Spray-foam insulation makes homes unable to be mortgaged
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It's easy to apply and looks cool so that's good for instagram builders/remodelers, plus they'll probably be out of business before you notice the damage.
https://vtdigger.org/2023/05/22/i-wanted-to-cry-devastating-...
There's a whole class of corrosion in metal structures called Corrosion Under Insulation or CUI. This is a problem for any insulated metal structure, but it is way worse with spray foam because the foam traps moisture very effectively, when it breaks down it becomes acidic, it is difficult to remove for inspection or repair, and it makes hotwork dangerous because it is flammable.
When I started seeing wooden houses and roof decks get spray foamed, I could only think that these structures will likely be rotten and useless in 20-30 years. I would only sprayfoam something if the substrate is completely impervious to moisture, like if it was fiberglass or something. Even then you're likely looking forward to a pretty evil concoction under that insulation in a decade or so.
(The foam cores in modern fibreglass construction is PVC-based, moisture safe, and can not be sprayed.)
Moisture barrier: It blocks water vapor and prevents mold growth by reducing humidity levels in crawl spaces and other areas.
Structural strength: It can double the racking load of a home, making it more resistant to severe weather. Air sealing: It protects against drafts, cold spots, and uneven heating.
Longevity: It retains its R-value over time and can last for decades if installed correctly. Energy cost savings: It reduces your carbon footprint by consuming less energy.
Improved air quality: It doesn't contain harmful micro substances like fiberglass insulation.
Structural strength: yeahhhh... no
Longevity: not more than anything else, a pain in the ass to replace though
Improved air quality: The petrol derivate foam that leaves a god awful nasty smell for days/weeks and can offgas for years is good for air quality ? rock or better sheep wool is much better in that regard
In the end of the day people do whatever they want but I'd rather build smaller and spend more on rockwool than have extra space and nasty ass foam all around my house
Definitely a risk with any type of improperly installed moisture barrier (like ZIP sheathing).
> Structural strength: yeahhhh... no
It would take me some time to find more formal studies, but there are a lot of videos on YouTube that demonstrate the addeded strength. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mMHJpSHKJM
> god awful nasty smell for days/weeks and can offgas for years is good for air quality ?
Everything I've read indicates that any offgassing/odor is gone in 24 hours or less.
> In the end of the day people do whatever they want
Agreed. To each their own. Closed cell spray foam also works well in conjunction with rockwool.
No one will study the strength of insulation foam because it will never be authorised as a structural material.
> Everything I've read indicates that any offgassing/odor is gone in 24 hours or less.
Everything you read comes from manufacturers or bloggers/influencers paid by manufacturers. On construction forums you'll find plenty of people complaining of weird smells months/years down the line.
Again, people do whatever they want with their houses and health, personally I'm not touching this shit with a ten foot pole given the alternatives
https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/question/fumes-from-clo...
https://www.sprayfoammagazine.com/forum/topic/spray-foam-odo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Insulation/comments/1bsm8db/faint_s...
https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/comments/bfhpmt/ope...
This is more applicable to fiberglass. How does humidity somehow get past the foam while being kept there? I never see any evidence for these claims.
Structural strength: yeahhhh... no
Foam adds rigidity to wooden structures. This is actually very commonly brought up and noticed where houses creak far less on top of the sounds proofing. Saying "yeahh.. no" is not evidence of anything.
Longevity: not more than anything else, a pain in the ass to replace though
Definitely more than fiberglass, since fiberglass can sag and flatten over time.
offgas for years is good for air quality
This is not typical and happens when it is installed poorly.
Open cell:
* https://buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insig...
* https://buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insig...
So properly ventilate, which you want/need to do anyway.
Anything that is airtight can trap things, and you generally want to to be as airtight.
Unless you want to start getting into design details that are airtight but vapour open.
> Structural strength: yeahhhh... no
Yes, it does (at least per UFlorida researchers):
* https://www.jlconline.com/how-to/insulation/the-structural-p...
ERV.
Build tight, ventilate right. — Perera and Parkins; https://www.aivc.org/sites/default/files/airbase_5952.pdf , https://www.cibsejournal.com/technical/build-tight-ventilate...
In multi-tenant dwellings, building tight can help keep people's smells to themselves. That's about it. Like if you have pressurized air in the hallway, keeping the common area fresh, if the apartment units are not built tight, smells can go from one to the other sideways, possibly forced by that very same pressure.
The main reason people build tight is to save on heating and cooling bills, or "save the planet". And mainly how that works is by not ventilating. Ventilating forces out all that hot or cool air that you paid for, so you have to heat or cool the replacement air.
