CFL are compact fluorescent lamps, that means they are not traditional light bulbs and use a fraction of the energy required by traditional light bulbs. Also even if they are a bit more expensive to buy they have a longer lifetime than regular light bulb which means it’s probably a win in the end economically.
Now the problem is that those light bulbs shouldn’t be disposed with the regular trash because they contain trace amounts of mercury (as well as other - less toxic but that would gain to be recycled - materials). But even as we have a lot communication/propaganda encouraging to use CFL instead of light bulbs, we don’t seem to have the equivalent effort to make sure they are properly disposed. It’s as if the problem is Taboo. Hard to swallow from people that encourage other people to act more ecologically.
Anyway it seems there is a at least one retailer that is now accepting used CFL light bulbs it’s the Home Depot. And we’re lucky because there are a couple ones near our place.
I’m sure they’re seeing that as a good communication operation given that they may not be that many people bringing back their bulbs (I would hope that there may be more). But on the other hand I think that every retailer that sells CFL should take the same steps as the whole chain is part of the problem.
For the comments : If any person has information on how the bulbs are treated after they’re being disposed at Home Depot (or other places) are welcome to comment here.
]]>So from what we knew, foam is usually associated with sprayed foam insulation in the form of Icynene (open cell) or another type of foam. This provide most of the insulation of the house but at a more expensive cost (both the material and work needed increase the cost).
The sheathing is usually something that helps with the structure of the house, when plywood or OSB (oriented strand boards) is applied but has usually a poor insulation value. Which isn’t a problem because the insulation stay inside between the plywood and the dry wall.
So the advantage of using foam is that it adds an additional R-value to the house while a less expensive insulation is used on the inside (typically glass fiber batts). The version they used was a 1/2 inch styrofoam with an added R-3 value. This isn’t much but is in addition to the rest of the insulation typically a R13 from batts. So total it would easily reach R16. An addition to the insulated sheathing is a problem most stick built house will have is that the wood inside the wall is touching the exterior and interior side at the same time and doesn’t have the insulation value of the other materials put there. If say 20% of the exterior wall is in contact with wood, there’s a consequent “thermal bridge” or leakage of heat through those. This is the case even with sprayed foam, as the sprayed foam typically goes in between the wood of the wall. So the foam itself has an high R-value (say R20), but doesn’t cover the wood parts of the wall itself, causing some thermal bridge with the outside. At least that’s the theory.
This type of foam (styrofoam) also provides an air and vapor barrier so that the inside of the insulation is prevented from becoming wet, wetness according to the people we talked cause a decrease in R-value of batts or foam based insulation (with open cell like icynene) and in the case of glass-fiber batts will cause them to reduce and sag over time.. The foam itself is really durable and may not suffer through the lifetime of the house.
Possible disadvantage is probably the extra cost vs the usual sheathing used in a house, as well as the fact that it’s petroleum based.
If you’ve built a house, own a house, or had some experience with this type of insulation please let me know in the comments !
]]>