So far that's been my experience too.  I can only speak for our area, but there are very few contractors/suppliers doing SIPs.  Just like anything, less competition means higher prices.  I've always heard that the materials are more, but you save money in labor.  What I'm finding is that the materials are higher, but in the bidding process at least, the labor isn't any cheaper.  It seems that because they're not familiar, contractors aren't comfortable bidding out the labor any less.  Now, it could come in under budget if they find that they go up quicker than expected, but that's kind of a big "if".  I can't base my budget on "it will probably come in under". 

Jere -- regarding concrete temp. It should be within 2 to 3 degrees of your inside temp as concrete has a high heat capacity and is absorbing heat as it works its way out.

Toddm, Regarding you post:

"The building envelope researchers at ORNL say that ICF's thermal mass is worth between 6 percent and 8 percent energy savings over regular stick built with comparable insulation."

The key is "comparable insulation". Regards.

TexasICF, if the key is comparable insulation, I can get R25 a whole lot cheaper without the concrete.
Jere, your question was answered in this previous thread: http://greenbuildingtalk.com/Forums/tabid/53/view/topic/forumid/4/postid/49134/Default.aspx

I will do some research on it. Here's what I need to have cleared up in doing my research: If the concrete is a couple of degrees of inside temp, what if it's -10F outside, wouldn't the concrete get wicked cold decrease the concrete temp so then you're paying to heat your concrete? Bottom line to my skeptism is I don't see with an extreme difference in yearly temps from hard cold to upper 90's in the summer how it (thermal mass) is always working in your favor? Regarding osb, I like osb over plywood myself and it's stable and makes great use of forest products but it's so vulnerable to water so when you're depending on it for a structural insulated panel to give structure I get nervous. A way around it would be for published repair methods from the factory that would not require an engineer and other costs other than cutting out and bonding. Sheathing plants need to make a better osb exterior sheathing panel that doesn't break the bank. If you need to build a roof over a sip roof that becomes pointless in my opinion unless there are job specific requirements that have strict clearances that would not allow scissor trusses. This is probably the best discussion I have seen on these boards since I've joined, and no ones really getting pissed, it's amazing.

Why the hell aren't my paragraghs showing up? BS

Toddm, I see you answered some thermal mass questions previously, good info to know.

Sipper, this may open a can of worms but in regards to lumber useage we're talking fast growth lumber, managed forests and forest cover has been added. On the negative would be the carbon print of logging equipment, transportation to the mills and operation of the mills. However how big is the footprint of foam manufacter plus double the osb manufacture? Less jobs as well with the sips process.

Greentree,

Re: "I will do some research on it. Here's what I need to have cleared up in doing my research: If the concrete is a couple of degrees of inside temp, what if it's -10F outside, wouldn't the concrete get wicked cold decrease the concrete temp so then you're paying to heat your concrete?"

(I am going to check on the exact delta (2 degrees etc?) but believe this is why you need the foam on the outside -- same is true for regular construction - you must protect the studs from transferring energy into (or out of) the structure. The outside foam protects your concrete. In ICF energy leaving your home after going through the R13 inside foam is absorbed by the concrete - if you built with stick (emphasis on with zero air infiltration so that you can actually get to R13) this energy would be lost - instead it's stored. )

"Bottom line to my skeptism is I don't see with an extreme difference in yearly temps from hard cold to upper 90's in the summer how it (thermal mass) is always working in your favor? "

(it is not always working in your favor - that's actually why (apart from inconvenient for dry wall etc. i don't like exposed concrete on the inside at least for this climate - it is my opinion that the inside foam dampens this effect. In your -10 example if the temp dropped on night to -25 the concrete would scarcely notice. This goes both ways. The concrete is a resevoir of heat capacity. To me this just mean that theres a signifcant delay inside.)

