New Zodiaq Counters

It has been a while since our temporary counters went up ... over 6 months.  Probably a little longer than normal but that does include our new baby renovation hiatus.

But a big part of the problem came from the fact that we knew what we wanted and we thought we knew where to get it.  Last year at the Montreal Home Show I saw a locally made recycled glass countertop.  It was beautiful and functional, 90% recycled content and locally sourced.  The company was Eco-Surface.  Their quote was good but their colour selection left a little to be desired.   The good news was they were expanding and in 100 days would be able to provide us a much better palette to pick from.

So we put up our temporary counters and waited.  Towards the 100 day mark we contacted them again to find their website directed us to: "Creations di Verre cite".  Alright, name change with expansion  ... no problem.   But there was a problem:  nobody would pick up the phone, or respond to an email, or website inquiries.   Heck their contact information on their website just provides their website address.

Chalked that up as a lost cause and headed back to square one.  Looking for alternatives there were several options although none of them local:

- EnviroGlas EnviroSLAB
- IceStone
- Geos Sustainable Surfaces from Eos
- Zodiaq Terra Collection from Dupont

Out of these group, IceStone probably gets kudos for being the greenest of all the products.  100% recycled glass in concrete, No VOC, no resins, no petrochemicals.  The company is very forward thinking and the entire process has received Gold Cradle to Cradle certification.  That being said it is concrete and therefore susceptible to etching and staining.  Properly sealed and cared for this shouldn't be a problem but for us relying on "proper maintenance and care" is setting ourselves up.  While we didn't go with it in the kitchen, we are strongly looking at it for the bathrooms.

Geos, was recommended but we struggled with finding the right colour. They also were unable to confirm their recycled content.   For the countertop to qualify for LEED points it needs to be a minimum of 25% post-consumer recycled content (post-industrial counts at 50%).  Geos could not confirm or guarantee that.

EnviroGlas was a little too bold a palette for us (and there were no local distributors) so we went with Zodiaq.  Zodiaq countertops are a recycled glass and quartz blend embedded in a resin.  Very hard, very durable, low maintenance and we found the perfect colour.  Custom cut and installed by Comptoir St-Denis, we are very pleased with the result.

The one danger of using recycled glass in any countertop or product is colour control.  While it may seem easy to separate out the brown beer bottle from the green wine bottles and clear soda bottles,  all you need is one little chip of green glass to potentially ruin an all white counter.  Our colour "Coriander" contains clear and brown glass with the occasional fleck of green.  But if you really hunt you can find a couple other odd colours.  We have one speck in an obscure corner that is florescent orange. Luckily, I only spot it when I am cleaning down the counter... so not very often at all :)

Insulation: Manufacturer Follow-up

This is a follow-up to my post from January.  I would recommend reading that post first and if you really want to do your homework, read the article on GreenBuildingAdvisor.com as well.

Essentially, I grew concerned about the existence of HFC-134a in my foam insulation products.  As a result I switched my rigid insulation from Dow Styrofoam to Isolofoam's Isofoil although I will probably be trying out other rigid foam products as well. I have also stopped using Touch n' Foam's two part spray foam.

I won't lie, the Touch n' Foam product pissed me off.  I was surprised by the amount of HFC in it and the environmental impact it would have.  To the point that I wrote Rona / Reno-Depot and asked them why they carry it.  I felt their response skirted the question and also had the manufacturer deferring all responsibility for the product

"Good day Mr Lilley, Here is the response we received form the manufacturer. The propellants used in our cylinders were chosen by both the Canadian government and US government for this type of product. A different type of propellant was used in the past, but due to flammability, manufactures were forced to change. At this time, there are no alternatives due to regulations. If you should need further information don't hesitate to contact us again. Thank you for your support and have a nice day."

I am following up further with them to see if I can get an actual answer.

