DOES WHITE ALSO MEAN "GREEN"
DOES WHITE ALSO MEAN "GREEN"
Eco friendly building products are currently popular and "green" seems to be on the mind of some customers. What authoritative resource can I refer my customers to that want to verify that my nice white vinyl windows will meet these new designations?
-
usmarine0352
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:24 pm
I believe Vinyl would not be considered "green" because of the way it is produced.
Fiberglass is considered "green".
There is some info here.
http://energyfreehomes.com/
http://globalgreen.org/greenbuilding/susEnergy.html
Fiberglass is considered "green".
There is some info here.
http://energyfreehomes.com/
http://globalgreen.org/greenbuilding/susEnergy.html
-
Window4U (IL)
- Posts: 1374
- Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:58 pm
- Location: Sales and Installation in Chicagoland and Central Illinois
The whole notion of what constitutes "Green" is changing in many people's minds. An article I just read (I'll post it when I find it) has brought up questions of what it takes to really make a product green. The article suggested that when looking at the total impact of super-energy efficient vinyl windows in both the way they were made as well as their favorable impact on the planet's resources in the window' lifetime, they are indeed "green". For example, if you take an Elements double-hung with a u-value of .16 and look at the energy savings and fossil fuel savings over the window's lifetime compared to a wood, fiberglass, or composite window with u-value in the .32-.35 range, with only 1/2 the energy efficiency, ...which one is really doing it's "green" job for the environment?
Now it's doubtful these "green" organizations feel that way at this point, but at least the article has opened the debate.
Now it's doubtful these "green" organizations feel that way at this point, but at least the article has opened the debate.
-
Windows on Washington
- Posts: 4867
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:21 pm
- Location: DC Metropolitan Area-Maryland/Virginia/DC
- Contact:
-
usmarine0352
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:24 pm
The production of every product has an impact on the environment. It is the product that has the least impact that people are looking for.Windows on Washington wrote:Rest assured that there are certainly pollutants associated with the construction of Fiberglass/composite windows as well.
Also as was stated above, it is a conglomeration of the production of the product, longevity, energy efficient and so forth.
-
ANOTHER WINDOW GUY
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:28 pm
- Location: WISCONSIN
Good luck trying to convince the hardcore green folks, or at least the ones in the Socialist Republic of Madison, Wi. I just had a job with all fiberglass windows including wrap and siding and wasn't allowed to wrap using vinyl covered coil because of the PVC. This customer also went with cement siding over seamless steel because of the PVC finish. Window4U made some good points but vinyl out-gases.........don't ya know.
I expect all of you old timers to start dying pretty quick from carrying those samples around in your auto's with the windows rolled up all these years................and let that be a warning for those of you new to the business.
I expect all of you old timers to start dying pretty quick from carrying those samples around in your auto's with the windows rolled up all these years................and let that be a warning for those of you new to the business.
What is "Green"?
The research I have been doing indicates there is no generally accpeted definition in the building products industry - not yet. The Green Building Initiative and NAHB are working towards a ANSI certified standard. So standardization will come.
Total Life Cycle Costs must be included in any analysis a consumer does. That includes the intial cost of purchase, energy efficiency and the like. How many more times do you have drive to work to afford a non-PVC window or door? What if you spent that extra money on a more efficient water heater instead of a non-PVC window with the same or worse energy effectiveness? What about the VOC's in the wood or fiberglass product?
It's not cut and dry for sure. Just consider all the environmental "costs" when making your decision.
Total Life Cycle Costs must be included in any analysis a consumer does. That includes the intial cost of purchase, energy efficiency and the like. How many more times do you have drive to work to afford a non-PVC window or door? What if you spent that extra money on a more efficient water heater instead of a non-PVC window with the same or worse energy effectiveness? What about the VOC's in the wood or fiberglass product?
It's not cut and dry for sure. Just consider all the environmental "costs" when making your decision.
Just as a semi-informed consumer, with some concern for the "greenness" of things i have around my house......
-- PVC (aka vinyl) is extremely inert. So inert, in fact, that it's the most common polymer used in medical equipment. Your donated blood is stored in PVC.
-- PVC production is a very, very toxic process. Makes a lot of dioxin. This is the primary objection of eco-types to PVC
-- Many PVC products are "durable" meaning they last a long time once produced (windows and PVC plumbing are good examples)
-- When burned, PVC gives off some really nasty toxic gases. This is a serious consideration only if you're in a house fire. Of course, noone PLANS to have their house burn down (at least, not with them in it....)
-- PVC is extremely difficult to recycle, so much so that there is effectively no way to recycle it in the US
So, as someone else said..... all human activities have an impact. We each have to decide if the costs of whatever we want are worth that impact. PVC is really at it's worst if/when it's used in disposable packaging like drink bottles etc. Fortunately, it's a very small part of that market, which is dominated by the much-easier-to-recycle polyethelyne.
