ago due to supply chain issues. Now they seem available at Lowes.
The kind of video that makes me happy to live in a country with cold and dry winters. Four-five months a year with the average temperatur below zero and a dry spring tend to prevent any mold issues unless the parts are directly exposed to rain.
Those are great PhD results for building a house but those workers don't have a PhD. The assumption that the work is being executed without errors is flawed. In essence, the concept must not only bee robust against climate and weather but also against tolerances and errors during the build process.
Spot On Observation
Disagree, IF you are building the house yourself. We shouldn't accept work done to the lowest common denominator. You tell the builder what you expect, and they are expected to deliver. That said, for mass produced cookie cutter homes where you aren't really involved, you are most definitely going to get a lot of homes built by rubber stampers and workers who are not competent.
My old house, over 100 years is hard to insulate, but having a woodstove is the best thing ever.
My house really works well on old technology.
Not everything new is good or better than old tech.
Your wood stove pollutes your interior.
Not everything old was ever great to begin with.
@@Omniverse0 The house has one air exchange every hour on a calm day. What pollutants are you referring to?
Be careful with particle polution. Have something to measure it in your rooms.
@@Omniverse0 I take it you've never lived with a wood stove. In my experience a single candle pollutes the indoor air more than a halfway decent wood stove. You might get a tiny bit of smoke escaping when you first fire it up, but once it's warm there's such a strong suction from the flue pipe that any leak will only pull fresh air in. Smoke does not leak into the room.
Some old wood stoves can be bad for local outdoor air quality, but modern ones burn very clean as long as the fuel is of good quality.
But man, heating a poorly insulated home with a wood stove can get very expensive. Firewood typically isn't free. My parents used to do that. In the winter they'd easily go through a sack of firewood every day. They cut that heating costs in half simply by re-insulating the living room. Turned out the walls had originally been slapped together with very little insulation. Later they installed a simple air to air heat pump, cutting heating costs even further. Now they only need that wood stove for the absolute coldest days of the year.
I put in a wood stove a couple years ago and it was the best thing I ever did. It's a lifestyle. Wood stoves aren't for modern people in subdivisions but land owners who manage land and know how to use a chainsaw that uses gas. lol I will always have a wood stove from now on.
Interesting. In Poland for example we built a lot of buildings for people working in heavy industry, mines or ironworks. They were built really quickly and cheaply out of prefabricated slabs of concrete - so called "Large panel system building". At some point 12 mln people were living in such buildings, and it was like 30% of total population.
Some estimated that they will last like 40-70 years. And since they were built from 60' to 90', some of them would be already due to deconstruction by now. But they were insulted. And it extended lifespan of these buildings for many years to come, and they still stand without any problem. Even in areas with heavy ground movements due to mining.
If built correctly those shitty panel buildings are incredibly strong. I saw one damaged by a gas explosion on the ground floor. Some panels were blown off and the whole floor was destroyed. So it had to be demolished. They evacuated the nearby buildings and used explosives. The explosives were only installed on that floor because of flying debris risk. When they were se off the building became one floor shorter like in the cartoons. In the end it had to be taken apart panel by panel as the quantity of explosives needed would also damage the surrounding buildings.
Great overview essay.
My problem with it is that your narrative drifted away from “energy efficiency” for existing buildings into the typical fetishization of BTU chasing in super high efficiency NEW buildings.
BTW…THE most important moisture issues in typical residential construction in typical (say Zone 5) locations where indoor humidity fluctuates seasonally are THESE three things:
Bulk water, bulk water and bulk water.
Setting up the insulation on the outside of the walls has always been an idea I've been wanting to explore anyways ,
And as a contractor I have seen this moisture and mold problem you're discussing when insulation was not thought out properly ,
But as far as the air conditioner is concerned all that needs to be done there is simply make it smaller or the get a multi-stage
Unit that can fulfill heavy load requirements and allow for dehydration functionality .
In eastern or northern europe only heritage buildings are insulated inside, in scandinavia frame houses are more prevalent so of course they are insulated inside the frame, while where I live its usually calcium silicate blocks that make up the building walls and the walls are either insulated with wool or sometimes wrongly with polystyrene.
Crappy building is a huge problem. Dominant big companies and smaller builders alike are using unqualified labor to throw up poorly-built, shoddy homes that, despite some attempts at using modern building techniques, are going to be leaky.
My crawl space if uninsulated. It is also prone to soil moisture. Of course it would be best to solve the moisture by lining the space. It is a very tight and complicated space. We have a mild climate. In fact the coolness of the space keeps most of the house cool so we hardly use the air conditioner (second story sometimes). The only problem is cold floors. It may not be worth the risk of insulating a floor that is in good condition for over 40 years.
