Trying to read up on which type of insulation, cellulose or mineral wool, has the best insulating performance, but the information presented is quite confusing.
For example, when I read on http://www.norrlandseko.se/?page_id=1291 it summarily states the following:
"There has now been inflation in low Lambda values that manufacturers have “upgraded”.
Insulation producers DO NOT need to have any overseeing control for reported thermal conductivity.
You also need to know that the Lambda value is valid at +10 degrees, indoors, and when the heat is going DOWN.
If it’s colder, this value needs to be adjusted. These poorer values are “voluntary” and therefore do not need to be reported."
The Lambda value for mineral wool is about the same as for cellulose insulation, i.e., around 36. But despite this, cellulose insulation appears so superior if you read the quoted above, or for that matter on other sites selling cellulose insulation.
Is it false advertising, or what is it about?
Which type of insulation actually insulates better in REALITY, i.e., a real environment with both summer and winter, and not just lab results with +10 degrees?
For example, when I read on http://www.norrlandseko.se/?page_id=1291 it summarily states the following:
- Air tightness: Thermocell and FEELINGWOOD are more than twice as airtight as mineral wool.
- Heat capacity: Feelingwood retains heat more than 6 times better than synthetic insulation.
- Convection: Mineral wool performs worse the colder it gets.
"There has now been inflation in low Lambda values that manufacturers have “upgraded”.
Insulation producers DO NOT need to have any overseeing control for reported thermal conductivity.
You also need to know that the Lambda value is valid at +10 degrees, indoors, and when the heat is going DOWN.
If it’s colder, this value needs to be adjusted. These poorer values are “voluntary” and therefore do not need to be reported."
The Lambda value for mineral wool is about the same as for cellulose insulation, i.e., around 36. But despite this, cellulose insulation appears so superior if you read the quoted above, or for that matter on other sites selling cellulose insulation.
Is it false advertising, or what is it about?
Which type of insulation actually insulates better in REALITY, i.e., a real environment with both summer and winter, and not just lab results with +10 degrees?
Last edited:
They are fairly equivalent. What speaks in favor of mineral wool is the price.
Okay, so the declared lambda value is what one should go by? Because it's about the same. But is the lambda value fair then? Or do other factors also play a role in reality, such as air tightness, heat capacity, and convection? Because in those respects, cellulose insulation seems superior.D Daniel 109 said:
The soundproofing properties are also better for cellulose insulation due to higher density, even though this doesn't pertain to heat insulation ability, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
I find there is a very big price difference. 2-4 times more expensive depending on thickness. This becomes very large amounts for larger areas.
I'll see if I can find the other information about insulation capability.
Last edited:
Another significant difference is that foam plastic is easily applied comprehensively, without studs that act as thermal bridges. Furthermore, a comprehensive, interlocked foam plastic layer becomes very airtight, preventing cold air from entering the insulation in the gaps between studs and insulation. On walls, you can indeed install "västkustskivor," but on roofs, this option is not available as far as I have seen.
When I added 80 mm foam plastic insulation to our old house in the 1980s, in conjunction with replacing the siding with wood paneling, we instantly halved our total energy consumption.
Now we have 100 mm foam plastic on top of the roof's sheathing on our almost 8-year-old house, and it has worked very well so far.
When I added 80 mm foam plastic insulation to our old house in the 1980s, in conjunction with replacing the siding with wood paneling, we instantly halved our total energy consumption.
Now we have 100 mm foam plastic on top of the roof's sheathing on our almost 8-year-old house, and it has worked very well so far.
Thermal conduction is the opposite of insulation ability.
Oops, it should say heat capacity, of course. I accidentally wrote thermal conduction capacity. Corrected now.D Daniel 109 said:
What we want is resistance capacity in that case, not conduction capacity
From ICell:
http://www.icell.se/sv/cellulosaisolering
- Air tightness: Cellulose insulation is a so-called high-density product. This means that the material is extremely dense and has a relatively high weight volume. It helps prevent unwanted air currents (convection) within the insulation and also provides high heat capacity.