It's basically greed or ideology over health.
I'm not quite sure why you're taking thing so literally about combining the two actions. I would call a jar airtight because the glass cannot be penetrated by air, nor can the lid and band.
You can then ventilate the airtight (proverbial) jar on your own terms: using filters and such to control the quality of the air that goes in/out.
The build tight is about the building enclosure; the ventilate right is about exchange stale/dirty interior air with cleaner exterior air in a controlled fashion.
A fully sealed building with zero ventilation would be horrible for people due to increased chemicals from people just breathing (CO2) or cooking. It is absolutely necessary to ventilate a building, but it can be done so to also reduce the incoming undesirable elements in the exterior air.
> Ventilating forces out all that hot or cool air that you paid for, so you have to heat or cool the replacement air.
Ventilating using HRV/ERVs takes the conditioned air and transfers some of its properties (temperature, moisture) to the incoming air to temper it. The incoming air is/can be also filtered to removed things like pollen, dust, wildfire smoke, etc.
> It's basically greed or ideology over health.
There are entire industry standards (ASHRAE 62.1 and 62.2) on the topic of good indoor air quality (IAQ) to make sure that 'just enough' stale air is removed (e.g., to reduce CO2 counts) while not 'over-ventilating' (increasing costs), and it is a topic of active academic research (especially post-COVID):
* https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsc2-5fAgMq4bj2P8fMgQ...
By not having a tight building envelope treated air can leak out, and untreated air can leak in, and depending on the size of the leaks (holes) you can even get bugs/creatures entering.
The whole point of buildings is to separate environments: inside versus outside. Leaking building compromise that separation reducing the control you have. And if you do not want to separate your interior and exterior environment live in a tent or under a tarp: plenty of ventilation, very little air-tightness.
Not sure if there is a significant climate difference in the UK that makes this construction more problematic, the article mentions moisture but the U.S. building scientists say 2 inches closed cell spray foam will block air and vapors from reaching the wood of the roof. Perhaps the issue is the open cell foam mentioned in the article - it seems that closed cell foam is the recommended type in the USA.
The reason it's nonsense is that the side covered with foam (especially closed cell) is now protected by waterproof polyurethane. Water isn't getting to that side.
The other side is now insulated from the inside, so that isn't getting things like condensation because the temperature differences should be negligible. If people think about a cheap styrofoam cooler, it's cold on the inside and there isn't condensation on the outside on a humid summer day. The outside isn't cold, that's the point, so condensation doesn't happen there.
Then maybe someone would say if there was a roof leak the wood would get wet and rot, but that would happen anyway. That's a major disaster and foam won't cause any more problems than are already happening.
This is especially true for hack jobs on older buildings.
A lot of people spray foam in old attics as a set and forget insulation measure: https://www.stellrr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/AAF45418-...
Why? It isn't like water will get through metal plates, at least not within many decades.
You'll always have a failing shingle/tile here and there, unless you plan on inspecting the whole structure under the foam every year you could very well miss it for many years.
A puddle in the attic or a wet rock/sheepwool panel will be much easier to discover/fix. A small leak under 20cm of sprayed foam will be a nightmare to locate
https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/488240/homeow...
Why would water be able to get through your roof with spray foam making anything worse? Water damage means you have to replace things anyway.
Because your roof _will_ fail, they all do, once it does the water will collect between the roof and the foam, because while it's not air tight there will be nowhere near enough ventilation do get rid of it
> Water damage means you have to replace things anyway.
Yes, but if your entire wooden structure rots for 5 years because you didn't detected the leak since it's hidden behind 20cm of foam you are utterly fucked.
It's well documented, feel free to google it if you don't believe me.
https://sprayfoamreclaim.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PHOT...
You said that already but it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked. Repetition doesn't make something true. There are typically shingles, then a layer underneath, then wood sheathing like OSB. All that is for the cheapest roof.
https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/32820/is-it-ok-for-o...
once it does the water will collect between the roof and the foam
Says who? If water is getting to the wood, why isn't air getting to it? Typical roofs last for 20-30 years.
This idea that foam is bad because seeing water soak through through the entire wood sheathing is nonsense. This is also only dealing with foam on the underside of the roof, which is also not the only place or way it can be used.
but if your entire wooden structure rots for 5 years
Now your "entire wood structure" is going to rot? If you want to know if there is moisture in your wood, go in your attic. This idea that roofs blow off without anyone noticing and huge amounts of water soak all the wood in a house and the entire thing rots without any indication is not reality.
feel free to google it if you don't believe me.
You can feel free to google it because you're the one making the claims.