@@pcatfulCrawlspaces can be a completely different animal, since you're constantly dealing with moisture and soil gasses migrating inwards, and you can't effectively dry into the crawlspace. We have a whole video dedicated to this if you're interested: th-cam.com/video/3YOIzEzEwWo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
water water everywhere but not a drop to drink..
Damp, mould and humidity are important factors. Here in UK we have a very wide variety of building constructions, many dating from pre-USA, so some real challenges!
Most people (inc many engineers) aren't really aware of how the balance of concerns has "flipped" and why things like ACH (air changes per hour) are having such an impact (and dehumidification..).
We are going back to 'keeping the cold out', rather than 'keeping the heat in' ;-)
Finally!!!
Someone stating the intrinsically flawed strategy embraced by our entire residential building industry.
So the last 30- odd years of home building has been one long experiment with a very concerning balance of failures to successful initiatives.
The resolution would seem to be to eliminate cellulose from the building process.
We now need to totally re-think the residential home building template.
You mean using stone and concrete and the like?
@@PatrickKQ4HBD concrete breaks down and leaks nearly as badly as wood. Stone would be the best bet strength and longevity wise, but its very limited in its supply if the goal is reducing environmental impact.
Maybe it is time to look beyond USA's borders.
We have buildings that work well, even in wood frame construction. We didn't stray too far from the original way we build houses and we know how to build not just for generations, but for centuries.
And concrete has indeed proven to be a poor choice. Burned clay, wood or raw clay are extremely long lasting when maintained properly. The roof needs to be big enough (yeah, to protect the walls from rain and it helps against heat too) and when it is maintained it can last centuries.
How has the USA forgotten to build proper homes?
Unfortunately we operate under the ludicrous belief that nothing is a "flawed strategy" as long as it's making money. No where is that more evident than in our residential housing market.
@@shawnbottom4769 well said
great explainer for any builder or client who its about to embark on the path of passive house building or energy efficient construction, it can be a real trap if not done properly. thanks for your insight
It’s important to realize that the approach for hot-dry climates is very different. In particular, an impermeable moisture barrier is counterproductive. Most videos and books are discussing concepts for cold-wet or hot-wet climates.
Leaving aside the cost or reconstruction or repair, rotting buildings are also an incredible health hazard. People will be badly affected by mold and mildew long before anybody realizes its there.
Hempcrete panels 2’x4’ in different thicknesses of 2” up to 6” or 10” for exterior “cladding“ insulation
Every time i see technology being used in houses and cars it think how many sensors and circuit boards are going to malfunction in the products lifetime.
That's why we need Right to Repair
I probably would dismiss this video, but this summer I replaced oil burner for hot water with hot water tank. And that tank insulated so well that temperature in boiler room dropped significantly and we got a problem with condensation on (cold) water pressure tank and cold water pipes. So we had to remediate it
It is definitely something that is often overlooked, we didn’t even consider such consequences
Interesting video. I presume that cardinal points exposure could also drive the exterior insulation planning? A "southern" exposure exterior wall would have a far different heat/cool cycle compared to its "northern" opposite wall.
This is an interesting video and I’ve got quite a long comment here so bear with me as I ramble a bit. FYI I’m no expert on anything really but this is just my thoughts on building practices that I feel are common sense (although could be completely wrong as I say again, I’m not expert). I love reading about new wonder materials, building practices toting energy efficiency, quicker build times, etc etc true marvels in technology to the days of old. But once the twinkle in my eye starts to lose its luster and I sit back after watching “the latest and greatest” I begin to think, “is this actually good for us?” I live in a relatively old home built in 1923, no insulation besides old cellulose board underneath a pine tongue and groove interior and plaster walls. I live in a rural area and am blessed with being able to burn wood to heat my home. I watch and listen to videos just like this one explaining smart vapor barriers, wonder insulation, dehumidification, fresh air, etc etc. then I start to think, are these homes actually energy efficient and durable? I understand that not everyone can beat with wood and they shouldn’t, however all of these gadgets you must have to keep your house from falling apart seems very expensive to maintain and consume lots of energy. I imagine most homeowners are neglectful when it would come to maintain all this equipment and could easily see a system failing in this very complicated system just to keep a house from falling apart and bingo now you have tens of thousands of dollars in repairs and a moldy home. Air sealing is another thing that worries me, maybe an expert could chime in here but I just don’t think I have ever heard of a product that could seal something completely for the duration of time a home should last. When I hear air sealing I think of that rubberized undercoating you can buy for the frame of your car that will eventually crack and become permeable, allowing moisture and salt to eat away your frame from the inside out. Homes shift, are exposed to extreme temperatures/uv moisture you name it. What happens when a tiny amount of area in your home air sealed is no longer working? Moisture gets in but can’t get out so destroys your home.
I saw in comments here also about the materials we build with, how they could easily be and are poisonous. Makes me wonder if in 30 or so years you’re going to be seeing a new round of something similiar to those mesothelioma ads and everyone and their brother is paying huge costs for abatement on their homes.
