How Does Cotton Armor Insulation Compare?
|
|
Mr. Insulate Cotton Armor is an 85% recycled content, acoustical and thermal blanket insulation which is engineered for quick, easy and precise installation. Resulting in high energy savings, sound deadening and an environmentally safe building.
Having a well-insulated building envelope is crucial to creating a sustainable and energy efficient building. By minimizing heat transfer through the building envelope, energy used to maintain the interior temperature and your comfort is minimized. This helps to increase your comfort while reducing utility bills and the subsequent environmental costs of energy use.
Fiberglass, while the most common building insulation, may not be the best insulation for you. An environmentally superior insulation is Cotton Armor thermal blankets, which, when compared to run-of-the-mill-fiberglass batts, exceeds them in ease of installation, sound-attenuation and recycled content. Cotton Armor also avoids a number of potential health concerns that many have with fiberglass.
|
|
Cotton Armor is designed for an easy, non-itch and speedy installation. Unlike some specialty eco-friendly batts which are sized for only one kind of framing, Cotton Armor is right sized for both residential and commerical framing. Having the right sized insulation for your frameing helps to reduce compression and voids during and after the insulation is installed. The fibers of Cotton Armor are positioned to rip by hand or for easy sizing with a utility knife along it's width; a full rebound and some stiffness further helps ensure that the full R-value is provided once installed. Cotton Armor's rigidity helps the insulation be at its full thickness, to give you full thermal and sound protection.
Fiberglass itches, lacks rigidity, compresses easily and can be tough to size properly.
Cotton Armor Features:
|
|
Life Cycle Analysis of Cotton Armor:
In a Life Cycle Analysis, Mr. Insulate Cotton Armor was found to be 54% more energy efficient in production than fiberglass. This is due to the use of recycled renewable resources, and application of modern, energy-efficient electrical equipment, rather than the blast furnaces utilized in fiberglass manufacturing. Cotton Armor production was also found to result in less than 53% CO2 equivalent (Kilograms of CO2 and other gasses) and 29% less water than fiberglass manufacturing.
Thus, by making use of natural fibers as opposed to overly manufactured man-made materials, Cotton Armor is the demonstrated choice for a sustainable and environmentally friendly insulation - saving both raw materials and energy through the use of recycled cotton. Cotton is harvested annually, and thus considered a rapidly renewable resource—this enhances Cotton Armor's ecological sustainability over other insulations. The production of cotton naturally harnesses the power of the sun, lowering its environmental impact compared to fossil fuel dependent insulations.
|
How Do Different Insulations Compare?
The table below is a summary of information taken from the January 1, 2005 Environmental Building News which highlights some of the key environmental impacts of selected insulation types. The table does not adequately represent Cotton Armor's true performace; Cotton Armor introduced in 2011, is a blanket insulation with an R-value of up to 3.9 per inch and is easier to use than old-fashioned batts.
|
|
Type |
Installation Methods |
R-value per inch (RSI/m) |
Raw Materials |
Pollution From Manufacture |
Indoor Air Quality Impacts |
Comments |
| Cellulose |
Loose-fill, wall-spray (damp), dense pack, stabilized |
3.6-4.0 (21-26) |
Old Newspapers, telephone directories, borates, ammonium sulfate |
Negligible |
Fibers and chemicals can be irritants |
High recycled content and very low embodied energy |
| Fiberglass |
Batts, Loose-fill, semi-rigid board |
3.0-4.0 (15-28) |
Silica sand, limestone, boron, recycled glass, PF resin or acrylic resin |
Formaldehyde emissions and high energy use during manufacture |
Fibers can be irritants |
High embodied energy |
| Mineral Wool |
Loose-fill, batts, semi-rigid or rigid board |
2.8-3.7 (19-26) |
Iron ore blast furnace slag, natural rock, PF binder |
Formaldehyde emissions and high energy use during manufacture |
Fibers can be irritants |
High embodied energy; Rigid board can be an excellent foundation drainage and insulator |
| Cotton |
Batts |
3.0-3.7 (21-26) |
Cotton and polyester mill scraps (especially denim) |
Negligible |
Considered safe |
Two producers, so transportation pollution is higher than other insulation |
| Closed-cell spray polyurethane foams |
Spray-in cavity-fill or spray-on roofing |
5.8-6.8 (40-47) |
Fossil fuels; HFC-24.5fa blowing agent; non-brominated flame retardant |
High energy use during manufacture; global warming potential from HFC blowing agent |
Quite toxic during installation (respirators or supplied air required); allow several days of airing out prior to occupancy |
Very High embodied Energy |
| Open-celled, low-density polyurethane foam (Soy) |
Spray-in cavity-fill |
3.6-3.8 (25-27) |
Fossil fuels and soybeans; water as blowing agent; non-brominated flame retardant |
High energy use during manufacture |
Quite toxic during installation (respirators or supplied air required allow several days of airing out prior to occupancy) |
Very High embodied Energy |
|
|
|