~scirocco
-- PVC (aka vinyl) is extremely inert. So inert, in fact, that it's the most common polymer used in medical equipment. Your donated blood is stored in PVC.
-- PVC production is a very, very toxic process. Makes a lot of dioxin. This is the primary objection of eco-types to PVC
-- Many PVC products are "durable" meaning they last a long time once produced (windows and PVC plumbing are good examples)
-- When burned, PVC gives off some really nasty toxic gases. This is a serious consideration only if you're in a house fire. Of course, noone PLANS to have their house burn down (at least, not with them in it....)
-- PVC is extremely difficult to recycle, so much so that there is effectively no way to recycle it in the US
So, as someone else said..... all human activities have an impact. We each have to decide if the costs of whatever we want are worth that impact. PVC is really at it's worst if/when it's used in disposable packaging like drink bottles etc. Fortunately, it's a very small part of that market, which is dominated by the much-easier-to-recycle polyethelyne.
~scirocco
reply
Interesting topic.
According to the U.S. Green Building Council's board of directors, PVC is "Greener" than you might think.
About 4 years ago the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee (TSAC) was asked by the LEED Steering Committee to push people away from vinyl windows and other PVC building products. They conducted a massive study (I have it and the results summary is 104 pages long). TSAC concluded that they could not steer people away from PVC as it was actually much better for the environment than many alternative materials partially due to the fact that is has an expected half-life of about 300 years. The exception to this is vinyl flooring and other plasticized, soft vinyl products.
As previously posted: "-- PVC production is a very, very toxic process. Makes a lot of dioxin. This is the primary objection of eco-types to PVC "
This is false. According to the EPA, the production of PVC is responsible for less than 0.4% of the dioxins released in the US. In short, you could stop making PVC all together and have virtually no impact on the environment. Metalurgy and burning of wood, coal, other organics and their garbage are among the biggest offenders, closely followed by the burning of medical waste. Chlorine, making dioxins comes from salt, not from PVC. The tree-huggers simply target man-made materials as they consider the true offenders to be unavoidable. Also, PVC can be recycled, just not with the same characteristics of it's orginal form. Regrind from windows can be used for pipe and other products and still perform extremely well... although it's a poor choice for window frames.
Based on my data, white can be pretty green afterall.
According to the U.S. Green Building Council's board of directors, PVC is "Greener" than you might think.
About 4 years ago the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee (TSAC) was asked by the LEED Steering Committee to push people away from vinyl windows and other PVC building products. They conducted a massive study (I have it and the results summary is 104 pages long). TSAC concluded that they could not steer people away from PVC as it was actually much better for the environment than many alternative materials partially due to the fact that is has an expected half-life of about 300 years. The exception to this is vinyl flooring and other plasticized, soft vinyl products.
As previously posted: "-- PVC production is a very, very toxic process. Makes a lot of dioxin. This is the primary objection of eco-types to PVC "
This is false. According to the EPA, the production of PVC is responsible for less than 0.4% of the dioxins released in the US. In short, you could stop making PVC all together and have virtually no impact on the environment. Metalurgy and burning of wood, coal, other organics and their garbage are among the biggest offenders, closely followed by the burning of medical waste. Chlorine, making dioxins comes from salt, not from PVC. The tree-huggers simply target man-made materials as they consider the true offenders to be unavoidable. Also, PVC can be recycled, just not with the same characteristics of it's orginal form. Regrind from windows can be used for pipe and other products and still perform extremely well... although it's a poor choice for window frames.
Based on my data, white can be pretty green afterall.
Re: reply
From everything i've read, this is true. I work a bit with the LEED stuff for my day job (large, overseas building projects), and all of our projects are LEED certified. The main take-away point here is that PVC is so durable, that goods made of it can be expected to last more or less forever (until damaged, or replaced because of design or aesthetic issues) and therefore the long, long lifespan offsets the problematic production.FenEx wrote:About 4 years ago the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee (TSAC) was asked by the LEED Steering Committee to push people away from vinyl windows and other PVC building products. They conducted a massive study (I have it and the results summary is 104 pages long). TSAC concluded that they could not steer people away from PVC as it was actually much better for the environment than many alternative materials partially due to the fact that is has an expected half-life of about 300 years. The exception to this is vinyl flooring and other plasticized, soft vinyl products.
I'd like to see that reference from the EPA. And besides, it's not (as you went on to mention) just the production of PVC that's bad, but also the disposal. The reason the "burning of medical waste" generates dioxins is because.. wait for it... the PVC! Now, i'm not suggesting that PVC be eliminated in medicine, as that's ridiculous. It's far, far too useful there.FenEx wrote:As previously posted: "-- PVC production is a very, very toxic process. Makes a lot of dioxin. This is the primary objection of eco-types to PVC "
This is false. According to the EPA, the production of PVC is responsible for less than 0.4% of the dioxins released in the US.