Implementation details matter. From the OP's article:
> At the root of the problem are cowboy traders who apply the foam without a full survey or appropriate expertise – but because of lenders’ caution, this is affecting other homeowners who had similar work.
One potential problem that could occur is ridge rot:
> Lots of attics insulated with open cell low density spray foam (Photograph 1, Photograph 2 and Photograph 3) are having problems – in hot humid climates, mixed humid climates, and cold climates. The problems are moisture related. The attics are “unvented” – open cell low density spray foam is installed directly on the underside of roof sheathing. The attics are humid. Very humid. Unacceptably humid. And the humidity collects at the upper portion of the attics.
* https://buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insig...
> When you spray ocSPF into wall cavities from the interior the ocSPF can act as the air control layer and thermal control layer. It can’t act as the vapor control layer – it is too vapor open. This is a problem when you spray ocSPF on the underside of roof/attic assemblies you can end up with problems (“Ping Pong Water”).
* https://buildingscience.com/documents/building-science-insig...
If I were to sprayfoam something I would only consider using open cell foam. If I were to use other impervious zero-perm insulation materials like rockwool I'd only do so with dimple board to allow air underneath. The small loss of efficiency is a necessary tradeoff for giving the moisture which will always be there a path to escape.
Choosing where your moisture barrier line lies is typically easy in new construction but does get tricky with retrofit situations. It sounds like the biggest issue from the article is that they are taking what were vented attics and converting them to non-vented attics with spray foam. The issue isn't really the spray foam, the issue is converting an attic without proper understanding of venting and moisture barriers.
In nordic standards, there must be an air-column between the insulation and the outer "cold" layer, to ventilate out any moisture that might get trapped there. There must also be a moisture barrier between the "hot" side and the layer of insulation, typically a PE-sheet, to prevent air from leaking into the insulation.
Since the wood expands/contracts with changes in temperature and humidity, filling compartments in wood constructions with foam does not guarantee air tight barriers.
It's a really old, and well known, UK expression, and not an affectionate one.
Although 'Tradesman' (or tradeswoman) is the overwhelmingly correct term in the UK for those kind of jobs, whether the work they produce is good or bad.
Where the downvoted is wrong is saying it is somehow a PC term.
There is nothing politically correct or incorrect about it. It is just the standard term. Meanwhile in Australia they use 'Tradie' from what I understand.
It can also refer to those who will take on contracts (plumbing / landscaping / roofing / building work / etc) without any intention of fulfilling them, or charge exorbitant, inappropriate and unagreed prices.
It's in such common British use that a TV show named "Cowboy Traders" was aired in 2012.
But it's understandable why they haven't used that here, as an insulation installer would rarely be called a builder, just like an electrician or plumber would rarely be called a builder.
Edit: and as another commenter pointed out, it's literally the government definition of someone running their own business - "sole trader".
https://www.trustatrader.com/trades
So no, I don't think that's a regional thing.
> ‘Tradesman’, which in the north is used to denote a workman who has learned a trade, while in the south it is made to apply to a man who runs a business.
That was more than a hundred years ago and things may have moved on a bit since then, and in any case that sentence is quoted as an example rather than a claim by the editors of the dictionary, but perhaps despite my current place of residence I'm a northerner at heart?
The term seems to lack gender-neutrality so Wikipedia prefers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradesperson
The trouble with "trader" is that it usually means something else, namely someone who trades. A tradesperson doesn't trade; they practise a trade (= craft/profession).
Ambiguous on a global scale? Maybe. Ambiguous when you're standing in a builders' merchant? Absolutely not.
"tradie" is the variant i encounter more often, though.
And we've long had governments that take a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude - expecting the market to sort things out. As they see it, this insulation can be done properly, building owners chose to buy it, why ban a promising new green technology when the UK has millions of under-insulated homes and an energy price crisis?
Similarly, the UK has a load of tower blocks clad in flammable insulation after vendors Kingspan and Celotex scammed their way through fire safety testing - but somehow all the people who made money off it have disappeared and the taxpayer has to pay to remediate it.
Because tbe lenders are at risk here, they won't lend unless you do the removal so that the lender can inspect.
The issue isn't the cost of the removal. It is the unknown further liability.
If the installation was done reasonably, they probably won't have further damage. I wasn't really meaning to ignore it, just wasn't speaking to it.
The person who wants to shift 300000 isn't the problem. It is the bank who is saying no to the mortgage. Banking has been described as "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller". For them, a housing mortgage has limited upside, and a large possible downside. They stay in business by avoiding hitting that downside.