I understand that we can’t build homes exactly like we used to, and that inefficient drafty old houses aren’t exactly something somebody enjoys. But there has got to be a way to apply old building techniques that we know work and work very well, to new efficiency standards. Homes filled with mechanical/electrical gadgets to keep your house from rotting and needing to seal everything from keeping your house from being destroyed in my opinion, is a disaster. Wood needs to breathe and to be able to dry and no man made material is ever going to be able to completely seal everything up (at least not for decades and decades I would think).
I also think that instead of trying to squeeze every last bit of “energy efficiency” and paying top dollar for every new hot item, we should start thinking about ways to just reduce are consumption. I know it’s hard to hear and many people won’t like this but maybe wearing a sweater in the house isn’t such a bad thing after all when you feel cold, and keeping the thermostat down low (to a safe level of course) and just using a small space heater to heat the area you are currently in isn’t a bad idea either bs trying to keep a large space like an entire home heated to an “ideal” temp all the time. Anyways these are just some thoughts and ramblings I like to think about from time to time
What about places where is warm and humid outside for half of a year? How are you going to avoid mold growth without dehumidifier?
Adequate ventilation will prevent mold growth in all but the most humid climates. Air conditioning acts as dehumidification, but people weren't all living in moldy houses prior to AC.
You say you understand that everyone shouldn't heat with wood, but you don't really.
Yeah, if we would accept a house being hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and wear clothes, that would mitigate a lot.
You can't assume that. It's inhuman.
@@kanucks9 What is "inhuman" about wearing season-appropriate clothing and only heating the room you're currently in? Sure, the whole population isn't going to do it on their own while fossil-fuel energy is cheap, but if/when energy becomes expensive, people will naturally think twice before heating the entire house to 72F/22.5C.
We should be living in underground or ' in the ground' , which sounds correct. Properly designed , constructed and with quality materials will yield a near no maintenance home "exterior" that doesn't need insuring while providing security against mother nature ,most acts of God, and the human element.
Im a builder and I hear from all the old and some new builders how bad all these new energy codes are for the buildings longevity. The problem is them. They still build the same way they have their whole lives. And air sealing and vapor permeability is huge. Get it right.
What about radiant barriers like Attic foil?
I’ve been thinking about installing some in my 1950s built home in Savannah GA.
I would think it would be ok as the attic would still have airflow as the foil has perforations and the beams would still get hot allowing them to dry out.
question, doesn't the perfect wall system result in condensation on the "cold side"? which in somewhere like the south would be the interior side of the insulation or is it assumed that the exterior insulation is, and always will be air tight?
If the inside is the cold part (in a hot climate) there is probably some cooling being done, extracting humidity in the process.
Here in Europe, there is s lot being built with foil/plastic that stops most moisture getting through, and can do that in a certain direction.
What is the best insulation mechanism for metal structure buildings in hot climates such as South Texas and Florida?
Excellent content as usual. Locally in the Midwest I’ve been seeing commercial building move away from lumber and towards steel framed and fiber cement sheathed structures. This solves the wood rot and structure compromising effects of moisture laden assemblies but doesn’t fix the mold issues. Is the solution really that exterior insulation is THE only solution to solve both structural damage and organic material growth?
The short answer is yes. Because even if the framing is steel most structures will have paper backed drywall, moisture sensitive in-wall insulation that can mold or under perform when wet, moisture sensitive flooring (carpet, wood, subfloor, etc). Even if you made everything from water resistant materials, it's not simply a matter of having materials that hold up during water damage, it's also a matter of health and air quality as mold can grow on dust. Moisture resistance and drying factors are 2nd to preventing condensation to begin with and exterior insulation is the best way to do that. This video focuses on the drying advantages of this assembly category but there are many other reasons that this assembly category outperforms. For example, it excels with water and air tightness to begin with (in addition to drying if water or vapor does get through). It excess at reducing thermal bridging which makes specifications easier to compute/model and more reliable/accurate modeling. It also works in various climate zones for humidity control by reducing vapor and reducing hvac loads (helps keep house dry in humid climate and moist enough in dry climate, or moist enough during extreme hot and cold when heavy hvac loads might overdry). etc etc etc In mild climates you can build however you want to build. If you are willing to use lots of energy you can live in a log cabin. But if you want to tick all the boxes that humanity is trying to tick (extreme comfort and control, low energy use, durability, cost) this is the way to go.
@@weliveonearth8012absolutely not the only way to go.
Great video! Any further suggestions about construction with SIP's? The video talked about exterior insulation to keep the condensing surface warm, but on a SIP would that be somewhat redundant or expensive because all of your insulation is in the panel itself? Do you think using a WRB on the exterior of the panel with a vented cavity system behind the cladding would be sufficient to prevent moisture issues? This would be a building in climate zone 5, 6, or 7.