I also contacted Dow Chemicals. My only concern with dropping the Styrofoam was that the article I was basing the decision on said "I have to note here that I’m not 100% sure that XPS is made with HFC-134a; manufacturers are unwilling to divulge the exact blowing agents they use".  Wanting to make sure I wasn't stopping use of a product unjustly (and then blogging about it),  I went to the source.  I emailed Dow asking them about the charge and what they used as a blowing agent.  I will give them kudos for a providing a quick professional reply. They never did explicitly state their blowing agent but provided GWP numbers in line with HFC-134a.  Even if it isn't the exact agent the end result would be the same.  Here are their complete responses (from two different emails):


"I'm following up on your email and to conform that Dow Building Solutions (DBS) had successfully converted our North American manufacturing facility that manufactures STYROFOAM(tm) Extruded Polystyrene Insulation products, which includes Clademate, to its new zero ozone-depleting, no-VOC foaming agent technology. STYROFOAM Extruded polystyrene insulation is HCFC and CFC free.  


The proprietary formulation substitutes the hydrochloro-fluorocarbon (HCFC) 142b, an ozone-depleting compound that U.S. and Canadian regulations under the Montreal Protocol require to be phased out by January 1, 2010 in North America, with a non-ozone depleting compound. It enables Dow's North American customers to continue receiving STYROFOAM insulation with the same product performance and cost-leadership position, and reflects Dow's commitment, as part of its 2015 Sustainability Goals for Addressing Climate Change, to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissionsany further questions on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number shown below my signature.  


Dow Building Solutions has completed a rigorous, external assessment of its building insulation products conducted by MBDC (McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, LLC), a global sustainability consulting and product certification firm. STYROFOAM SIS Structural Insulated Sheathing, STYROFOAM Brand Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) Foam Insulation, THERMAX(tm) (ci) Exterior Insulation, STYROFOAM(tm) Brand Spray Polyurethane Foam (SPF) Insulation, and SAFETOUCH(tm) Fiberglass-Free Insulation have all achieved Cradle to Cradle(r) Certification , a process that assesses products for their ingredients' human health, environmental health and recyclability profiles. Dow products that have achieved Cradle to Cradle(r) Certification are eligible for points that contribute to various building certifications, such as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED ) Rating Systems and National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB ) National Green Building Program. Certified products can be listed under the U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, as well as several other environmentally conscious product purchasing programs."

"XPS has a ozone depletion number of 0 and a global warming potential of 1300, which reduced the GWP100 from previous while maintaining the insulation’s thermal and physical properties."

Built to Last

I think most of us appreciate that disposable products are not usually the most environmentally friendly choice on the market.  Anytime we need to throw out a product to replace it in kind it generates waste and uses up resources to replace it.  The same is obviously true for homes.

If a newly constructed home is going to need to be replaced in 30 years or have major renovations done to it, the same principle applies.  New building materials being produced and the old material being torn out.

Recognizing this, one of the pre-requisites for a LEED home is a durability plan.  It is essentially required of the builder (or renovator) to assess risks to the long term health of the house:
- Exterior water infiltration
- Interior water leaks
- Condensation
- Pests / termites
- Natural Disasters

LEED provides a sample evaluation form with key things to look for as well as some mandatory features for minimizing water damage. Some are common sense things like not installing carpet in your bathroom others are less common like having a drain pan under any washing machine or water heater (not including those in the basement).

Being an existing home with 30 years under its belt makes this process a little less theoretical.  A detailed inspection of the home allowed us to assess where we had existing problems that needed to be corrected.

Our home fared well with the exception of some exterior water problems that we will need to fix:

- The ground around our home has a flat grade rather than providing a slope away from the house

- All our exterior window sills are brick.  All are starting to degrade  While brick looks pretty, it is porous and when installed in a location where water will collect on top it will start to break apart especially in freeze / thaw conditions where water runs into cracks and then freezes and expands.  We will need to replace all our sills with something more durable with a positive slope away from the window.

- The flashing on top of our brick wall slopes towards the house essentially dumping water down behind the bricks.... not good.  Needs to be repaired and the adjacent brick replaced.

- Finally some of our siding against our roof comes right down to the shingles.  This can allow water to be drawn up behind the siding due to the wicking action of water

Whether we were doing a LEED renovation or not these are issues that need to be addressed.  If they aren't fixed they will lead to larger more costly (financially and environmentally) corrections later. So it is probably a good exercise for every home owner.

