Posted By Goldengreg on 12/16/2006 8:48 PM
Thanks again, I've done quite a bit of research about efficiency, r-values etc., though I'm by no means an expert and the conclusion that I've come to is that although r-values are a decent way to gauge efficency of insulating materials they really don't do a good job at all telling the whole story about efficiency of a structure.
True. Having an R-30(for instance) wall, and a high air infiltration rate, pretty much neutralizes the high R-Value wall.
The other thing is that it seems that the theory that you need a significantly better insulated roof than walls is less significant when using radiant heat, which doesn't have warm air accumulating at the ceiling to the extent that forced air would.
One would think so. Yes, a radiant floor is warmest at the floor, but I think that the air is being warmed by the surfaces that have absorbed radiation. Hot air rises, and heat moves to cold.
Sure it would be great to have 12" thick sip roof, but is it really worth it? Seems like air infiltration/thermal bridging are much bigger culprits.
They are. Is it worth it? That would depend on your goals. My next house will be Super Insulated. Not necessarily to lower my heating bills, but to reduce the heat loss, so that a larger portion of my heating needs can be met with active solar. Can you imagine a 3,500 sqft house with a Total Heat Loss of around 20k BTU/hr(at the lowest temperature expected[-10°F in my situation])?
It all depends on your needs and goals.
However, energy costs will continue to outpace inflation for the foreseeable future, so it makes sense(to me) to build the most efficient structure possible.