We actually have a whole video on SIPs that got posted a couple weeks ago, you can find it here: th-cam.com/video/EMtKTAXM6eo/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
@@ASIRIDesigns Thank you! I'll definitely be checking it out!
Nice to finally hear some common sense, instead of just the usual, rabid, must-save-energy-at-all-costs. Need this same kind of common sense with modern (junk) appliances, where, not only do they not last, but often their energy savings over old, well made equipment is a lie (to encourage replacement), and their performance is inferior.
Yeah I just watched the video that explains why an air conditioner only lasts about half as long today as it did in 1990. Part of it is because they are made with lighter weight parts in order to make them more efficient. Lighter weight parts wear out faster. So then you have to spend $7,000 replacing it in 10 years instead of in 30 years. I think the actual number is that they last 13 years now.
More recommended reading on this subject (other than the Author's book): "Buildings Don't Lie" by Henry Gifford. A nice succinct primer on building science for the layperson.
Don't you have cellulose or wood fiber insulation in the US? It's a common solution for poorly insulated wooden houses here in Norway, either blown into cavities or as sheets. It requires a vapour barrier that's somewhat diffusion open on the inside, and an air/moisture barrier on the outside that's more diffusion open, often fiberboard sheathing, which also requires an air gap behind the cladding.
I would never ever insulate with foam or anything that doesn't transport moisture horizontally, as wood/cellulose does. Wood/cellulose is much more forgiving, whereas artificial materials require a perfect installation and no punctures or you will get mold and rot. From an environmental perspective, it's also much better than plastic or glass based insulation, being made from waste products. As for insulation specs, it's better at heat buffering, retaining heat absorbed during the day and slowly releasing it back during the night. There's less sharp rise/fall of temperatures indoors. Unintuitively, it's also more fire proof (thanks to borax additives). I think it's just a superior insulation material! For old houses especially.
I live in washington state, on the West side of seattle in the rain forrests, and can tell you that this is 100% correct. I've had the remarkable experience of being able to build my own tiny house on leased land in old growth forests and the only way to not have everything you own rot in a traditional home is by constantly moving it around and giving 6" of space from the wall from anything natural fiber based to prevent mold. I am also a mycologist and know how to grow mushrooms, so can tell you that mushrooms are happy at any humidity above 65% which is very easy to acquire after a few rains in late summer. I've lived in so many old homes in my 20s that I can say the only ones which didnt suffer from mold were the ones that didn't have insulation, and those homes were not insulated because in the early 1900's the cost of heating a home was less than the cost of insulating, plus the technology of insulation was not adequate, they were using shredded wood for the love of God.
So the only way to properly insulate your home is to essentially have an exoskeleton with an inner tent of insulation, and the insulation will still rot if not protected by Dupont's ground breaking teflon technology, which essentially turns a home's skin under the clad into a raincoat full of holes from the penetration of cladding on the exterior. Even if the tyvek weren't penetrated by the cladding nails, it still gets clogged up after a decade or more of particles flowing through it's pores, so it is only a temporary prevention method to the reality of dealing with nature. I believe houses are build entierly improperly for Washington, but they are also designed for cost effectiveness in a suburb enviornment, which is why they do not work when you put them out in the rain forests. Metal is the only solution to the modern housing dilemma. Anything less than metal is going to be gone in 30 years and cause issues to you in the long term as your lungs filter out the contaminates.
Houses need to be designed to be temporary and modular, it is a disservice to our earth to fill it full of fiberglass landfills, and you will realize this anytime you google a genertic suburb, then realize that each house is littered with cancer causing chemical insulation, and so is every other house on the block of all the other millions of suburbs that exist. What a crime of nature.
on top of all the rambling I have done, I'm convinced, ontop of the toxic food most people are eating, the reason why most of society is becoming ill is due to the toxins within their household, and how it all becomes present in their daily life because of the design of their shelter.
insulated rammed will last thousands of years if built without steel rebar
Is it an American thing to only think about extremely badly thought out wooden shacks AKA "houses"?
You build a house from brick. You use concrete and rebar if you eastern European.
Those houses last for centuries and have no mould or rot problems.
I live in a very cheaply made house in the UK, build about 50 years ago.
I think it has the right balance of insulation and ventilation, where the house is pretty easy to keep warm and improvement to the efficiency will save less than £1 per day, at best.
The house has zero rot or damp issues, zero mould.
Yes, it does mean I have to open a window once in a while (something the native English people are vehemently against) but I think that's a very good balance and any more technology is just asking for trouble!
@@todorkolev7565 the problem is the code that is being thrusted upon older structures that can't cope with that kind of change.
@@todorkolev7565 you see brick in rural areas because people actually built those houses, but most people live in subdivisions that are thrown up as quickly and cheaply by developers as possible. If I ever get the opportunity to build a house I'm doing a commie pod with some cheap exterior siding to blend in lol.