Is a LEED renovation expensive?

About a week or so ago, I had a friend finally ask the question a lot of people have probably had in regards to this reno:  Is it expensive?  And is it worth it?

I gave him a vague nebulous answer which I doubt actually satisfied any of his curiosity.  I wasn't trying to be evasive, it is just a very hard question to answer. The reason being is that the costs come from a lot of different sources and some of the benefits are hard to quantify.

Comparing this renovation project to a traditional reno the bulk of the additional costs come from three areas:

Material Costs

LEED provides points for using environmentally friendly material.  Products either containing no VOCs, manufactured out of greener material or greener practices.  It is important to note that these are almost exclusively points and not pre-requsites.  Meaning you can choose these materials to earn points towards certification but you are not required to.

Efficiency Upgrades

A big part of LEED, is having an efficient home.  Better insulation, better dealing, better heating, etc.  Which obviously all costs money.  This category can provide 38 LEED points, almost enough for your certification.  It also has a minimum requirement, your home needs to have an ERS or Energuide rating of at least 76 (although that will probably go up in the next update of the rating system).  Efficiency upgrades though are the easiest to quantify financial benefits as they reduce heating / cooling costs.

Scope of Project

Realistically, this is where our costs are driven up the most.  LEED for homes was developed for new homes or Gut/Rehab renovations where the entire house is stripped down and re-built.  To try and do this work as a DIY home renovation project is a challenge.  Worked great in the kitchen because our plan there involved knocking out walls and removing all the counters and cabinets.  But we will have to go into the kids rooms and strip down the ceiling and exterior walls to re-insulate in there too. It has value in doing but honestly wouldn't happen if it wasn't for LEED.  Other examples:

- Fireplace upgrade
- Water heater upgrade
- Landscaping
- Garage ventilation
- Radon testing
- Deconstruction / Construction waste management

Some of those cost money, some cost time but they all increase the scope and ultimately the cost of the project.

I will save the other two of the above for future posts, but will dig in a little further in this one on material costs.

Do green materials cost more? Depends on the baseline.  If we look at the scale between the cheapest version available of a product and the most expensive, the green options usually fall squarely in the middle.   As examples my last three purchases were:

3" Window mouldings

Cheapest available:  $0.17 / foot, simple generic profile, mdf
Most expensive:  $4 / foot, solid pine
Green option purchased:  Spero eco-wise mouldings, recycled wood fibre, with no urea-formaldehyde $0.85/ foot

Benefits:  reduced environmental impact, improved air quality, healthier home

Kitchen Countertop

Cheapest available:  Ikea laminated particleboard countertop, $5 / sq ft
Most expensive: Granite countertop, $120 / sq foot  (although some stainless steel products can go up to $200 / sq foot)
Green option purchased:  Zodiaq recycled glass countertop, <$100 / sq ft

Benefits: reduced environmental impact, appearance, low maintenance

Lumber

Only option at Rona:  FSC select lumber

This made it easier to comply with LEED criteria when the store I regularly shop at only had FSC (Sustainable managed forestry practices) 2 x 4s available

So will a green renovation be the cheapest renovation option available: no.  The most expensive: probably not.  I would say it falls in the mid-range to upper mid-range.  The return on investment:  good quality products with a high end appearance that make your home and the environment healthier.

Is my Insulation Destroying the Planet?

I will save you the suspense on this one; I am going with a pretty strong yes.

Earlier when insulating behind the fireplace we used Touch n' Foam spray foam.  At the time, the amount of waste bugged us but we were happy with the end product for the confined space we were working in.  When the green rater performed the inspection, he commented that it has a limited net environmental benefit because of the blowing agent used.

Fast forward a couple months and we are again presented with a space that is a good fit for spray foam. The joists in one section of our basement run parallel with the wall and directly in line with the inside edge. This creates a nice confined cavity that needs both vapour / moisture barrier and insulation.

