Can I just replace the sawdust with insulation?

[Davion]

But wet room certification is also similar to what the industry association has come up with? [link] All this is good, but it's not a must.

ISO is also good, but the end result doesn't have to be good for that reason. You can certify in making life vests out of concrete. Or insulate with sawdust, or wool, or any of the alternatives mentioned in the thread.

That's correct, but it's about validity, just like most things.

If you follow the comments, it's fairly obvious what everything is rooted in, but I'll have to summarize it.

I refer to two independent instances that, for a myriad of different reasons, demonstrate a certain legitimacy and exemplify with terms like authorization and standards. It's customary. It's accepted by an extremely broad range of instances in Sweden. The two independent parties gave me the same answer regarding sawdust in the attic as insulation. That's it. That someone then has an agenda against everything concerning authorizations, standards, certificates, etc., is something I honestly have no interest in discussing.

 

[Pin]

That's true, but it's about validity, just like most things.

If you follow the comments it's fairly obvious what everything boils down to, but I may as well summarize it.

I refer to two independent entities that for a myriad of different reasons exhibit a certain legitimacy, and exemplify with terms like credentials and standards. It's customary. It's accepted by an extremely wide range of entities in Sweden. The two independent parties gave me the same answer regarding shavings in the attic as insulation. That's it. If someone then has an agenda against everything concerning credentials, standards, certificates, etc., it's honestly not something I am even slightly interested in discussing.

But if we return to the main issue about insulation and the risk of moisture in the attic, why use new shavings on top of existing shavings instead of cellulose on top of existing shavings (or alternatively replace the existing with cellulose)?

 

[nybyggarn3]

but who said there are no risks?

I was thinking more about:
"if there is a risk, then it's just a matter of handling it, there are plenty of ways to address this."

I interpreted it as if it's just a matter of spraying on and solving the problems afterward.

 

[Davion]

But if we return to the issue of insulation and the risk of moisture in the attic, why use new sawdust on top of the existing sawdust instead of cellulose on top of the existing sawdust (or alternatively replace the existing with cellulose)?

As I mentioned initially, this is freely from memory, but the point both parties made is that with old houses, every new factor introduces new aspects and problems, and if the only problem with an unheated attic in an old house is that a bit more heat escapes from the living space than desired, it's safest not to risk disturbing an otherwise problem-free solution.

From one party, I also got the suggestion to supplement with cellulose wool on top, but both parties suggested simply adding a bit more sawdust to the existing layer and possibly reviewing the ceiling. Nothing more fancy than that.

The issue for me: I primarily had objections to the claim that TS is getting bad advice, which according to these two independent parties is not the case, I believe.

 

[Pin]

As I initially mentioned, it's free from memory, but the main point for both parties was that when it comes to old houses, with every new factor added, new aspects and problems arise, and if the only problem with an attic in an old house is that some more heat escapes from the living area than desired, it's safest not to risk disturbing an otherwise problem-free solution.

I also got a suggestion from one party to add cellulose wool on top, but from both parties, the proposal was to add a little more to the existing level of sawdust and possibly review the ceiling. Nothing fancier than that.

The issue for me: I mainly objected to the claim that TS is getting bad advice, which according to these two independent parties, it is not, I believe.

But it has been 100 years since the house was built and in 2022 we don't want to freeze indoors anymore, most want 20 degrees or at least 18. With rising energy prices, it is very expensive today to heat a house from 1920. Maybe it takes 30 to 40 thousand kWh? That's why TS wants to insulate. Then the risk of moisture comes in.

Anticimex and the construction company don't care about TS's electricity bill and don't want to take any risk. That's why it's easiest to give the advice "let it be as it is, it's worked for 100 years," or "just insulate a little, preferably with the same."

For it to make any greater sense (economically), there has to be a significant improvement, i.e., much better insulation, which means increased risk.

If you ask the companies that spray loose fill insulation in the attic, you probably get a different answer where the risk is understated.

 

[fribygg]

But if we return to the issue of insulation and the risk of moisture in the attic, why use new shavings on top of existing shavings instead of cellulose on top of existing shavings (alternatively replace existing shavings with cellulose)?