"Regarding osb, I like osb over plywood myself and it's stable and makes great use of forest products but it's so vulnerable to water so when you're depending on it for a structural insulated panel to give structure I get nervous. A way around it would be for published repair methods from the factory that would not require an engineer and other costs other than cutting out and bonding. Sheathing plants need to make a better osb exterior sheathing panel that doesn't break the bank. If you need to build a roof over a sip roof that becomes pointless in my opinion unless there are job specific requirements that have strict clearances that would not allow scissor trusses. This is probably the best discussion I have seen on these boards since I've joined, and no ones really getting pissed, it's amazing."

(I don't have much of an opinion really about the osb and perhaps this would be better answered by someone else. REgards.)

Thanks toddm... that is a great thread!

jerkylips,
I would emphasis at this point that your thread is void of any meaningful discussion about air tightness. This is especially surprising considering the many contributors, not to mention a passive house consultant that lives and dies by the ACH50 number. If your builder wants to offer a "comparable" system that is budget friendly, do yourself a favor and demand similar performance. Any properly installed energy efficient system (SIP, ICF, spray foam, etc) should have airtightness numbers that will show the envelope is capable of real energy performance. Opinions will vary, but I think most would agree that if you have an envelope tested to <1.0ACH@50, you have a tight system that will pay you back for the rest of its service life.

Secondly, it is beyond frustrating when I hear or read about people eliminating a high performing SIP envelope in order to make room for a ground source heat pump in their budget. When a SIP envelope is properly installed and then performs as intended, a far less expensive HVAC system can be employed with better results.

Case study (currently in draft form) of a SIP envelope performing at .9ACH@50 with a $14K conventional HVAC sys. This homeowner selected conventional HVAC and realized a $30K savings over the ground source option. This 3600sf house (west of Wash DC) has been averaging $70 per month electric bills (all electric house). If we consider what portion of the total electric bill is for heating and cooling, we could round to 50% and say the homeowner is spending $35 per month on heating and cooling. Now can anybody justify the ground source option in this house? Now the interesting part of this story;
The neighbors house is the same size (family & area) constructed with framed walls and spray foam. The blower door numbers are due end of the month to confirm air tightness, This house has a $60K ground source sys. and averages $260 per month for all electric. This situation is not isolated. The ground source option can not be justified in new construction when building with a SIP or similar highly efficient system that has proven documented air tightness.
Efficiency first and that starts at the envelope!!!

If it matters, I have a ground source heat pump in my own home. A 150 year old home that has a leaky envelope that is difficult to upgrade. The two hardest things to upgrade in any home are the foundation and the envelope. Ensure these two items are done right the first time!

Last point; For builder training and your own education about SIPs, you should look at the training coming to your area in two weeks at Extreme Panels in Minnesota.

