Cob: RE: Insulation

[Sojourner]

bluemoon wrote:
> 
> sojournr at missouri.org wrote:
> > Oh?  Trees naturally give off creosote when they decompose?
> 
> What is your definition of creosote? It comes from the distillation of
> wood/coal tar. Not burning. And only certain types of wood do this.

Creosote ALSO comes from burning.  That's how it gets in your chimney,
and that's why your chimney needs to be cleaned out on a regular basis. 
Creosote can and does catch fire.  Ignore creosote as a byproduct of
burning wood for fuel and you will end up burning your house down
eventually.

ANY wood will do this when burned, although proper burning lessens the
effect considerably, and some woods are worse than others.

> How many people actually have a wood burning stove in the
> city? We were not discussing demographics, we were discussing
> burning wood and it being sustainable. 

*sigh*  Actually we were discussing ways to get some insulation into a
cob building.

However, the point I made was that you cannot expect wood heat to be
truly sustainable on a large scale.  It's certainly sustainable on a
small scale, for those who have the space to keep a woodlot to fill
their needs.  And I said that, exactly.

I personally don't think we can talk about "sustainability" while
ignoring 80% of the population (or more) that live in urban and suburban
regions.

> Most people have natural gas to heat their homes and would
> think nothing of switching to wood unless as a back up.

Depends on where you live.  Natural gas is not available everywhere,
many people heat with various forms of electric heat.

And many people WOULD think twice about switching to wood stoves or a
wood-fired furnace - just try to find an insurance company that will
carry your policy, at least here in the US.  Maybe its different in
Canada.

In the rural area where I live many people have removed their wood
stoves or have stopped using their wood-fired furnaces because they
could no longer afford the insurance premiums.  Now they pay for propane
heat, where many of them had woodlots and got their heat virtually for
free before.

> Large scale was never mentioned.

Actually, it was, I mentioned it.  I've given my reasons for that
several times.  To refresh your memory, here is what I said, and here is
what you responded with:

I said:

> Wood burning is actually sustainable only if it is practiced only by a
> small percentage of the population on enough land to maintain their own
> personal woodlots (and I do mean maintain - NOT just cut 'n clear until
> you run out of wood).
>
> If everybody in the country started burning wood the pollution would
> not only be incredible, we would run through every burnable stick
> quicker 'n you could say "jack flash".

You said:

> Um, I have to disagree here. 
> <stuff about how burning wood can't pollute snipped>

To illustrate why burning wood, which DOESN'T create a problem on a
small scale, WOULD create a problem on a large scale, I responded:

> > One guy peeing in a stream isn't polluting - an entire city
> > dumping raw sewage in there IS.
> 
> Again, this is off topic, were not discussing sewage.

Oh come on.  That was quite clearly given as an example of why what may
be sustainable on a small scale is NOT sustainable on a large scale.

Now, if you don't want to discuss sustainability in such a fashion as to
include the majority of the planet, that's your perogative.  But
personally I don't think it does much good to think that a tiny majority
of people living out in the middle of nowhere burning wood for fuel is
going to help the environment much.

> > Everybody in New York City burning wood to heat their homes
> > would most DEFINITELY constitute a major pollution problem.
> 
> This is an extreme and unrealistic example.

It's certainly unreasonable to expect urban centers to turn to wood heat
for fuel.  Glad you got the point.

> It would be neat to see condos built with wood as an energy resource.

Maybe.  It wouldn't be neat to live near them, though.  Not if you can't
get away from the smoke.

> Okay, did you not read what I had wrote? Damp and wet usually
> are not as sunny as other places-this includes both the west and
> east coast. I live in central Canada. but you lost the point.

No, you totally missed my point.  The point I was making is that just
because you are fortunate enough to be able to count on solar gain for
some heating effect in the winter doesn't mean that everyone can.  Yet
you make statements that seem to imply that this is the solution for all
possible situations.  Maybe you didn't mean to, but you did.

Remember, this thread is aimed at a couple of people who want to find
ways to increase the insulative properties of their cob homes in a
northern climate.  They don't live in areas where they can count on
solar gain in the winter to be much help.

In other words, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.

The person to whom I was referring doesn't live in a damp climate.  She
was living in the NE US, I believe some place in New England.  Some
areas have weather patterns that keep the skies overcast all winter, and
such areas can be found scattered all over the place.  My golly, if it
doesn't apply to your situation, and I quite CLEARLY said whose
situation I was referring to, don't worry about it!

The issue was keeping warm.  Therefore I was discussing solarization
from the point of view OF keeping warm, which is not practicable in many
areas.

I never said a thing about active solar systems.  The point I was making
is that you can't even get any PASSIVE solar gain when there IS NO SUN.

As for solar panels, the way they are manufactured results in highly
toxic industrial waste.  A fact which is conveniently forgotten by
people who want to believe solar energy is the answer to the world's
energy problems.

I'm not making that value judgement, but I WILL make the value
judgement, that, IN MY OPINION, at this time, active solar systems are
too expensive for the gain you get, except in certain isolated, remote
areas that have a lot of reliable sunshine.

Does this mean people shouldn't even CONSIDER an active solar system? 
Of course not, and they may come to a totally different value judgement.

Ditto for passive solar design.  FOR THE QUESTION AT HAND, which is how
to keep a cob building warm in a Northern climate where a passive solar
HEATING EFFECT (note that is NOT the same as heat from an active solar
system) cannot be relied upon, insulation strikes me as being a pretty
important issue.

Now, do you want to talk about insulating a cob structure?  Or do you
want to keep beating the dead solar horse?

Holly ;-D