I cannot see any practical way of getting in there to seal it off with caulk and a traditional vapour barrier.  Improperly or poorly sealed it will allow moisture and drafts to get trapped in this pocket and come up through the living room floor. So I grab some more foam.

I already have a love/hate relationship with the foam and its throw away canisters.  This is compounded by trimming away excess material that is going straight to the dump and the whole time this notion that the gas in the product is environmentally harmful is festering in the back of my mind as well.  So I dig a little deeper into the accusation.

Pulling up the MSDS sheet, I find the blowing agent in question is a product called HFC-134a.  The blowing agent is the compressed gas in the canisters that pushes the product out when I pull the trigger.  It is also what gets trapped in the microscopic bubbles of the product and helps it insulate.

Pulling up its wikepedia page, I learn that it is relatively non-toxic and is the greener alternative to R-12, its ozone-destroying predecessor.  All sounding good until I come to its Global Warming Potential (GWP).  A gases GWP allows us to compare how much a gas contributes to the greenhouse effect.  The scale is all based against CO2.  A rating of one means it is as significant to global warming as releasing CO2.  A rating of 2 would mean it is twice as harmful per kg.  The rating for HFC-134a over a 20 year span is 3840!

12.89 kg package of spray foam,
20% HFC-134a by weight = 2.58kg
GWP= 3840

Holy Shit.  I just sprayed the equivalent of 10 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.  For the second time on this project. As a comparison that is a year of heavy SUV driving and it only produced 200 board feet of insulation.

I am now reeling a little bit, surprised this product is even legal and worried I messed up my math.  So I again turn to the web where I find an excellent article on GreenBuildingAdvisor.com.  In the article, they look at various insulation types to determine how long it takes for that product to have a net positive impact on the global warming.  i.e. how long until the energy savings resulting from your insulation upgrades offset the damage caused by your insulation.  The bad news for spray foam:  payback was in the order of 30 to 50 years and that was for professional application which is probably more efficiently applied.

Their computations are riddled with assumptions causing some spirited discussions in the comments but no matter how you choose to massage that data, spray foam is a concern.  But the article then proceeded to kick me when I was down.  The other insulation suspected of having a high global warming potential?  Extruded Polystyrene!  The blue Styrofoam that I installed I throughout the kitchen (not to mention my last house).  It will be 46 years before my kitchen starts to contribute positively to fighting climate change.  My six year old will be finalizing his retirement plans by then.

What does all this mean?  Besides the fact that I need to do my homework a bit better. [ I made the mistake of taking Dow's press release at face value].

For LEED?  nothing. There is no reference, prerequisites or points associated with insulation blowing agents

For our home?  Well that was the last time I will use Touch n'Foam 2-part spray insulation [their foam sealant has appropriate blowing agents].  And I just returned the 39 sheets of XPS insulation that were in my basement.

Luckily, there are alternatives out there.  The two prominent ones are expanded polystyrene (EPS) and  polyisocyanate.  Both of them use a much greener blowing agent and the same article I referenced before has their payback in the 2.7 to 4 year range.  In the end I will probably try both those products out and write reviews on them.  The replacement for those 39 sheets of XPS in the basement:  Isolofoam which is an EPS product.  It doesn't have quite the R value of EPS and requires a protective barrier to act as a vapour barrier but I can at least use it with a clear conscience.

How not to insulate

Now that the kitchen in wrapping up (yes we still haven't "finished" that project), we are setting our sights on the basement.

The basement is unfinished. 85% of the walls are framed and insulated but nothing further.  In surveying the job, there is a lot of room for improvement on the insulation and I think most stems from the fact that who ever put it in probably did not understand how cavity insulation works.

Cavity insulation such as Roxul or fibreglass insulates well because in between all the fibres of poor insulating material is trapped air.   Air is a miserable conductor of heat especially in small pockets.

It is importenat then to fit the insulation into the cavity it was designed for.  If it is compressed, you squeeze out the air pockets and lose insulating power.  If you stretch it out you create larger air pockets that allow air to circulate and you lose insulating power.

