I live in the Houston area.  My house was built in 1983, wretchedly crappy construction and piss poor planning is the norm even on these "wonderful" new homes in Houston.
Is there some cabal between KB homes and the rest of these hacks on the energy providers?

Anyhow.  I have a 2000 sq ft. two story first floor brick, second floor wood siding.  I have two AC units 1 is 2.5 ton the other is 5 ton.  Unfortunately I have a pool pump that adds to my electric bill.  I have schweg single pane windows that look like they cost about 4 dollars each in 1983. 

My electric bill (getting a commerical rate at 11.5 cents) was $327.XX last month.  With the AC on 75 upstairs while sleeping and between 78-82 downstairs all day.

I hear all the scammers talk about EAS and spray on radiant barrier.  I see the DIY 5 gallon jugs you can buy online, but I have many vaulted ceilings that run the length of my house, so spraying would be limited to where I can reach, and even with a long wand I don't think I could get everywhere, this obviously would be the same with staple on radiant foil.

I talked to this guy one time who said screw the radiant barrier and let him blow in some Johns Manville fiberglass.

To me though, if the Air handlers weren't starting 150 degrees in the hole that would increase their efficiency.  (Note to stick building 2x4 building in this area, put the freakin air handlers in a basement!)

I saw some posts about that expanding foam being sprayed on the backside of the roof deck and rafters including the exposed areas on the...(gables?)  Once again though the Einsteins who built this neighborhood and their infinite wisdom and the vaulted ceiling heat traps would limit access.  (I really love the second story master bedroom vaulted ceiling that is 4 inches from the heat sink asphalt roof)

So what is DIY'er to do with these vaulted ceilings?  Also y attic floor insulation is only as deep as whatever boards they used for the second floor ceiling so 6" or 10".

What can I do DIY (if anything at all) to cut my electric bill in half to what it normally is in May-Sept?

I realize you cannot polish a turd and these homes are perfect turds in this 30 year old home neighborhood. 

Being a former "yankee" I scoff at the crap they call homes down here.  Home 50 years old up north are built much more tighter than these homes down here.

Fellow Yankee, I also lived in Houston and my brother still lives and runs Polar Ply a radiant barrier company in the Houston area, I myself live in Michigan I have 2 solutions for you the 1st product I recommend is Crystal Clear Roofcoat, this product can be applied to your asphalt shingles and block 34.8% of heat flow. The 2nd product is Nansulate Home Protect which you would apply to your interior Vaulted ceilings, this will also block 34.8% of heat flow with both products applied you could be seeing 69% reduction in heat gain. Please check out my company web-site at www.greenearthcoatings.net. What you can expect is a 20-40 % reduction in your energy bills with an ROI of less than 6 months. Have a great day from Green Earth Coatings.

ddrew,

I have gone through your web site.  Interesting products.  Have the products been tested by an independent testing firm?  If so, please post reference so I can consider using these products.

Yes, they have been independently tested.  If you visit the nansulate.com website, you'll see links on the left for the various categories of 3rd party lab test data.  It's pretty compelling stuff, such as 3 coats inhibiting thermal flow by 34%, etc, etc.

I've used the product.  I had to touch and try it myself first, to truly believe it, and I sure was convinced.  The big benefit is that it's a way to create an additional thermal barrier in a thin clear coating which will not change the look of what you apply it to.  So, it's a way to make already existing homes or buildings or equipment more efficient w/out any drastic tear-up and without need for special work crews.  Also, it can of course be applied in many situations where regular insulation is impossible.

The reason it insulates, and the reason it's not the same as any other water-based, non-toxic acrylic latex coating, is due to the particles suspended in the resin carrier.  The particles are tiny/invisible to the human eye, and are hydrophobic as well as an excellent insulator.  Think "aerogel" particles.  The patent contains the specs on that.  Pretty impressive stuff.