@todorkolev7565 It's a matter of historical availability. When America was settled wood was plentiful. So wood was use across the states as they were settled and developed.
Around the 1890-1920 we started using bricks a lot more but then wars happened and the Great depression. All of that followed by the baby boom post WW2 and we just needed housing built fast and wood is fast. Thus I guess we've kept trying to fix the problem with wood with out realizing that the wood is the problem
I personally think that a concrete structure that is externally insulated with an HVAC system would the peak for a single family home.
I am currently looking into installing an ERV into our top level apartment to get better air without pushing all our heat outside. Insulation of the roof is minimal and the other owners of our five apartment complex don't want to insulate in the near future, leaving us doing what can be done from our side.
It won´t fix all problems, but building out of aerated concrete like Ytong is so much better then wood/OSB/plasterboard. Great heat insulation, extremly easy to work with, super durable, you can hang very heavy stuff anywhere, almost soundproof, well drying, water resistant... And insulating it is so easy. Just stick mineral wool onto it (or polystyrene or something, but wool is best IMHO), then put a glue for aerated concrete over it and you are golden. This is not me hating on you, but really, I don´t understand why whole northern America uses wood.
Seriously, if I were to have a construction company in the US, I would try my best to get hands on this and make my name by building from aerated concrete blocks.
Kudos for bringing attention to the issue of ACTUAL sustainability. I'm so tired of seeing single-variable optimization of things, whether it's for "zero SHMOVID", "green buildings" and other "green" products which are really more about maximizing short-term profits rather than selling products that actually have less long-term cost, all things considered. How is it better to have cars with recycled plastic parts or something ridiculous like that if the item itself is NOT REPAIRABLE and lasts a fraction of the "old school" designs.We can't assume it's better.
Unless we're talking metal & glass, so much of what we use doesn't get recycled because it's not feasible due to economics.
If you do the insulation properly, you can almost eleminate the risks you outlined. However, that‘s not an easy task to do. You indeed need dry materials, they need to be able to transport e.g. condensed water in- and outwards. An active ventilation in your house (with heat recovery) also a good investment to stay really dry inside, which in turn makes it easy for any remaining water vapor to get out of your construction into the inside and then being flushed out via ventilation.
Shout out to using b roll footage of old houses in RI
Great points to note that are failure modes of wooden structures. Just even more reason to build with ICF, insulated concrete forms, as they have none of those failure modes.
I've heard moisture problems are huge with ICF?
Good stuff. The Passive House airtigtness of .6 ach50 pascals was established as much for the controll of moist air in the wall as it is for energy savings. The idea is at that air tighness level every significant hole will be discovered and delt as it will lead to condensation over time.
If you don't have good insulation in the cold weather you will have moisture issues also you need to make sure you have the proper ventilation in the attic and fresh air make up and proper exhaust for the bathroom and kitchen
We need to rethink this scenario. I built a new house about 8 years ago. Did all the requirements and made sure that the house was up to the current codes. Now I have a daily fight to keep the Co2 level in the safe level. Having to leave a window open all day with a bath fan running to help turn over the poor air quality defeats the purpose.
One word, Omniblock. This product is blowing my mind.
In a cold climate why put a water and vapor impermeable surface-insulation on the outside? Seems like a great way to trap moisture in the wall. Interior vapor barriers don't work because air flow is inevitable, and it carries a lot more water.
Very glad to see someone talk about remodels. I read too much and figured some of this out on my own, but having a professional opinion is great. I'm doing "opportunistic" upgrades on my 100 year old house as i get things repaired. It seems like the main thing is to make it work as it was supposed to when it was first built. After that, you can tweak some. Last big upgrade was A/C (St. Louis, Missouri) and installed a two-stage outdoor unit to help increase run time, and a multi-speed air handler to circulate air 24X7 to help control basement humidity and make up somewhat for not having zones. Next will be to insulate the roof of the stand-up storage attic with vapor open mineral wool to about R-15 with ventilation between the top of the insulation and the roof deck from the eaves to the ridge vent. That should permit drying. It's not R-48 but it's way better than what we have now. After that I think a range hood. I think the house leaks enough i don't have to do much about make-up air, but that *would* be great. Thanks for your work.
yea trends tend to push for shifting to new methods with out checking viability or unforeseen circumstances leading to poor outcomes. though this is definitely also a situation where rapid shift means money for those selling the trend so ultimately no surprise.
are you in Rhode Island ? saw the images of Newport and had to ask !
Don't forget radon. You might be able to add better insulation to an older home, but can you really make sure the radon doesn't get in and stay there? Also, is it really cheaper to seal the heck out of everything then install and maintian a ERV or HRV? Some things make much more sense in new construction.
I can only tell you from my German POV. I stalled 3 decentralised HEV in my last house and the present one. These are boxes (60x40x10 cm) the run on approximately 5 W. I don’t have to worry about ventilation/ heat loss. Asthmatic visitors commented positively.