Al

Toddm, Some pretty good stuff at ORNL for example: “It was observed and documented that heating and cooling energies in massive houses can be far lower than those in similar buildings constructed using lightweight wall technologies. This better performance resulted because the thermal mass encapsulated in the walls reduces temperature swings and absorbs energy surpluses both from solar gains and from heat produced by internal energy sources such as lighting, computers, and other appliances..” Re: ORNL – Although I agree that there is quite a bit of value there, I am also waiting for the forecasted update in 2001 for this material. It may be out there but I have not seen it. Also, you may be confusing me with someone else as I have never relented on thermal mass being a plus. I suggest a trip to a cave on a hot day or cold day if you don’t have an ICF home nearby to visit. Re: “The building envelope researchers at ORNL say that ICF's thermal mass is worth between 6 percent and 8 percent energy savings over regular stick built with comparable insulation.” To clarify… from the ORNL and re figure 6 specifically: “energy savings, attainable when lightweight walls are replaced by massive walls of the same R-value”. This is the reason that I underlined comparable or similar insulation (previous post). Typical or conventional stick construction will rarely meet this criteria. Regular construction with comparable insulation would mean at least 2x8 studs with R-4 per inch (why so high) because the studs and headers etc. (wood) would comprise 20% of the envelope and fully caulked would offer R-6 or 7 at best – given zero air infiltration – which is not typical of regular stick construction. What this chart says it that you need to build to this level of insulation in order to perform 6 to 8 percent below ICF. Can be done with SIPs but not very easy with conventional construction. Re: “It comes in third in a list of the four ways to arrange insulation and concrete in a wall. Exterior foam is best. A concrete-insulation-concrete sandwich is second best and interior foam is worst. In the lefthand column, click on "Potential energy savings..." To clarify – this chart is not a comparison with stick construction it is a comparison between high mass systems. Stick construction is not on this chart at all. Not that you said it was – just want to be absolutely clear. Furthermore, this also may be a little non-real-world because I have yet to see an CIC (concrete insulation concrete) system with R-22 in between the concrete – How thick would the concrete have to be on one or both sides to provide structure? Some valuable data here but need to be careful about exactly what’s being communicated by the chart. Re: “The Cliff Notes: Mass offers no energy savings whatsoever when the ambient temperature climbs above 80 or falls below 60 and stays there. I didn’t see this in the report but if I missed it… This is statement might be more correct as follows: ‘Thermal mass provides a smaller benefit over conventional construction if the temperature where to go well above or below the inside set point and stay there indefinitely.’ Not a likely situation. Take my house for example its been cold lately (around 25 for several days and yes that’s cold for Texas). When it dropped from 50 to 25 it took a day and a half or so for the system to start up (energy stored in the walls) now that it’s 60 outside again the AC is off. Incidentally, I have over 1000 square feet per ton – conventional construction is generally 450 – 550 (sorry different thread). RE: “Heat is only going in one direction, and it's the wrong way. In a power outage, a massive house would stay warmer longer than a low-mass house, but when the lights come back on, it will take that much longer to heat up.” This statement is more or less correct except for the one way component and as long as the power remains off for several days. Re: “Mass does cuts energy bills when the average daily temperature is something you'd consider comfortable. Even when the thermometer outside swings from 50 to 90 during a 24-hour period, buffering by thermal mass can keep things comfortable inside without need of HVAC. “ You got me on this one  Re: “Not surprisingly, it works best when the concrete is directly exposed to the interior. If you look at Figure 8 in the ORNL page mentioned above, "Potential energy savings..." you'll see that reducing the insulation in an ICF wall in Phoenix from R25 to R5 makes it perform BETTER by about 33 percent, and that in Bakersfield, insulation has very little impact on savings. This tradeoff is entirely a function of where you live.” When I first found this some time ago it was surprising to me actually. Anyway, generally this statement is correct but can easily be misleading if out of context. First, no ICF offers an R value below 20 that I am aware of so an R5 ICF is kind of imaginary. None exist that I know of anyway. Second, What the chart actually says is that in Phoenix if you drop the R value from R25 to R5 the system performs approximately 15% better than conventional construction (of the same R value) instead of 10% better than conventional construction of the same R value). Quite a different message from what I understood you to say. You are correct that tradeoffs exist but they are all in favor of ICF over conventional construction (to same level of insulation) except when ICF R values below 10 are utilized and to my knowledge again no one is manufacturing these ICFs – with the possible exception of a math model or laboratory. Re: “(Divide the year into too hot, too cold and the days in between; the bigger the daily swing, the bigger the savings; drier is better because mass can't do anything about humidity.)” I basically agree with this statement but don’t see the connection to humidity other than it’s a non-issue for thermal mass. Regards.

Sorry about the missing spaces in previous post. They are in my copy. BTW. Al -- can't agree with you more about the geo -- we (ICF and SIPs) are the best path to making them mainstream. regards.

I would agree with pretty much 100% of your post.  There may be a few things I haven't mentioned, but air sealing is definitely on my radar if we do go the stick framing route vs. SIPs.  I have talked with the buider about spray foaming in the walls, sealing electrical boxes, etc.  His insulation guy has an 'attic sealing package" that includes spray foaming top plates on interior walls, around recessed lights, etc.  It's something that he knows is important & he will make sure those sealing details are covered.  Also, as I mentioned in a different thread this morning, I think that if we do NOT do SIPs, every option is going to include at least an inch of foam board on the exterior sheathing.  That should help significantly with air sealing, once all the seams are taped, etc.