Wow Homeowner1 nailed it, I could not have said it better myself the one part he left out is that product uses Hydro Oxide in nano form.
In thermal conductivity tests the data is as follows.
Hydro Oxide >0.017 W/mk
Polyurethane Foam >0.040 W/mk
Censopheres >0.110 W/mk
Ceramic Microspheres >0.150-0.400 W/mk
The lower the number the more efficient the product, enjoy your day and keep cool.

ddrew, Thanks!  It's actually called, "Hydro NM Oxide".  But the science behind it, in the patent, is more interesting than that slightly confusing name.  Basically a form of dried nanotech-based particles which insulate like gangbusters, suspended in a non-toxic low-VOC resin carrier.

Bruce Frey... the product is manufactured in the US (though supposedly will soon be made overseas also), was developed in the US, and I believe that thermal lab test was done by an Italian lab because the Italian distributor is the one who coordinated it.  The company has distributors all over the world (most are small). 

Nansulate does go apply nicely to raw wood, whether stained or not.  I know this first-hand.  It didn't discolor, but it did slightly darken the already existing color (or sort of enrich it) due to that semi-gloss semi-wet look.  I thought it looked good, but just something to keep in mind.  In my experience, it makes an insulation difference to anything you apply it to.  Hot water pipe, wall, wood beam ceiling, natural gas pipe, glass, etc. 

Cool roof and high solar reflectance moderate emissivity materials on the exterior work (better than attic-interior radiant barriers), but they're no subsitute for conductive insulation, and in terms of bang/buck, it's all about what they actually cost, eh?

If there's room to spray in 2lb foam into the 4" gaps and it won't interfere with any necessary ventilation, that'll be good for ~R25. (If you can spray on that Nanusulate stuff to thickesses of 4" instead of 0.004" you'll do better, but that could get wicked expensive! :-) ) Were it readily available 4" of aerogel would get you R30+.

Unless it has a very flat roof pitch the convection cooling of the roof by outdoor air limits the cost-effectiveness of cool-roof technologies. (In CA cool roof is not required by code unless the pitch is 2:12 or lower- pretty damned flat!) At higher pitches there is more convection cooling from the outside, and more room to apply insulation on the inside. Still, in Houston unless you have a 6:12 or higher pitch exterior applied cool-roof will lower the attic temps enough to be worth it, since you have ducts & air handlers inside.

But for the walls, you're not likely gonna paint your brick walls with a high solar-reflectance moderate-E stuff (but you might.) The heat gain through insulated walls is going to be much lower per square foot than through the attic due to solar geometry, but the are more square feet to deal with too. The cool-paint stuff is likely to do you more good on the east & west walls than the south or north walls (again from solar geometry at your latitude.) Assuming it's a brick-veneer/stud-wall construction, dense-packing cellulose into the studwall cavities (even if they already have R11 batts in 'em) will increase their effectiveness by blocking heat from radiating through the low-density fiber, slowing air-infiltration & intra-insulation convection by 95%+. (This is probably NOT a DIY for most people, but it is for some.) Maxing out the wall insulation density will likely have greater effect (but also greater cost) than the reflective paints. But since infiltration is typiacally 25-40% of the entire cooling/heating load, blown cavity insulation (even over low-density batts) is still probably cost-effective. In the unlikely event that there are high-density (R15) batts in the cavities a retro-blow won't be as cost effective (or as necessary).

Getting serious about air sealing both the basement sill & band joists plumbing chases and at the attic floor level with foam, housewrap, chewing gum- whatever it takes will make a HUGE difference in attic-heat-driven infiltration from whole-house convection (stack-effect on steriods.) Infiltration is likely to be a higher cooling load than direct gain through the walls, particularly in muggy-humid Houston, where the latent loads are high. Stopping the stack effect is huge, and it takes sealing both the top (the attic floor/upper-floor ceiling) and the bottom (the foundation sill & band joist, basement windows, etc) of the stack to do a good enough job.

The insulation guy was on the right track, but blown cellulose will usually outperform blown fiberglass at the higher delta-Ts you're seeing. But get the attic insulation to ~R40+ where ever you can counts, and is far more effective than cool roofs or radiant barrier. (If you can only get R15 -R20 in there, cool-roofs and RB are still cost effective though.) 2x6 joists with batting are only ~R19., but 2x10s are about R30, but only if perfectly installed. If blown fiberglass it's usually slightly lower (depends.) If there's room to heap it up, raising it all to R40 with an overblow of cellulose will cut infiltration as well as increase the direct R-value. (Figure R3.6/inch of depth at standard densities.)

