It's a much more complicated equation, but it's very possible the emissions from simply producing the insulation and having the install done are more than the saved future emissions.

Is not impossible. It’s not likely either.

Insulation pays back over a long enough time horizon (economically or CO2 wise). Although spray foam at the moment does have a large CO2 impact. If someone is putting in way too much insulation then we could say that the last 30% of insulation wasn't worth it. When people say something won't payback economically on a home, they are usually looking at a time frame of 10 years or less.

In this case the insulation itself will probably payback quickly. The problem is the cost of re-siding the house to get the insulation in- likely similar for CO2 impact.

That’s very unlikely. Insulation lasts decades and is not that difficult to produce.

It is possible. You can't measure that in currency, though.

If there was a carbon tax you might be able too.

I absolutely agree this kind of nontrivial work can be done in a way that is woefully inefficient/impractical. My EWI, approx 85m2 of graphite polystyrene with an embedded CO2[1] of ~15kg/m2 is equivalent to approximately 1.5 years of CO2 emissions (combined electricity & gas), or ~9 months of CO2 emissions before I replaced windows and old kerosene boiler that came with the house.

Actual installation and other materials excluded (adhesives, mesh, silicone render, 450 hot beverages, getting the neighbour's car repaired after the scaffolders hit it, etc.) excluded.

I don't have a full year of data yet, but all in it's looking like CO2 emissions are going to come in at well under 40%. This is in line with the independent assessment I needed to clear a grant for some of the costs[2]. It seems to me "carbon ROI" is about 1/4 the financial ROI (est 8+ years).

Now if it was PU instead of EPS that would be a different cost (10x the CO2 of polystyrene). Sadly I also ended up with some PU (PIR) in a small area of low-pitched roof void, I don't know if there were better choices there.

There's also a hidden cost in living in a cold, damp building - now there are winter days when I don't even turn the heat on at all.

[1] https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/embodied-carbon-... [2] https://www.seai.ie/publications/Your-Guide-to-Building-Ener...

> People don't buy the cheapest car, house, clothing, or food they could possibly get by with... Yet we constantly hear the refrain that you shouldn't spend a given amount of money on solar, house improvements, appliances, etc. that might be better for the environment if the payback isn't somehow positive with a 10-20 year payback period.

I think the key thing here is that energy is 100% fungible unlike your examples. A kWH is a kWH.

But you’re not buying kWh in this example. You’re buying home energy systems. They have many tradeoffs, pro and con. Besides that, for many people, a kWh produced by a renewable energy source or that’s available to them when the grid is down is worth more than one produced by a coal plant that might be unavailable during an outage.

Sorta, around here, a bucket of kWh at 2PM sells for more than the same sized bucket at 2AM.

No, it really isn't. Your house might lose the same total energy as a super efficient house, but if all that energy happens to be lost through a cold spot by your dining room table, you're going to get pretty fed up with the situation.

Imo you recoup the cost via the value of the building. Who wants to buy a drafty house with an oil furnace after 2030 or so?

No one will pay more for a house with a higher R-value. If this were a determining factor, it would be part of real estate listings. It's a secondary or even tertiary concern for most people.

> If this were a determining factor, it would be part of real estate listings.

It is part of real estate listings in the Netherlands, and it very much affects the value of the building. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/actueel/nieuws/meer-nie...

PEB grade systematically increases the value of a house less than 20% of the house value.

That's far too low to justify the huge sums involved in energy renovations.

20% of the building’s value sounds like a very generous sum for new windows and insulation.

20% is if you insulate your roof and walls, get triple-glazed windows, heat pump with floor heating and solar panels.

That is going to cost quite a bit.

If a home were priced as little at $200,000 then 20% would cover $40k in investments. Homes around here don't sell for the little.

Assuming your percentage is correct and home prices are much bigger it makes it seem like a spectacular investment. Actually too good to be true of an investment.

If the return were 2% or max 5% I could see it maybe not being worth it depending on home prices in your area.

20% is if you insulate your roof and walls, get triple-glazed windows, heat pump with floor heating and solar panels.

That is going to cost in the €150K-€200K range in Europe for a €400K, 150 m^2 house.

If you're buying a house without asking for the trailing twelve month energy bills, you are an unsophisticated real estate market participant and will pay for the ignorance over time.

Where I live you even get better conditions on your loan if you buy a house with better insulation, it’s that important.

In which country do you live? In Germany, it is 100% the other way around.

In the US, this is so true and sad. After building my first home with insulation way beyond code I learned the sad lesson that it won't get you a dime more when it is time to sell.

We keep in touch with the new owners who have since thanked us for building so well. Their bills are much lower than any in the neighborhood and they had no idea.

The same goes for heat pumps. I'm living in my third build and we had room to do a ground source heat pump. It is amazing and my bills are half of what my neighbor pays for a similar size house. Mine is also better insulated. When it comes time to sell it, nobody will care.

The US needs to up the codes on insulation. Hot climate, cold climate - who cares, it helps.

> so I think it's worthwhile that I would spend some of that to make it marginally better even if that means I don't have a positive financial return.

Your action is going to make close to 0% difference for the 8+ billion humans inhabiting the planet. So from a practical standpoint, you've failed, but that practical failure makes it clear that the gesture has pure symbolic value for you.

