How Can a Wall Save Energy and Reduce CO2?
Let us show you!
Energy efficiency is the most important aspect of sustainability. The energy-efficient THERMAX™ Wall System provides an excellent opportunity to reach sustainable building targets. Check out the dramatic energy savings and carbon reduction potential here, then contact us to evaluate the energy savings and carbon reduction potential for your project.
To demonstrate the potential energy savings and subsequent reduction in CO2 that can be achieved with the THERMAXâ„¢ Wall System, Dow performed energy calculations on three square building models (footprints of 30,000 ft2, 100,000 ft2 and 200,000 ft2 ) in seven U.S. cities.
Based on the model building results here, a 200,000 ft2 building with a wall area of 75,132 ft2 built with the THERMAXâ„¢ Wall System in Chicago (U value of 0.036) can reduce CO2 emissions by 227,540 lbs compared to a building with a typical wall assembly (R-19 fiberglass batt with 5/8" gypsum board [U value of 0.132]). That's a potential annual CO2 reduction of 73 percent for the THERMAXâ„¢ Wall System compared to a traditional fiberglass insulated wall.
| THERMAX™ Wall System – Annual Total Energy Savings Potential(1,2) and CO2 Emmission Reduction in Pounds | |||||||
| Location(3) | 200,000 ft2 Footprint Building | 100,000 ft2 Footprint Building | 30,000 ft2 Footprint Building  | ||||
| Â | Â | Wall Area (ft2) 75,132 | Wall Area (ft2) 53,127Â | Wall Area (ft2) 29,098Â | |||
|  |  | Annual total kilowatt-hour (kwh) equivalent savings | CO2 emission reduction, lbs | Annual total kilowatt-hour (kwh) equivalent savings | CO2 emission reduction, lbs | Annual total kilowatt-hour (kwh) equivalent savings | CO2 emission reduction, lbs |
| Â | Miami | 46,457 | 144,589 | 32,851 | 102,241 | 17,992 | 55,997 |
| Â | Denver | 287,963 | 211,781 | 203,622 | 149,753 | 111,524 | 82,020 |
| Â | Chicago | 381,747 | 227,540 | 269,938 | 160,896 | 147,846 | 88,123 |
| Â | San Francisco | 89,912 | 93,086 | 63,578 | 65,822 | 34,822 | 36,051 |
| Â | Dallas | 97,775 | 155,334 | 69,238 | 109,838 | 37,867 | 60,159 |
| Â | Seattle | 220,507 | 154,554 | 155,923 | 109,287 | 85,400 | 59,857 |
| Â | Boston | 331,929 | 198,987 | 234,711 | 140,706 | 128,552 | 77,065 |
(1) Compared to typical gypsum-based wall with R-19 fiberglass batt and 5/8" exterior gypsum sheathing. Effective R-value of R-7.1 for R-19 fiberglass in steel stud application (16" o.c., 6" studs); R-value of 0.56 for 5/8" gypsum board; total effective R-value of 7.56 (U=0.132).
(2) Window area not considered. Height of wall (ground to top) is 14' per story, total three stories. In all cases, study assumed natural gas furnace for heating with 90 percent efficiency, electricity for cooling with a SEER of 10. Calculations based on average heating and cooling degree-day data from www.ncdc.noaa.gov.
(3) U value of 0.079: 1.5" SPF + 5/8" THERMAXâ„¢ (ci) Exterior Insulation for Miami, Dallas and San Francisco.
U value of 0.055: 1.5" SPF + 1.5" THERMAXâ„¢ (ci) Exterior Insulation for Denver and Seattle.
U value of 0.036: 1.5" SPF + 3" THERMAXâ„¢ (ci) Exterior Insulation for Chicago and Boston.
Â
Source: Study conducted by McKinsey & Company, and Vattenfall (Click to enlarge).
McKinsey & Company studied the costs of implementing various GHG abatement options. "Insulation improvements" is among the more economical measures at the left of the arrows that provide the fastest payback and should be implemented before doing any of the other measures. And as the graph shows, "insulation improvements" is by far the best measure in terms of a negative marginal cost. This graph represents only a few of the abatement options researched. For the graph in its entirety, visit www.mckinseyquarterly.com/A_cost_curve_for_greenhouse_gas_reduction_1911.
Ready to make your mark? We'll do our level best to answer your questions.