If there are gaps around recessed lighting cans, DO NOT insulate directly over them- either build an air tight box over them with 3" of clearance, or replace the fixtures with gasketed air-tight insulation-contact versions. (And use highest efficiency LED or CFLs if you can- incandescents are just power-piggy space heater in normal circumstances, but turn into power-piggy fire-starters when under insulation.)

DO blow a minumum of 3" of celllose over the tops of the joists. The joist-tops are only ~15% of the area, but well over 25% of the heat-transfer, since wood has low K-value (R1/inch), and if exposed to a line-of-sight to a hot roof deck, they absorb radiant heat directly, and will be over the ambient air temp. Adding 3" of cellulose over it will double the R-value of thermal short-circuit at a 2x12 joist, triple the R-value at a 2x6" joist.

As for the single-pane windows...

Exterior storm windows are cheaper than replacement windows, and if the old windows are reasonably tight, the U-value drops to about 0.4-0.5, which is better than the cheapest double-pane replacements cost.

For reducing solar gain, low-E window films work, the most-reflective work better, but can darken the place considerably too. Something in the ~50% heat rejection range is probably a better choice than most.

Exterior awnings on S-facing windows are huge, but in conjunction with exterior sun shades even better! Only ~50% of the solar gain is from direct sunlight (blockable by awnings), the rest is from scattered light. On E & W facing windows awnings can't work at all, but exterior shades do.

Last, but definitely not least, duct leakage is usually 25% or more of the cooling load- fixable by mastic-sealing all seams & joints, and insulating all ducts that are not inside of conditioned space. Since your ducts & air handler are in the attic, that's where foam-insulated rafters and a sealed attic can make a huge difference. But if you can't do a legit job on the rafters (which sounds lke it might be the case), foam insulating & sealing the ducts (4-5" of half-pound foam, or 2-3" of 2lb foam (like you can get in those kits, or let a pro do it) can seal & insulate in one step. It llooks like hell sometimes, but if you can do it without thin spots, it works. :-) ) But just mastic-sealing then burying them in cellulose to minimum depths of 6" over the top also works. The typical 1-2" fiberglass wrap passes leakage air, and is woefully under-rated for the application at current energy prices. Use FSK tape on the seams of the air handler and bury it in at least 6" of cellulose as well. (Building a box out of 2" foil-faced iso-board FSK-taped at the joints might make servicing it easier though.)

After you've done all the air-sealing and insulating you THINK you can get to, get a blower door test to find & fix the rest of the air leaks- odds are you've only fixed the first 50-75% of what's easy. At the same time get some infa-red imaging to find the insulation gaps (there will likely be many), and possibly some of the air-conditioning duct leakage (which can show up big-time on feeder duct leaks, where it has chilled the stuff around it.)

Dana1, Good info, thanks. 

A quick FYI... that Nansulate stuff inhibits all 3 types of thermal transfer (conductive, convective, radiant), not just radiant.  So, it's not just a solar reflective coating.  That's why it's such a good insulator, for how thin it is, due to the nature of the dried aerogel/xerogel particles suspended in the resin.  Once it cures (water evaporates), it's 70% particulate.

It's excellent for when you can't or don't want to tear up the walls, etc, and also doesn't promote mold, moisture retention, nor pest infestation like some traditional insulations can.  But Nansulate isn't always the best, least effective solution.  Depends on the goals.  As you said, a few inches of traditional stuff (or other) will insulate more if it's possible at all to apply the traditional stuff.  Plus, a coating allows a complete "thermal envelope" effect, w/out being stifled in how to apply it everywhere such as is the issue faced with the regular insulation that goes between walls.

Same result on roofs with this stuff, though, as with walls.  Inside or outside.  Doesn't require direct sunlight to perform well.