It is also about CO2 and chemicals getting out not only moisture. Radon of course as well. Opening the windows alone is inefficient and has a number of drawbacks. I think Sweden has a mandatory Code to include forced ventilation. I think the health benefits in the long run outweigh the initial/ running costs.
I prefer a house that breathes a little over an airtight house. I would never use spray foam either.
I tried to read the chart about exterior insulation needed but the text is too small! Is this information available in your design guide?
@@BobPritchard Here's the building science Corp article which has the tables and breaks it down even further, it's free: buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insights-newsletters/bsi-100-hybrid-assemblies
All these issues have excellent solutions. Its mostly about builders being unaware of how to use insulation correctly that causes these problems.
Great video. Good points. Plain explanation.
I didn't realize this topic was so complicated.
Bacground music on a video only reduces the signal-to-noise ratio.
Another banger! Would be curious if you've looked at the impact on lifecycle on retrofits? I sometimes wonder if the embodied carbon of all that work is enough to overcome the savings in operational carbon if the building were simply allowed to continue operating normally (inefficiently). That is even with the benefit of assuming the durability is not compromised, something you demonstrate here is not the always the case.
I build icf (insulated concrete forms) houses. I build a lot of houses that are icf all the way to the truss. There is no thermal break with properly installed windows and doors.
I’ll be building my home soon with ICF, interested to see what they think of it
Yeah, in the UK we've already been there. Exterior insulation can be a great way to have your whole building go up in flames all at once.
Yeah. Don't use styrofoam/plastic foam crap.
Bought the ebook! Looking forward to reading it 👌
@@yannickstoot Thank you! I hope it's helpful!
exteriour insulation is just way too expensive; probably because there is high demand.
something to note though, is animal / pests LOVE insulation. so before you know it, you'll basically end up with 2 full walls side by side, with sacrificial sheathing.
metal siding is cheap and creates a inherent rainscreen via the corrogation, so the exteriour wall could probably just skip the sheathing and use metal siding.
1) Replace windows with Nordic ones
2) Install Geothermal heat pump (especially in cooler climates). One kWh of electricity becomes 4-6 kWh of heat
3) Install solar panels to generate excess electricity.
4) Install home battery storage when it becomes financially viable.
No need to insulate further and you have slashed your heating costs by 80%.
I live in New Zealand where the government building regulations were so poor we have a generation of rotting homes called "leaky house syndrome" We lived off grid in a remote rural area. Out living areas were two 40 foot refrigerated reefers. These were no longer refrigerated but being made from stainless steel inside and outside with 4 inches of urethane foam in the middle. No thermal bridges and no moisture ingress. The waste heat from computer, microwave and fridge kept the inside at about 19 deg C. A small fan driven heat exchanger supplied fresh air, the few windows were argon double glazed. Humidity and mold problems were non-existent. We had lots of other space as work shop, hot house gardens etc so small living space was not a hassle. Living in shipping containers is semi-illegal here, so much for wisdom. I now live in town in a 20 foot reefer inside my commercial building. It is warm, dry, quiet and comfortable.
@@howardsimpson489 When you say shipping containers, if that refers to used containers, and not purpose-built, the illegality probably has to do with the treatment commercial containers have, to make them fire and pest resistant. Those chemicals are almost always wildly carcinogenic, and there's also the stuff that may have been transported, which could've been unhealthy.
I've not researched the numbers, but purpose-built containers for habitation appear to be on par cost-wise compared to traditional construction, with the added benefit of being transportable. I'll be happy to see an actual comparison of pros and cons, but in the end for urbanized areas, it's the cost of the land that's problematic, and not the residence that would be built.
Being Nordic, I have no idea what "Nordic windows" are. Would you mind elaborating?
@@herbertherb9904 marketing is great xD
@@herbertherb9904 regular windows for us in EU. Triple glazing, argon filled, alu frame plastic cover and rubber sealing. Space technology for USA with single pane sliding windows.
Enlightening. Thanks
Very good video, thank you for sharing!
Insulation also decays in time. Be wise in choosing what to insulate your house with.
whats your thot on cellose
Water always finds a way :) Polyester block is absorbent free material to avoid water accumulation inside insulation that reduces insulation efficiency 5 folds at minimum.
Ventilation is extremely improtant: It prevents the build of: Humidity, mold, CO2, PMCs, Radon and other gases and substances. Heat exhcangers help keep thermal loss of ventilation at a minimum.
Thank you so much for your work. I really appreciated it.
Im very interested in ICF for my home design as an effective energy efficient system and durable.
Your videos are consistently high-quality. If I may, it appears the input gain is too low or something is causing sibilance on the voice track. Please consider looking into it 🙏
I thought twice about using osb for my shed. Using it for a house is a very poor idea.