In our basement, the goofs were all due to compressing the insulation.

In the exterior walls, they installed insulation intended for a 2x6" wall in a 2x4" wall.

Even with no wall coverings, the vapour barrier is already compressing the insulation. In the small section with wood paneling over it, they thought to add two 1" strips of wood.  But these strips cross over the front of the insulation and vapour barrier so really offer no relief.

In the ceiling over the old cold room, they installed insulation for 16" centres in a 12" spacing.  So with an extra 33% material the insulation is all squished and folded over.

In both these cases I am sure the renovator figured that more was better and was trying to improve the quality of their insulation but in the end really hurt it.

The key to proper installation is to trim to fit; there should be no gaps and no compression. This includes around receptacles, plumbing, window frames, etc.

Below is the picture of our kitchen. It took some patience to get it proper fit but it is so important that the job is done right.

Fireplace: Round 3 - EnerChoice

As some of you may remember, when we started this process we lamented over what to do with the old wood burning fireplace, deciding in the end to put in a natural gas insert.

For LEED, you are permitted to have a traditional fireplace. However, under Indoor Environmental Quality (EA 2.2) you get 2 points for having no fireplace (there are also some pre-reqs that need to be met).  You can get 1 or two points in this category with a fireplace but they need to be greener or more efficient models.

For our natural gas insert, we were gunning for the full 2 points which meant:

Direct or power vented insert

Direct vented means that the combustion takes place completely closed off to the interior of the home.  Fresh air comes straight in to the fireplace and exhaust goes straight outside.  This was fairly standard so not too hard to meet.

Permanent fixed glass door 

Yeah... I don't think I have ever seen an insert you can crack open and toast marshmallows over so this was also easy.

Electronic Pilot
This bumped us up into higher end models.  An electronic pilot (goes by a lot of different trade names) means that in place of a traditional pilot light which burns continuously,  combustion is initiated by an electronic starter.  Becomes more efficient by not constantly burning gas.

EnerChoice certified
Headaches galore!!

EnerChoice is essentially EnergyStar for fireplaces.  Fireplaces are already evaluated through EnerGuide to tell you how efficient they are.  The problem is that as a consumer you probably don't know what to expect rating you should be targeting. Should I expect 50% or 80% in an insert?  EnerChoice identifies and certifies the top 25% of fireplaces to answer that question.  Great, sounds perfect.

The problem lies in the fact that EnerChoice is a relatively new program.  Launched in 2007 it is just starting to take root now.  When I first began looking into the rating system last spring their website was pathetic.  Visually appealing but lacking any type of valuable information. They have since started to add  some valuable content such as participating retailers and minimum efficiency standards [I would have killed for that 4 months back].

But to date, the website still has no contact information, no listing of approved products.  Heck their FAQs section doesn't even have the word EnerChoice appear in it.  It is focused purely on the EnerGuide ratings system.  So I could not find the answer to what I thought was a very important question:  "What fireplace inserts are certified EnerChoice?"

Barring any support from the website, we turned to retailers for support.  The website does list 55 participating retailers... all in BC.  Turns out this program is very regional: launched in BC, supported in BC - they even have the provincial gas company providing rebates for consumers who replace their wood or old gas fireplace with a EnerChoice model.  This obviously explains the very high level of interest in BC retailers to be involved in the program.

Out in Quebec, every person I asked about the program met me with blank stares.

So what did we do.....  we found what we hoped was the most efficient natural gas insert that fit our heat output requirements and physical space. At the time, there were no cutoff efficiencies listed on the website so we had to hope for the best.  In the end... looks like we missed it by 2%.

Long story short.  We have a beautiful insert that we enjoy very much and we get one LEED point out of a possible two.

My advice for anyone else on how to proceed with the program outside of BC.  Look at the minimum efficiencies listed on the EnerChoice website, on the "What is EnerChoice?" tab.  [currently 61% for inserts]. Then go to the EnerGuide website and use their search tool. It allows you to search for specific types: fireplace vs. insert, fuel type and efficiency level.  Gives you an excellent starting point to view the options that are best for your specific situation.