If it's applied in thicknesses of 0.01" at most,  (the spec sez 0.0075" dry, if triple-coated). you can't really be sellin' it as conductive insulation, eh? 

Believe in arithmetic?

Take a look at: http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/Specsheets/Nansulate_SpecSheet_GP.pdf

Lessee  spec sez the K of the particles (without the thermally bridging matrix of the glue that's keeping it together, but we'll ignore the bridging effect, since it isn't specified) is 0.017 W/mK...

...converting that to K in BTU-inches/ft^2-hr, ( 1 BTU-in/ft^{^2-}hr F = 0.144W/mK),  0.017/0.144= 0.118

... the R-value is thickness/k-value, , so at the specified dried triple-coat thickness of 0.0075", we get 0.0075"/0.118 = R0.064 , conductive.

Are you really tryin' to sell us that on it's conductive insulating value? 

An asphalt shingle has a far higher R value than Nansulate at the specfied triple-coat thickness.

And at thicknesses of 0.0075" it won't be sealing any big gaps now either.  Cheap latex paint at 0.0075"is as-good a convection barrier, but I wouldn't try to seal any gaps with it or market it that way.

It's primary value as insulation is and always will be the ratio of it's solar-spectrum reflectiveness to it's infra-red emissivity.  The rest is marketing-BS, possibly factual, but not relevant to the application.  Stretching for claims & overselling gives the relective & emissivity insulation industry a deservedly bad reputation.  (The next time I read a NASA study reference in the marketing lit I think I'll puke.  Reflective insulations are PERFECT for use in a vacuum- you know, the kind of environment that we DON'T actually live in!?!)

Tell ya what- triple-spray coat an aluminum or steel cup with Nansulate, fill it with boiling water and pick it up.  Compare the sensation you get from that to that you get with a cheap 0.050" thick EPS cupful of boiling water to determine it's relevance as a conductive insulator.

I don't care what it's K value is, to be a useful conductive insulator it needs thickness.

Low-E coatings only need an air gap (inside or out) to have an effect, but if appyling the low-E to a radiating surface is only ~5F above room ambient (as would be the case on an inside surface of a densely packed fiber insulated or foam insulated wall) that effect is remarkably small.   Highly reflective moderate to high-E insulations have a bigger effect on the outside in a high radiant environment (scattered or direct light), but there it's the solar-spectrum reflectivity in combination with moderate to HIGH infra-red emissivity that's key.  High reflectivity moderate-E won't do squat for reducing cooling loads when applied to interior surface.

If the coatings are going to have surface contact on both sides (say, painting the interior of a wall cavity that's going to be dense-packed with cellulose or sprayed with foam), you're only getting the whopping R0.064 out of it.

A solar water heating system and/or solar elctric system aould be a good option. eventhorizonsolar.com

dana1, Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Why? Because I know first-hand. I've put 3 coats on a hot appliance, just to test that very theory... and low and behold, before when I used it... it could not be touched w/out a very quick burn. Now, it can be touched. Stil hot, but not hot enough for an immediate burn. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I've tested it in other ways, too. Get a quart, put 3 coats on the hot water pipe coming out of your hot water heater. Coat a small section. Wait for it to cure, then touch that section as well as the uncoated section. It will amaze you. No joke. It will. It will minorly change your thinking about insulation.

No, all insulators do NOT need thickness to be effective. That's what we've all been trained to think, but that's a little bit dogmatic.

The lab tests show that 3 coats reduce THERMAL FLOW by 34%. Period. It's not up for debate, really, althogh it's fun to debate it. Even a thin layer of aerogel/xerogal particles WILL insulate pretty well. Not the same as the multi-inch you're used to thinking of... but still pretty effectively. Imagine, a noticeable thermal flow reduction from a nearly invisible thin film coating. Too good to be true... yet, it's true. You are in the category of not believing it until you try it. By the way, K value doesn't require a standard thickness... it's simply a measure of thermal transfer (no matter the thickness you use). R value isn't as comprehensive as K (engineers prefer K).