Therefore a property that can't be inspected property, can't get a mortgage. Full stop.
The prospective buyer can't buy without a mortgage. Sure, the buyer could pay for the removal. But now you're asking the buyer to pay for a large repair, just to decide if this might be the house for them? And that payment comes out of what they could have spent on another house! This makes no sense.
The only party that has the right incentive to fix the problem is the current owner. It's part of getting your house ready for sale. That sucks - they thought that they were improving their home, and they made it worse. But still, they created a problem, and nobody else is going to volunteer to help.
The owners paid money to improve their house. Now they have to pay more to undo that if they want to have a chance of selling it. That's a rather nasty thing to be hit with when you're trying to sell your house so that you can move.
It's not unsellable, there are a lot of private buyers, both investors who intend to rent it out and people with significant money looking to just buy outright. For example my mother moved long after retiring, obviously she can't get a mortgage, so she paid cash. However, if a mortgage will be hard to get this makes it significantly harder to find a buyer, especially if your ideal buyer is younger and not wealthy. This can depress prices.
Reading this article and the comments here ... I do not want to think, other than being glad it was too expensive to consider.
Closed cell foam is the best insulation - if it is installed correctly. You should want it as it is the best insulation. However the payoff is several decades vs much cheaper insulation and so most people find it isn't worth the costs.
In general, for most houses, putting in the most cheap insulation you can, and then investing in a heat pump is the most bang for the buck and better for the earth than the most foam you can and then using a much less efficient HVAC system (in a new house this is typically what code requires, but there are a lot of old houses with minimal insulation and a terrible furnace).
Also why couldn’t they afford them? Is this the US where the equivalent of a $5000 system elsewhere in the world seems to cost $25K to install for some reason? Even then, with depreciation as long as it’s a couple of years old surely the residual value isn’t that much…?
Otherwise why not sell them for $9.99 along with the house?
I ate $20k on my last house because of the above.
I can sympathize with these people, they are not really to blame imo. Shoddy work needs to be claimed with those that did the work and choose the materials.
And the roof timbers are covered by the foam, hidden from easy visual examination.
The homeowners should band together and take the government to court
>A report published in March by the government’s Health and Safety Executive found that condensation could cause 25% of roof timber to decay within five years if spray foam is applied directly to roof tiles, or certain underlays. The general risks increase the further north the property is, because of colder climates.
> Executive found that condensation could cause 25% of roof timber to decay within five years if spray foam is applied directly to roof tiles, or certain underlays. The general risks increase the further north the property is, because of colder climates.
Most houses in the UK will have a timber frame, condensation will cause the wood to rot.
All that being common knowledge, it does indeed seem weird that people were just spraying foam directly on the inside of their roofs as vapor will be deposited somewhere in the open cell structure of the foam, or against the inside of the wood/roof-tiles (as the air cools down, it can hold less and less water so that condenses).
Given all that knowledge, I'm still unable to close all the vapor bridges in my house, because I can't remove certain structures. So it is still a bit of a gamble here and there, where the moisture will pile up. I just try to get it to pile up in sites that are exposed to outside air.
I can't imaging everyone being as analytical and careful as me though. Indeed I sometime here people just pasting PIR plates or mineral-wool in place and leaving them like that, no vapor screens or anything. Time will tell what happens to these houses. Old houses were made to just have a lot of heat-transport through the structure, which prevents vapor deposition. Insulating any house should come with at least some thought about where the humid inside air will go (preferably outside through ventilation holes.)
When using any type of insulation in places where temperatures can vary and humidity can get high you should always ensure the wooden parts have enough room to breathe (e.g. 10cm of empty space above them if the insulation is at the bottom).
Also if you want insulate an old house consider you should install an HVAC system so that you are properly venting. Old houses self ventilate because they’re so loose compared to modern homes with tight envelopes.
Closed cell foam insulation is a vapor barrier, which is where the problem comes from. You must never have two vapor barriers as any moisture that is between them cannot get out and this will cause mold and rot.
Punching a small hole in a wall and putting foam is fine so long as the foam and the existing vapor barrier are touching each other and thus form one barrier. However if there is something between the vapor barrier and the foam you have two barriers and problems.
The above is my current belief. Who knows if I'm right.
A good example of negative externality.
(If you are a good libertarian, you believe they don't exist, or everything is fine).
You hire someone to do spray foaming properly, have no problems with it, but suffer negative externality because others fuck it up and you are treated the same.
Regulation would fix that problem. Spray foam works just fine in Finland, although, we usually use mineral or glass wool already in construction phase. You must know how and where the dew point will be when you build or fix a wall.