My last point...   I agree with you about the geo for the most part, but will add a point or two.  The numbers you're looking at are based on today's fossil fuel prices.  I think we can all agree that over time those things are going to go up.   As those costs go up, the payback on geo will go down.  This is a house that we plan to be in for the next 30 years, so I think that needs to be a consideration.(one point of clarification - if we don't go geo, it will be a high efficiency natural gas forced air unit, not electric heat).

Also, if we go the geo route, as photovoltaic systems become more reasonable we will have the option to install that & generate the electricity needed to heat the home.  Right now it's just not cost effective for us, but in the future I think it will be.

In my conversations with hvac guys, they've said that once we have the plans finalized, including insulation options, that we will run the numbers & see what makes the most sense. 

Has ORNL done tests for stick frame w/ 2" foam board on the exterior covering all framing... studs, headers, bonds, etc., properly taping/sealing all seams, air sealing the framing, etc.?

Panelwright's post was comparing SIP to stickframe w/ spray foam, but didn't mention anything about foam board on the exterior of the stickframe, or if the home was properly air sealed.
ADDED:
What did both houses have for foundations?
Was the basement slab insulated w/ rigid foam in either?
What was the attic insulation?
Was the geo in the stickbuilt house working properly... in my parents house, the electric back up heat was coming on when it shouldn't have causing the electric bill to be much higher.

I truly doubt that the next ORNL report on thermal mass will repeal the laws of physics, which is what it would take for ICF walls to "store" energy when the temperature outside is colder than the house. Yes, the heat stayed off in your home for a longer period than it would have in a low mass house. Yes, the heat cycled off fairly quickly when it came on (because the concrete core is insulated from the house.) But it will keep cycling until it makes up the btus your house lost, and for that period, your energy use will be higher than a low-mass house.

Humidity matters because wet can make you uncomfortable even if the air temperature seems reasonable.
i

Al
I agree with your comments regarding air tightness. Part of my passion about this is seeing how much better my older house has performed after only partially air sealing it. I wrote in several months ago asking ICF and SIPS builders what their blower door results were & was very surprised to find out that few actually tested. Reminds me of the local architects' house I saw a couple of years ago. 1800 SF two story kind of victorian, excellent SIPS job, very pretty house; zero basement wall insulation and two hot air furnaces. (attic and basement). I know that one furnace would be plenty, expecially if they had insulated the whole building envelope. The whole point of ICFs & SIPS is that they are a means to an end, but building them without knowing about and dealing with infiltration is really missing the point. I also agree with what you said about geo - in a new house, put your money in the envelope!
Bob

Some brief responses to several who have either posted comments directly to me.

altovinter (Steve) Thanks for the positive comment.

greentree, I'm not aware of the availability of fsc certified "fast growth" lumber that is suitable for quality framing projects. If this is indeed a product that is widely available, I would want to recommend that it be considered for use as "fill" material in our SIP projects, eg: T and B plates, at corners, door and window wrap, sub fascia, etc. Regarding your comment about "double OSB" I would answer that this is what gives SIPs their outstanding structural performance, they perform, structurally, much like an I-Beam. Of course OSB is made up primarily of wood that is not suitable for use as dimensional lumber. I've pointed out the benefits of this interior "skin" in previous posts on this thread. In regard to the "carbon footprints" of lumber mills, SIP factories, delivery trucks, etc. there's really not enough space here to thoroughly respond to those issues (and, I couldn't do that right now if I wanted to) There could be a slight advantage one way or the other, eg: SIPs vs. one of the SFML (Super Framed Multiple Layered) systems. In regard to the jobs issue, more SIP usage results in more workers manufacturing, fabricating, delivering, and installing the panels, etc etc probably not a significant, if any, net loss.