By the way, the epoxy version of Nansulate has a .027 W/mK at 1/8" thickness.  You'll see it on the spec sheet.  Wow, .027 at only 1/8" thick?  That is excellent.  That test was possible because it can be applied more thickly, and the math errors of non-linear extrapolation don't come into play such as when trying to calculate it for the clear ultra-thin coating.  Knudsen effect comes into play, which makes most people wrong.  The epoxy contains the same insulating technology as the clear stuff - is just quick-cure instead.

I can only think of one reason why so many companies and homeowners are buying Nansulate so far... because once they TEST it, they see that it works as claimed.  It performs.  I have seen it, so I don't doubt the claims anymore.  That's as simple as it gets.  Sounds odd, I agree, but when a company's Engineering staff test it... they're often impressed.  Quite a novel product; is fun to follow.  It's on my house, too.  In an app where regular insulation would have been literally impossible to apply w/out a huge expenditure via tearing up the house.

Kinda sounds like ddrew and homeowner1 are the same guy. Trying a little too hard to sell a specific product. I am not trying to start anything here, but buyer beware.

Yeah, no kidding.

Using company's published K-value & thickness specs to calculate actual insulation values, you get the REAL story about how relevant it is as a conductive insulation.  I wouldn't try to sell anybody on the idea that a sheet of styrofoam as thick as the wall of a disposable cup would lower their heating/cooling loads by a measurable amount either, and that's significantly more insulating value than the 7-8 mils of spray on nano-goo.  If the cup of boiling water in the cup feels hot, it's R-value is less than R0.1 (A styrofoam cup of boiling water will feel merely warm, and it's about R0.2.)

The spray on nano-goo has something less insulating value than that of paper cup.  Are we now in the business of calling wallpaper insulation?   (Seriously!?!)

Give me multi-inch thicknesses of nano-goo at a reasonable price and we can talk...  I believe there IS a future for aerogels and the like, but not if over hyped to that degree.

Dana1, Sorry, I don't believe you to be correct. I follow your reasoning, but it just doesn't hold true. You're missing some key points.

First, YES, you can coat a metal tea kettle with 3 coats of Nansulate and then touch it with boiling water in it. Try it. Split a quart of the stuff with 3 friends (to make it very very inexpensive) and do a test or two. I HAVE. That's how I KNOW.

Second, when is the last time you saw a person plaster asphalt shingles all over their walls and ceilings, or steam pipes, or boilers, or anything else, to get some insulation value? Fire hazard anyone? Wreck your whole house? Deterioration? Trapping moisture? Nansulate is clear, so it doesn't ruin the aesthetics, and of course isn't the same as putting some thick insulator all over your house and covering all surfaces (but by the way, that is IMPOSSIBLE and would also ruin the house). This stuff is really good. You won't believe it until you try it. It also protects roofing (blocks UV and is very durable/tough, plus insulates).

The Mexican govt (CFE - is their electricity dept) has done a study on just coating the roof ONLY, and it shows that 10% less energy was used to cool a small mock-up house/shed. It's a controlled test with only a thin metal roof in the hot Mexican sun. 10% less energy used just by coating the roof and nothing else? That's pretty good. You can find the link to the study on the Nansulate site at the "thermal insulation data" webpage.

No, latex paint will not offer the same insulation effect as Nansulate. Absolutely not. You're wrong, sorry about that. Nansulate has a nanocomposite particle in it, in fairly high concentration (is dried aerogel particles which DO insulate very well). That's the difference. Is also hydrophobic, so it prevents mold & mildew, and is nearly invisible. Its usefulness can't be denied.

Did you know the city of Fairbanks Alaska has chosen Nansulate on a major municipal project? See the nansulate webpage for that. Borealis Energy, in AK also, has done a study on use on steam pipes and the results are quite impressive.

The textile industry is also saving a LOT of money via using Nansulate, as it both insulates (lowers energy usage) as well as preventing the huge problem of corrosion under insulation. All in one product. Hmmmmm, bet it's good on homes also.  Actually, I KNOW it is because I know folks who've applied it and are more comfortable now as well as having lower heating/cooling bills.  It's on my home, too.

