The image verification code you entered is incorrect.

Spray foam may not seem

Spray foam may not seem particularly ecological, but consider:

  • none of the ecological alternatives offers anything close to the R-value of the spray foam
  • accordingly, there wouldn't be room to *fit* any of the ecological alternatives at the required thickness under the caravan
  • most of the ecological alternatives will not last outdoors (none of the given options would remain effective after being exposed to even one rainstorm)

So these weren't really viable options at all. I also suspect that they would have cost WAY more, and taken me WAY longer to apply.

A final point: the reduction in use of electricity for heating means that the spray foam reduced my carbon usage significantly, as well as saving all of the manufacturing carbon cost of buying a newer van. All in all a massive net eco-benefit. As I have pointed out above, none of the obvious eco-options could have achieved the same effect - so in this case the spray foam appears to have been the most eco-friendly option, as well as much more convenient.

It often seems to me that many eco-types don't seem to consider the whole-system consequences of their choices, fixating instead on "obvious", though not really practical, options such as the ones discussed in the linked article. In this case, insisting on one of the eco-alternatives - which I will be the first to admit have tremendous possibilities for insulating inside walls - would have been actively eco-unfriendly for this application.

 

Adam Oellermann (Site Owner)


Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <h1> <h2> <h3>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use [acidfree:xx] tags to display acidfree videos or images inline.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.