Bob I: Ok, So there's no reason to question your numbers $ 95K for the SFML wall system, and $ 116K+ for the SIP walls for some project, somewhere. That's a premium of about 22% for the walls only. Would you mind sharing a little more information so we can get a little better perspective on this project? Eg: Conditioned area ? SQ FT of wall area? Overall project budget? Is the project going to be built, or is it already completed, or under construction? Any other pertinent information? When you say that the R-Value is "the same" with both systems, are you implying that the "full wall R-values" are identical? If so can you provide the documentation that verifies that claim?
(I hope that you don't consider this as being a hostile reaction to your response to my post but this is pretty typical of how these types of "discussions" usually go.)

By the way, you and others have commented about the lack of emphasis on the impact of "Air Infiltration" in the whole energy efficiency discussion on this thread. I've alluded to this issue many times in previous posts along with a reference to the ORNL test that provides a comparison between SIPs and STANDARD "stick" framing" that's: www.r-control.com/air-tightness.asp (Hopefully, the next time that I want to provide a URL, I will have learned how to post it as an actual link) Now, I'm well aware that this test did NOT compare SIPs to an "SFML" system. Has anyone seen anything yet in regards to such a test? (Results of the test that I'm referring to: 4 1/2" SIP vs 2"x 6" with BATTS with 50 Pascals of negative pressure: Air "Leakage" SIPs: 9cfm Sticks: 126 cfm)

If you go back in the archives a year or two ago, there was a lot of attention given to thermal mass.  One of the threads dealt with an ICF apartment building in Canada that had been heavily instrumented to measure the interior surface, exterior surface and center of wall temps.

Making a long story short, they concluded that there is essentially no thermal mass benefit in a cold climate.  The benefit is low air infiltration and R value.

This is basically the same conclusion that ORNL came to.  In the south, the story changes, with thermal mass in a dry climate having more advantage than in a humid climate.  Thermal mass benefit IS regional.

It has also been reasonably well documented that thermal mass is more advantageous if it is on the inside of a continuously condition space....not in the middle or exterior.  If you have high daily temperature swings (above and below your interior temp), the thermal mass will help prevent the heat coming on at night and the AC during the day....but so will a good R value.  If I had to choose one or the other, it would be R.

The thermal mass savings Texas ICF mentions may be valid in Texas, but are not applicable to Minnesota.

I don't think thermal mass has any downside, but there is no significant "universal" upside either.  There are lots of good reasons to use ICF...I hope to use them in my build, but thermal mass is not a major driver for me, even though I will build in Texas.

Bruce

Sipper: Afraid I can't fulfil all your requests without spending quite a while reconstructing this. It was several months ago and apparently I only printed & kept some of the data, although the rest is probably scattered in the various programs. The house was a rectangular 30x42 2-1/2 story "colonial"; the numbers included all the floor framing with either stick wall & roof framing or SIPS & insulation. I did about 6 or 7 comparitive anaysis with REM/Design, using approximately R-40/R-70 for the "stick" buildings vs 6-1/2" SIPS walls , 10-1/2" SIPS roof. Also figured 2x6 with 2" or 4" XPS vs double stud, roof was 2x12 & cellulose with 2" vs 4" XPS. In this program you can specify infiltration rate so that was all the same (1.5AC@50p) All models had rainiscreen walls & cold roof. I was trying to find a way to use the SIPS, but in the end all the estimates were way higher than what they had anticipated so the project has not yet gotten off the ground. The geothermal came in at $41k- 51K; not included in the original numbers. Next time I do this I'll keep clearer notes so I can give you more detailed answers. Part of the point of all this is the clilent came to me requesting certain products (SIPS + geothermal) without having any but the vaguest idea of cost and without any real idea of the performance they were looking for. See that a lot; I probably ought to just "sell" one of these products and not worry about actual performance or cost so much.