I'm not saying it's wrong with cellulose, I just don't understand the benefit of removing the existing flawless shavings.

In what way would TS's house be better insulated if the sawdust was removed?

 

[Aunty]

I'm not saying cellulose is wrong, I just don't understand the benefit of shoveling away existing flawless sawdust.

How would the TS house become better insulated if the sawdust is removed?

First of all, it would definitely become better insulated because cellulose is about twice as good insulation. So the same volume would significantly increase the insulating effect.

But the sawdust also has other bad properties you want to avoid in a house, which is why it's good to remove it when you're already making an intervention.

 

[fribygg]

If enough energy is consumed and energy prices are sufficiently high, it eventually becomes a good deal. But before that, it is probably profitable to add insulation and/or change the heating system.

In TS case, it seems there is 90 cm of available space on the attic floor, and then I can't see any point in shoveling or vacuuming out the existing flawless woodchips insulation, can you?

 

[Pin]

I am not saying it is wrong with cellulose, I just don't understand the benefit of shoveling away existing flawless sawdust.

In what way would TS's house be better insulated if the sawdust was removed?

Depends on what the alternatives are:
1. Existing sawdust X cm + Y cm cellulose
2. Remove existing, X + Y cm cellulose
3. Remove existing, Y cm cellulose
4. Existing sawdust X cm + X + Y cm cellulose

Since cellulose insulates better than 100-year-old sawdust that has packed together so that there is minimal insulating air left in between, 2 is better than 1. Option 3 is, of course, the worst. Option 4 is even better, but it might not fit.

 

[fribygg]

first of all, it would definitely become better insulated because cellulose is roughly twice as good an insulator.
so the same volume would significantly increase the insulating effect.

but the shavings also have other poor properties that one wants to avoid in a house, so it is good to remove it when making an intervention anyway.

You as an engineer might be able to present a calculation showing the profitability of removing the existing shavings on TS's attic before insulation?

 

[Aunty]

In TS's case, there seems to be 90 cm of available space on the attic floor, and then I cannot in any way see the point of shoveling or sucking out the existing flawless sawdust insulation, can you?

but what is it that you don't understand, it's not just about insulation value but sawdust has several bad properties, that's why it's no longer used even in building conservation.
And if you are going to use it anyway, they have developed special variants of sawdust to be able to use it,

 

[fribygg]

Depends on what the options are:
1. Existing sawdust X cm + Y cm cellulose
2. Remove existing, X + Y cm cellulose
3. Remove existing, Y cm cellulose
4. Existing sawdust X cm + X + Y cm cellulose

Since the cellulose insulates better than 100-year-old sawdust that has packed together so that there is minimal insulating air left between, 2 is better than 1. Option 3 is obviously the worst. Option 4 is even better, but it might not fit.

There is 90 cm of available space if I interpret TS correctly. The cost of removing the flawless sawdust must also be considered if you're considering this.

 

[fribygg]

but what is it that you don't understand, it's not just about insulation value, but spån has several bad properties, that's the reason it's no longer used even in building conservation.
And if you still want to use it, special variants of spån have been developed to make it usable,

Source?

 

[Aunty]

Source?

On what?, I don't see that you've provided a single source for your posts.
I would like to have sources for everything you've written.

But have you seen any new construction using kutterspån, why do you think it's not used?

 

[Pin]

There is 90 cm of available space if I interpret TS correctly. The cost of removing the flawless sawdust must also be included in the calculation if one considers this

Ok, I missed the 90 cm. I read carelessly as if the studs were 90 mm . But what exactly is 90 cm in two directions? Is it possible to insulate high without building a frame?

Yes, the cost of removing the sawdust must be included in the calculation. If you do it yourself, it costs almost nothing. Hiring someone costs a bit. How much, you need to find out, just like with what it costs to get the new material in place. Personally, I only have experience of laying a layer of mineral wool on top of the old similar kind. Drove home in the car a couple of trips and laid it myself. Cheap and hasn't caused problems but with lower consumption.

Those who come with the loose fill might be able to reverse the engine and suck out the sawdust, and then sell it on to those who advocate sawdust in the attic? . Petterson and Bendel can be hired,