Another consideration is wildlife. Modern sealed up, foam-stuffed attic buildings leave no room for the bats and birds that have for centuries roosted in the roof spaces of our buildings and is a major factor in the alarming decline of bat populations in particular.
When modernising a building, please take the time to put some bat bricks or roost boxes up as part of the renovations, for our fuzzy little friends 🧡
you need an air to air exchanger with heat recovery & uv /mould/condensation
We are so lucky here, no need to heat in the winter no need to cool in the summer.
All these new super sealed up houses seems great when new, but lets see how they hold up when all those waterproofing materials are 50+ years old. Only time will tell.
Apparently you are supposed to reapply waterproofing periodically.
Need to do that in my own home before winter: we are getting moisture ingress around windows.
If you want true longevity, resource saving and energy efficiency:
- Let current wood houses degrade and be demolished over the next 1 to 3 generations.
- Replace those with buildings of stone, earth, cement blocks or brick.
- Place new structures to make full use of seasonal sunlight angles, avoid wind gullies and issues with rainwater flows.
- Bring back the multi-generational households of the past, thus reducing the need for new housing by at least 50%.
Trying to find solutions to a problem they caused is silly. Do it right the first time, follow historical methods if need be.
Wooden homes can last for centuries. Just look at any European city that was not leveled in WW2, they have many buildings that are older than the concept of a United States of America ;)
Mold is still an issue in a brick house, if you have double glazed windows. It just doesnt't destroy the structural integrity, unless you have wooden beams for your roof.
The diagram of condensation control has N/A for some areas? Does that mean you can’t do exterior insulation in those areas?
@@dillpickle1308 It's not required in those warmer climate zones for condensation control since it's seldom cold enough for condensation to form on the backside of the sheathing. You ofcourse can install rigid insulation outboard as a thermal break to prevent heat gain from the hot sun through the conductive structural components.
Actually hempcrete is the best way to construct a building, it insulates and breathes and is extremely durable. It is completely natural and non toxic.
The people that make these policies don't think about, nor do they care about the long-run. Short-term goals at the expense of a long-term loss.
Very insightful
I think the Passive House Institute would take exception to your claim they don't take moisture management into consideration. Of course they do. Still, it always remains with the designers, architects, envelope consultants, builders and inspectors to ensure the right details and materials for the conditions. Passive House focusses on insulation, thermal bridging, air tightness and ventilation because it's the cheapest way to get the best results. Once you have a great envelope, other systems to generate and use energy can be smaller and less expensive. You did allude to that.
Otherwise, good advice. Vancouver, where I live, suffered greatly in the 1980s and 90s because many buildings were built without the necessary understanding of moisture management. It was called the leaky condo crisis. Many assumed the "leaky" referred to rainwater, which was only partly true. Much of it was air leakage carrying moisture into the envelope where it condensed.
This video is so funny to me.
Because everything mentioned in it has been solved over 100 years ago in europe. Insulating homes from teh outside? Well nobody wanted to loose inside space so ofcourse it goes outside.
Loss of ventilation? Well just open your windows for a bit each day. There even is a german word for taht "Stoßlüften" (shock ventilation) which serves only the singular purpose of getting out the mois air inside your house during winter and replace it with fresh air without wasting excessive amounts of energy. Ofcourse a proper passive ventilation system is even better.
The US needs to change building materials first and foremost. Wood is THE worst building material for a sustainable house. It has 0 energy retention, 0heat shielding and is excessively prone to heat, cold and moisture.
Amercians never learned to ventilate their houses because it would loose them a lot of heat. A stone house or better yet one build using hightly energy dense stones would retain most of the heat you put into the stone during the winter reducing the need to reheat your house after opening a window for 5 minutes. The same goes in the summer. A/C are pretty uncommon in europe and you wonˋt find them in 99% of residential buildings in germany. Stone keeps out the heat from the outside for a long while, especially if insulated from the outside.
Building a "net zero" or "net positive" house in germany required no changes to how a house is build. it was just a question of quality. Making sure everything is airtight (and I mean air tight. You literally fill the houese with smoke to test if any of it leaks out, it only passes if none leaks.)
Americans build homes from wood because it is available here. new build stone and brick houses are prohibitively expensive because both the materials and skilled labor to assemble them are not as widely available as they are in Europe. Not to mention, building new homes is not land or resource efficient when we have all these existing homes that we could simply improve upon.
Wood is an excellent building material. Heck Gutex is made in Germany and is amazing. Wood shouldn’t rot, if it does there are moisture issues that need to be dealt with regardless if using stone or metal, etc.
Great point made, well explained. Example from Germany, new windows and doors are expertly sealed for energy efficiency, but the seals have cutouts to allow ventilation. So you build sealed components in order to compromise the seal or install forced ventilation. Great logic.