If it only reduces the cooling load of an uninsulated sheet-metal roof shack in Mexico by 10%, that really SUCKS! "That's pretty good"???? Surely your joking! It would not be easily measurable in the cooling bill of a barely-code-legal R19 batt insulated roof in Texas. (A radiant barrier or low-E radiant barrier paint would likely beat that performance.)

In the hot pipe/burner/plate test, yes I'm sure you'll feel the difference. But if it feels warm AT ALL, it isn't enough of an insulation to be measurable in a cooling bill. You can hold boiling water in a 0.05" thick EPS cup comfortably too, are your ready to argue that you'll reap dramatic (or even measurable) savings from adding 0.05" of EPS to your roof deck in a minimum code-insulated home? You can run a 2000F blowtorch with R10 between it between your hand and not even feel it. Can you say the same for Nansulate?

To find out what it'll do in real world home-insulation apps, take a 2" sample of XPS to an independent lab for a ASTM 518 test and compare it to a Nansulate-coated XPS sample taken from the same panel of XPS (preferably the adjacent chunk along the length of extrusion), tested at the same lab, on the same equipment, and publish the results. Then we'll have some idea how likely it is that it'll show up in the electric bill, (and by how much.)

I'm sure there are many industrial uses for Nansulate, just as there is for thin layers of EPS, and hard coat paints. Many insulations melt under pipe surface temps common in industrial steam, and it doesn't take much to make a BIG difference in energy use going from nuthin' to sumthin' with huge delta-Ts in the equation. But that's a very different situation from spraying it on already insulated buildings operating at sub-100F delta-Ts.

Aerogels in non-micro thickness run about R10/inch of thickness in ASTM 518 type tests, which have a reasonable correlation between measurable heating & cooling load/bill reduction. I'm doubtful that aerogel in a bonding paint matrix creating thermal bridging around the particles will perform better than that.

"Buy some and test it yourself" and "these other folks are trying it" and "folks are more comfortable now" is no substitute for hard data. The Mexican shack experiment, side by side with a layer of recycled corrugated cardboard instead of Nansulate on the sheet metal would be a very interesting experiment indeed. (My money is on the corrugated as the performance leader, but I'll pay up even if it's dead-even.)

Seriously- show me the data- the rest is BS & snake oil. (I'd be thrilled to be wrong here, but alas I'm neither.)

Dana1,

I cannot keep my thoughts to myself!!! I think you did an outstanding job of disproving the claims by Homeowner1 and Drew - as someone else pointed out - probably the same person! Truly snake oil with varmits believing the story they were told to get them to sell the stuff. Too bad many on this site have seen this approach way to many times in our lives.

Truly is a shame, for if they presented the product correctly without the voodoo, it may be shown to be excellent for a specific purpose as you pointed out.

I've been reading this entire segment and was thinking - gee, if I put this nano product on SIPs or ICFs with geothermal radiant I'll have so much free energy I'll have to pipe my heat and A/C over to my neighbors just to get rid of it! I won't even need an active HW Solar sytem; I could figure out how to heat my domestic water with nano!

Excellent explanations!!! You, along with a few others on this web site, are the people needed to curb these kinds of 'prophets". I am getting older and am losing my patience with these types (in my younger years I was much more patient!).

I salute you! Thank you for your unending contributions!

richm

Dana1, You simply don't understand. While you may (not sure, but maybe) right about the specific thermal data you are trying to dissect... you're missing the point. Can you put cardboard on every (yes, every) surface of a house without it rotting, creating mold/mildew, ruining the look of the home, inviting bugs/pests, creating a fire hazard, and generally being a disaster? NO, you cannot. Nansulate prevents mold, mildew, corrosion, and also insulates better than you think it does. Homeowners are reporting up to 40%+ in heating/cooling bill reductions if they're in a climate which makes it a value-added application. See, the combination of factors make this a very unique product. You cannot find another clear coating which has the same combination of benefits. And IMO the biggest benefit is that you can apply it everywhere. You're overlooking the fact that a coating allows a thermal envelope of sorts, instead of just spotty applied insulation like the traditional stuff. So, this is a great finisher to the traditional stuff, or a very easy but effective insulation to an old home with rotten or non-existent insulation.

