Icynene: an ecological alternative to PU foam?

[tramontane3000]

Hello,

Already to make it clear for everyone, polyurethane had two N in French, it is in English that there is only one N, many professionals are starting to write it with two, but if one makes a comment only on the spelling, there are other important details to settle.

Excuse me for The little r is that I made a copy paste of a text that I had already written well before,

i have no bias for icynene, i just know polyurethanes and icynene is one of them, we don't really like these products in general precisely because of the "hearsay", because it's chemical. But some have made polyurethanes with potato starch,

The polyurethanes that I know well, which are nonetheless manufactured by known companies (Bayer, BASF, HERE? Etc.) have a reputation among industrialists who do not stop at a document or with ideas which are conveyed in forums discussions, moreover I do not see what I am doing here, but certainly a rant because of the information that I read and which has nothing to do with reality and the market which is developing in France, because it is only in France that there are these discussions on PUR. You should know that we are the last country in Europe to develop old technologies by saying that it is new (just have to see how long it takes to produce electric vehicles when it has existed since long before the war, if it had been approved a long time ago, this area would be at another level today and France would not be obliged to give bonuses to influence the purchase of these vehicles).
Good for polyurethane,
The VOC is O, not surprising, but logical when you know its texture well (for 40 years, no known medical liabilities, which is not the case, mineral alines which should have been prohibited at the same time as the asbestos, in some countries and even in France, we treat people because of glass wool and kept silent)

Permeability to water vapor, water absorption does not exceed 5% by volume (DIN 53428)
No rodent haunted my 23 years of experience and neither did my colleagues.
For sustainability; This product is rot-proof and once installed it will be there for the life of a building, if we cannot speak of durability.
And please, don't tell me about the PU bombs when putting in all the corners, in these bombs it's not really PU even if it is written on it. And I know very well that the rodents feast on the product of the bombs.
Do not mix all the products, although icynene is also polyurethane, one of the components is a natural product, it remains chemistry, what I said above.
Hello

[bham]

Hello Tramontane 3000.
It is normal that on a site advocating respect for our environment, we should be careful with products from the petrochemical industry.
That said it is true that we (I) do not know the subject, far from it since it seems to be different polyurethanes, starting with those in bomb (if it is not PU, what is what is it?), by those sold in the form of hard insulating panels and this Icynene which seems inflated with thousands of air bubbles, to allow, on the one hand, a good filling of the cavities, on the other hand a very good insulation.
As such, could you enlighten us a little more about the different PUs and the applications that you make in business?

To bounce back on what Bucheron said, it is hard to imagine that this product is recyclable but perhaps it is or could it become so if it came from plant waste?

Regarding its permeability to water vapor, you say that the product is only very slightly hydrophilic. Either, but what can matter is that an insulator allows water vapor exchanges, preferably from the inside to the outside. That said, some passive houses are designed with a completely waterproof insulating envelope, assisted by a CMV as seen on the company's Pdf. Then it's a choice.

[elephant]

which are nevertheless manufactured by known companies (Bayer, BASF, ICI? etc.) have a reputation among the industrialists

Yeah: Eternit too and yet used a natural product: asbestos.

without wanting to be mean, this is the kind of argument that I don't even listen to anymore.

[tramontane3000]

Good the level is too low, discussion only on details, the construction policy is much more complicated than the spelling of a name to discuss on details, glass wool is just like asbestos and yet we will never put St. Gobain on trial. The world of insulation in France is political and your discussions are useless because what the decision makers do in this area is managed by St Gobain or CSTB, knowing that the CSTB commission is represented by another member of St Gobain.
b

[Christophe]

Precisely this discussion it is useful because by buying more (or less) of chemical shit we vote!

And we vote with more weight than putting a ballot in an urn to perpetuate the frico-democratic masquerade of our CONS societies ... summons!

[I Citro]

Let's go tramontane3000, talking about the level of discussion is not used to raise it ...

On the other hand, saying what you say about Saint Gobain is useful to everyone.

+ 1 with Christophe

[tramontane3000]

Since the 70s, the knowledge to build well has been available. We pretended to turn a blind eye to the energy deficit and we trusted lobbies (CSTB, St Gobain and architects who don't like to change their habits) to build in France. As a result, the French average energy consumption is very high: between 200 and 400
kW.h / year.m2 (HLM, for example). Real disaster.
However, to date, despite the standards, the products or the implementation of systems not widely used until now but whose results are proven good, we continue to trust these lobbies to build buildings that will be anyway obsolete in 2020 and well before. Will we have to start again every 20, 30 or 50 years? Do we have to prepare for new disasters?
Today, the standards put in place should make it possible to obtain consumption of less than 90 kW.h / year.m2, but the efforts to get there are low, because all this tintamare looks more like a plaster on a wooden leg .
Some, in their own corner, take the initiative to build with what they find best to arrive at 35 kW.h / year.m2, but this minority does not influence the national result!
Now it is quite possible to build at 15 kW.h / year.m2, but to do this you should not be content to read "build well", or to militate "organic" or "green" to give yourself a seeming to be aware, the deadlines are approaching.
By having a balanced perspective on these issues, with the help of a
architect who accepts the idea that it is not a technical opinion which definitively fixes the quality on a product, a technique or a craftsman, it is completely normal and achievable to reach 15 kW.h / year.m2, even less, for a new construction or to renovate, with products that have exceptional durability and result in a building that will always be up to standard
effective in 2020.

This is what I think of St Gobain, CSTB, together they have joined forces to prevent good craftsmen, small businesses, good products from developing by setting the bar very high with technical advice, tests at exorbitant prices , which puts the most motivated on the sidelines.
incl

[aerialcastor]

This is what I think of St Gobain, CSTB, together they have joined forces to prevent good craftsmen, small businesses, good products from developing by setting the bar very high with technical advice, tests at exorbitant prices , which puts the most motivated on the sidelines.

+1
The DTU and technical advice system prevents, or considerably slows down access to environmental construction (in the broad sense).
The RT2005 calculation method is not for nothing either.

Just see the straw construction for example ...

[elephant]

Tramontane wrote:

This is what I think of St Gobain, CSTB, together they have joined forces to prevent good craftsmen, small businesses, good products from developing by setting the bar very high with technical advice, tests at exorbitant prices , which puts the most motivated on the sidelines.

My God, if there were only them! It's the same in (almost ???) all areas. It's the same thing in the alarm.

[tramontane3000]

I come back to Bham's comments, which I skipped I don't know why, but which I find with a more serious and curious approach on the subject.
There are as many kinds of polyurethanes as you want, but what is in bombs generally is of very poor quality.
In the best grade of polyurethane, there are two components which account for 50% share each. In many bombs, there is only one component, which alone represents real "shit", which costs nothing while these bombs are sold overpriced for what they contain (if you heat it to 45 °, you will also get more than the volume written on the bomb, by the way). But in general, polyurethanes have the same base, whether they are for insulation, for your mattress on which you sleep or the sofa in your living room, the children's toy or the pacifier of their bottle or condoms. Why are we making so much fuss about insulation ????
A doctor has less trouble asking a pacemaker (it is made of polyurethane) to a patient that I have applied insulation (holala, you realize you put this in my house !!) we often hear. What an aberation!