- Heat capacity: Heat capacity refers to the amount of energy needed to heat 1 kg by 1 degree C. If the value is high, the material has great inertia. The value for glass wool is 670 joules per kg, stone wool 860 joules per kg. The value for cellulose insulation is an excellent 1600 joules per kg (according to EN ISO 10456), which in practice makes cellulose significantly more effective as insulation.
- Convection: Cellulose insulation is a dense insulation consisting of cellulose fibers that naturally contain air. This helps to bind the effect in so-called forced convection. Natural convection starts at a temperature difference of 15°C for glass wool, 22°C for stone wool, and not at all for cellulose even at the highest temperature differences that may be relevant for house insulation.
http://www.icell.se/sv/cellulosaisolering
So if the declared lambda value of around 36 is equivalent for both cellulose and mineral wool insulation and that is the value that one should ultimately go by, why is there so much discussion about air tightness, heat capacity, and convection, all characteristics in which cellulose insulation seems to perform better - if these characteristics do not make any difference in reality?
I'm lost...
I'm lost...
But today foam plastic isn't typically used for walls, right?KnockOnWood said:
...it's different for foundations and sometimes basement walls, etc., but for studded exterior walls? Then there's the fire risk For roofs, it might be becoming somewhat popular with foam plastic, followed by battens and cross battens, etc., but I haven't seen solutions for exterior walls?
It looked like a rather sales-generated text. Probably no lies, but quite misleading. To begin with, I understand that they are saying the same thing twice with different words. Convection is air movements. Then nothing is written about practical results or the size of the same. And I don't understand how specific heat capacity would have a significant impact on insulation. There is sometimes talk about the benefits of a heavy structure with its heat-storing properties. But then we are several orders of magnitude above the heat capacity of insulation. And it's under rather specific conditions that this is an advantage. Until I see something scientific saying otherwise, I will assume they insulate equivalently.
http://www.paroc.se/losningar/byggisolering/laglutande-tak
Yes, that's what I suspect... that it's just a bunch of selling points and empty talk that doesn't really mean anything.A Avemo said:
But what do they mean when they write the following?: One must also know that the Lambda value applies at +10 degrees, indoors, and when the heat goes DOWNWARD.
Do they mean the usual declared lambda values or? So when it says lambda 37, let's say, on mineral wool, and the same on cellulose insulation, does it just mean that they insulate equivalently under indoor conditions at +10 and when the heat goes downward? (whatever that means, because heat rises, right?
)What applies then when it's -10 degrees outside and you want to keep the cold out? What do the differences look like between mineral wool and cellulose insulation then?
It's a damn shame that companies try to mislead their customers!
That could certainly happen.Martin_B said:
But aren't foam plastics typically not used for walls today?
But none of the houses have burned down yet, knock on wood.
And I see a greater risk with all the plastic we have in our interiors, beds, sofas, curtains, etc.
By the way, I talked to a neighbor about the flammability of foam plastic.
His hobby is restoring scrap cars, and he uses welding and angle grinders daily.
He also has quite a bit of foam plastic lying around.
So I asked if he wasn't afraid that the foam plastic would catch fire when welding sparks and angle grinder splashes landed on the plastic. But no, nothing happened other than that the sparks melted a small hole, he said
So I wonder if the fire risk might be a bit exaggerated.
I think the salesperson who wrote the text doesn't understand it themselves. So you don't need to spend much time analyzing it.Do they mean the usual declared lambda values or? So when it says lambda 37, let's say, on mineral wool, and the same on cellulose insulation, does it only mean that they insulate equally under indoor conditions at +10 and when the heat goes down? (whatever that means, because heat rises, right?
What about when it's -10 degrees outside and you want to keep the cold out? What are the differences between mineral wool and cellulose insulation then?
A company attempting to mislead is as good a reason as any to choose another company to do business with.
but mineral wool is considerably more unpleasant to work with... and the moisture aspect (that moisture cannot be buffered in mineral wool) also speaks against mineral wool in old houses... since you don't want/can't put plastic everywhere indoors...