So cool how many machines we need to save us from the absent benefits of -
Lots of Brick, some stone ,
lots of Mud, some wood
and a whole lot Ca O' lime.
A few thousand saved on a building site, on plastic & ply.
tens of to run these sheds, like buildings.
When I saw the City at night I guessed Seattle... the 'Wheel' and Piers with large buildings looked familiar... yup Google Map and Google Earth confirmed my guess...
As the price of residential solar power drops, it's becoming uneconomical to add insulation when we could just add panels.
Then we must raise the question: Why are we going through all this effort, cost, and exposure to toxic materials for the sake of using crappy materials like OSB? Why not just stuff a little fiberglass in the attic and walls and focus on the solar patio or carport?
Yes, of course you need sensible construction for energy efficient housing. The best investment PV, heatpumps and battery installations.
As a homebuilder of 25 years, we have added through energy regulations, significant cost to building a home. This is why new homes are so expensive and why insurance is through the roof. If you're in a hurricane zone, the codes on windows, doors, and strapping also add significant cost.
Those regulations are mostly there to make it more safe for the inhabitants.
You'd have weigh the upfront building cost against a rough estimate of money saving trough better insulation.
Maybe there are even government grants that support better insulated houses.
Only we haven’t done so all that scientifically or even wisely. For instance, the government constantly picks winners among materials and products rather than more intelligently demanding a needed performance. Furthermore, we rarely even try to do a real, soup to nuts to landfill examination of energy and pollution for the new products.
Poorly made double pane windows are a great example. Changes in light bulbs have been rather fraught. And, the real killer was subsidies for solar panels made in factories powered by coal then shipped half way around the planet which often got installed poorly creating damage and finally causing degradation of the grid.
That is right. But see it as a longtime investment. The inhabitants will be healthier on average in the longtime. (CO2/ Radon/ Chemical odours/ moisture/) Also the energy consumption will be reduced. The price of energy will only go up in the future. These houses will be more valuable when sold.
@@karl-heinzblass6098 In the meantime, we have raised the cost of home ownership through the roof (hehe).
It would be great if the extra costs of every code improvement didn’t get multiplied by several factors, but those factors (corruption, taxes, inefficiency, over regulating, insurance, lawyers, etc.) are pretty much unavoidable. The simple, but politically impossible fix would to be to stop taxing and burdening labor, but that won’t happen.
It might also be nice if over regulation did not cause everyone to want to live in the same places to get the jobs privileged with protection from competition and the favor of the government.
The cost increase is 50% land value and 50% price fixing (via "algorithms")
The cost of the house itself is irrelevant.
How about not building homes from cardboard and OSB?
Can you do a video for insulation when you are in climate zone 1 and 2??? I am trying to figure out the best way to keep the heat out in the summer and whaat the best roof/wall assembly would be.
@@Mike-zu9ke We actually have a mini-series on this! You can find it here: th-cam.com/play/PLVpnVT7_FuTC6V3fkvbQoS4XkN48Qfk1d.html&feature=shared
@@ASIRIDesigns awesome I will check it out now! thank you
Is putting thick insulation in the outside of the structure really more durable? Thick insulation of any material is not going to carry the loads of the siding well, and let’s forget any masonry or cementitious siding.
Building quality long-term structures is sadly counter to our throw away economy in the US, it depends on replacing the cheap failing junk we install so that the factories
making it stay full. Aldous Huxley put it best, “The more stitches, the less riches.”
Errm isn't transport where we have most emissions, as a society?
the #1 thing we need to embrace is working with nature and not trying to do against it. Building in terrible locations is DUMB.
Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Spend some time thinking about and researching why human inhabit climate extremes. It's not as simple as you are making it to be. If it were as simple as you are making it then people would not have lived in extreme climates prior to the fossil fuel age.
@@weliveonearth8012 that's not what i meant, the point was to EMBRACE nature, not to fight against it. any and all homes built in a common tornado area should be a steel and concrete construction, homes built in deserts should be mostly underground ect...
@loligagger85 nothing should be built in FL at all
@@Christoph-sd3zi some things can be, concrete structures are not a problem
@loligagger85 You don't know what you are talking about. The cost to build a tornado proof house would be astronomical and people wouldn't be able to afford a home worse than they already can now.
Heat Recovery Ventilators are code required in all new homes across Canada. They lower relative humidity. As a designer, I do not use rigid insulation on the exterior of walls. In some builds, I delete plywood or OSB sheathing and substitute with steel wind bracing and two layers of spun Olifin fabric.\ (eg. tyvek). I use Corning Foamular rigid R10 insulation attached to the inside of the studs. This product is a rated air barrier and Vapor retarder, and provides a Code required continuous thermal break at the studs. XPS type insulation should not be applied to the exterior in cold climates since it is a vapour retarder and traps water vapour between the outer surfaces of sheathing and insulation thus leading to potential mildew on the exterior sheathing. My opinion for what it is worth.