I found the blog of a Frenchman who is pretty impressed with the stuff, after being initially angry about a long lead time or out of stock situation. His change in tone was pretty amazing. I can find the link if you like; I followed it once I found it initially. And there are many many others.

Yes, I also do believe it's a heavier hitter for industrial applications, as it solves CUI & insulation both at once in a simple application. It also allows visual inspection while insulating and preventing corrosion.

By the way, a 3rd party lab did test it and found a 34% thermal transfer reduction on a plaster wall via 3 coats of Nansulate. I trust you viewed those results on the website. You haven't opened your mind to the reality of the benefit this stuff offers because you are focused on drilling down on thermal data that you are clinging to from the traditional views of insulation, and maybe you never will, but that's Ok. Coatings are different. One shortcoming of traditonal insulation is that it works great but can't be applied everywhere; hence, major heat transfer in any area which lacks the insulation. Nansulate is a good way to mitigate that. Energy saved is energy saved. It's as simple as that. And you don't have to completely trash your home by pasting up cardboard (lol!!) on every surface.

The city of Fairbanks AK has seen the benefits and put their $$ where their mouth is. And many more to come, I figure. Keep watching, if you care to, and you'll see.  Sooner or later, a large and credible customer will announce usage of the product (due to obvious benefits) and views such as yours will start to wither.  I understand your doubts, though, I really do.  That's the case with any breakthrough product.  Hey, the earth is flat also and I believe people were really trashed by "experts" for saying it was round once upon a time.

p.s. No, I'm not the same person as any other poster here.  I just happen to have an opinion because I've used the product myself and have studied it a little.  It's impressive stuff, no question. 

Mais NON!

I simply DO understand. This is the typical evidence cited by the manufacturer:

http://www.nansulate.com/pdf/HomeModel_energy_use_demo.pdf

A 34% or 42% percentage drop in heat flux from an otherwise uninsulated interface does NOT translate into a 34% reduction in heat flux across an already insulated roof or wall.

A 1cm thick chunk of otherwise uninsulated concrete or plaster is a piss-poor model of an insulated wall or roof, which is why I'd want to see the ASTM 518 side-by-side comparison between a nanusulate-coated and uncoated sample of R10 XPS, which will be a much better model of the real-world application in this thread. (A 2x4 studwall with R13 batts will run ~R10 for a whole-wall value, as will a continuous sheet of 2" XPS.)

The key to their "gee whiz" numbers seems to be a lack of other insulation layers in the test samples.

Dana1, Ever seen a thermal image of a home which uses traditional insulation? Of course, that's the smart thing to do. But you'll see heat loss around all the studs and other places. After applying a legit insulative coating such as Nansulate (much better than others; and most aren't clear, if any at all are clear), you'll see an overall lessening of heat loss. As I said, it's an ideal mitigation to the obvious shortcomings of the regular stuff. I know the regular stuff insulates well, but it also degrades over time, compresses, can trap moisture (i.e. mold), and pests... all of which degrade its insulating abilties. Nansulate does NOT degrade over time.

You can use comparisons all you want, and nobody is saying this stuff should replace everything else. The point is, and the bottom line is, it's an excellent addition in many cases and in other cases it's one of the very few options which doesn't involve tearing up an old house to add an insulating factor.

Btw, 10% less energy used, when applied on nothing but a thin metal roof in the Mexican sun... is good, not bad. And the report itself states that it should help more on a regular roof that's not just metal (not less). The stuff will help additionally, no matter what else already exists. That's the nature of the particles in the coating. It dries to 70% particulate after curing, so the thermal bridging, after 3 coats, is less than you are claiming. If heat is transfering before Nansulate, then less will transfer after Nansulate. That's just how it is. I know you want better data, but it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It just is. You will see if you keep watching. Fairbanks Alaska has seen it, and now they believe it, and are coating numerous municipal buildings with it. Who's next? Watch and find out just like I'll watch and find out.