And since that symbolic value stands in stark contrast to incessantly chasing positive financial returns: task failed successfully. Congratulations!

From a practical standpoint, they have valued their energy savings closer to what the true cost of carbon emissions are (remember, most carbon emitters are in no way paying the true cost of their emissions [1]; this externality dumping continues with wild abandon).

You're arguing systems and scale. This person is simply early in the adoption curve. Consider what will happen when this happens more broadly. As the climate situation becomes more dire [2], the price of carbon emissions per ton will rise and the willingness to prioritize energy savings and carbon emission reductions should increase regardless of fiat return. Physical system outcomes are distinct from magic number in database goes up.

But sure, if you're already poor and have nothing [3], this won't matter to you and your life trajectory is already mostly locked in today. As nullstyle mentions, we need to compound in the positive outcome direction, and those decisions are being made today.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05224-9

[2] https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243595924/march-world-hottes...

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/poverty

This is a tough one, honestly. For one, being at the early adoption curve also has you on the low side of efficiency. If things aren't being done at scale, they are likely fairly low on that score.

More, though, moving to something that gets you a more climate controlled home in the name of efficiency is odd. You could almost certainly use smaller scale solutions to get more comfortable living that does not involve such a drastic change to the home. Clothing and lifestyle changes are things you can do, for one. For two, though, if the place was so drafty you could feel a breeze, it almost certainly did not have active heating/cooling to the level that they built up to. Such that is seems odd to justify how efficient you could do something that was just not getting done before?

No reason not to do it, of course. But insulation is an expensive thing to add to a house. Not just in raw costs, mind. Most insulation materials are of dubious carbon neutrality. And nothing lasts forever, least of all housing.

Insulation is one of the cheapest improvements than can be done to improve energy efficiency of a structure. Once insulated, those energy efficiency gains persist for the life of the structure. Nothing lasts forever, but homes have a 100+ year service life.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... (control-F insulation)

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation

https://www.energystar.gov/saveathome/seal_insulate/methodol...

Homes have a 100+ year service life? Where? I see the median age of housing stock varies heavily in the US. Quickly scanning other markets, I see EU has older housing, in general. Even there, though, they don't talk of 100+ year old houses as being that common.

Scanning websites on this claim, I see that "properly installed, with no damage" some types claim up to 100 years of service for insulation. I strongly suspect that that is a claim that will not hold for the vast majority of homes. More reading also strongly suggests that if your house was built prior to 2005, you probably need to get the insulation redone.

Worse, from my experience, the older the home the less likely you are to have subfloor/walls to actually install insulation. Heaven help you if you do one of those container homes. And if you live in an environment where you have heavy rains or hail, expect damage to creep in rather quickly.

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea that adding insulation is almost certainly a good idea where you can. I just can't bring myself to trust claims of 100 year service life.

Depends on the country. A well-built and properly maintained house in Germany can have a service life of 80 to 100 years or more. Some may even exceed this range, especially those that are regularly updated and renovated.

German building standards contribute to the longevity of residential buildings.

A well built and properly maintained anything can last hundreds of years. Proper maintenance likely involves heavy replacement of parts, mind. And is very contingent on no damage.

I will add I just moved out of a hundred year old house in Seattle. I know they can happen. I also know that house had no air conditioning and retrofitting one on would have basically meant a new house. Even if it looked the same.

There's no consumer-led revolution to come from early adopters accruing over time. It's fringe and luxury activity.

You... clearly haven't tracked the cost of solar panels. Learning curves are a thing https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve

I know abt that. I'm replying to a post about insulation which is not innovation-ripe for industrialized optimization anytime soon

> As the climate situation becomes more dire [2], the price of carbon emissions per ton will rise

Looking at what's happening here in Canada, where it looks like what has high chances to be the next government is campaigning on getting rid of the carbon tax, these days I'm somewhat pessimistic that carbon pricing will actually be implemented by the top contributors to global emissions. I hope I'm wrong.

Literally every single accomplishment in human history was built upon millions of small "symbolic" individual actions. Good things don't just magically happen on their own.

“Close to 0% difference”, compounding over time was how we got here. I’m not saying personal responsibility is the only factor, but youre the wrong person in the exchange above, and OP has the proper attitude.

Better is always good

I don't know, I've always dreamed of a world where influential people like yourself saw the value in leading by example.

It shouldn't be a surprise. Our economic system and even economics-related media puts individual short term gains above all else. Everything is viewed through the lens of "what makes me the most money today?" Long term positions are not valued. Positions that might benefit others are not even considered.

  Long term positions are not valued.

Stock market?

  Positions that might benefit others are not even considered.

ESG?

> The architect said to me that we'll never fully recoup our costs of putting the hat on the house. To which I replied that we don't always to things for economic reasons, and just do them because they are the right thing to do.

I agree, what kind of hat is your house wearing?

The outter layer wall that was added was wood studs, rock wool insulation, then wood siding. Looks great, no drafts, even temperature year round without having to run the heat-pump much. We also have an ERV to keep the air fresh in the house.

It's not just an environmental consideration - efficient houses are much more pleasant to live in, particularly if they are designed holistically with proper ventilation systems and few cold spots.