It's far, far too useful in windows too. Rather than an absolutest statement like "this is false", maybe it would be better to say that there are differing opinions. I'm sure a quick google search WILL confirm my assertion that the primary objection to PVC from eco-conscious folks is indeed the dioxin. Don't take my word for it though, ask Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pvc+production+dioxin
Now i'll do it... this is false. Obviously natural sources (truly natural sources, burning coal is not a natural source) are unavoidable. Given that all of the dioxin produced by the burning of medical waste comes from PVC (or do you posit that the burning of blood and tissue generates dioxin? that wouldn't bode well for the great american barbeque...), by your own statement 50% would be eliminated. The dioxin product of garbage-burning is also largely a result of the PVC in the garbage. There is PVC in a LOT of products around the household. It's an extremely useful plastic.FenEx wrote: In short, you could stop making PVC all together and have virtually no impact on the environment. Metalurgy and burning of wood, coal, other organics and their garbage are among the biggest offenders, closely followed by the burning of medical waste.
There is currently no reasonable, economical substitute, so PVC it is for many, many products. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to find a better alternative, though the PVC industry will surely resist that (except for the company that finds and patents that substitute).
PVC recycling is still not yet in widespread use, but there are promising technologies. Again, Google tells us:
http://www.google.com/search?q=pvc+recycling
Still, noone uses "regrind" in plumbing, at least not that i've ever seen. None of the stuff you can get at Home Depot or Lowes is anything but virgin PVC, ditto for the 'real' plumbing supply houses. It doesn't look, at first glance, that there are a lot of recycled PVC products on the market, except for grocery bags.
http://www.google.com/search?q=recycled+pvc
reply
Scirocco
As a Google researcher you are somewhat limited to information provided... but I applaud your effort.
The medical waste industry is a major factor NOT because it uses and disposes of PVC products, it's because polymers, pharmaceuticals and the ultra-pure metals they use are produced using Chlorine, thus providing it's waste. Greenpeace finds it very affordable to utilize the internet with messaging, but it is not recognized as an authority. My EPA facts are accurate.
The burning of wood and it's products releases much more dioxin in the US and Canada than PVC production and waste. Here's some info you might find interesting:
http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/sources.html
http://www.burningissues.org/dioxin.htm
The burning of garbage is not primarily due to PVC... it's due to organic products. And.. yes.. burning coal or other organics is a natural process. Take a drive through Colorado and see the coal and oil fires that can't be extinguished as they run very deep. Also, take a deeper look at the PVC recycling industry, although you won't find many on the internet that will brag about using secondary product for their pipe or products.
Waste may be garbage, but production waste does NOT mean PVC! Waste burning does NOT mean PVC either... it means Chloride is involved with the waste production or disposal process. Get off your Google and hit a government or municipal library for hard copy information, or better yet, travel to DC 4-6 times a year and become a consultant for the DOE and EPA like I do. Lots of good info to be had outside of Google! I'll bet you think that the window company's websites tell you EVERYTHING about their products and components too huh.
Enough already.
As a Google researcher you are somewhat limited to information provided... but I applaud your effort.
The medical waste industry is a major factor NOT because it uses and disposes of PVC products, it's because polymers, pharmaceuticals and the ultra-pure metals they use are produced using Chlorine, thus providing it's waste. Greenpeace finds it very affordable to utilize the internet with messaging, but it is not recognized as an authority. My EPA facts are accurate.
The burning of wood and it's products releases much more dioxin in the US and Canada than PVC production and waste. Here's some info you might find interesting:
http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/sources.html
http://www.burningissues.org/dioxin.htm
The burning of garbage is not primarily due to PVC... it's due to organic products. And.. yes.. burning coal or other organics is a natural process. Take a drive through Colorado and see the coal and oil fires that can't be extinguished as they run very deep. Also, take a deeper look at the PVC recycling industry, although you won't find many on the internet that will brag about using secondary product for their pipe or products.
Waste may be garbage, but production waste does NOT mean PVC! Waste burning does NOT mean PVC either... it means Chloride is involved with the waste production or disposal process. Get off your Google and hit a government or municipal library for hard copy information, or better yet, travel to DC 4-6 times a year and become a consultant for the DOE and EPA like I do. Lots of good info to be had outside of Google! I'll bet you think that the window company's websites tell you EVERYTHING about their products and components too huh.
Enough already.
Fair enough.
I happen to live in DC, and would be happy to chat sometime, or attend any open-to-the-public hearing you might suggest, in your capacity as consultant (lobbyist?) to EPA etc.
Anyhow, it looks like we're both quoting questionable sources... me Google and you "The Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council" (the dioxinfacts.org website). The other website sure looks a lot more grassroots, but also very one-sided advocating what it calls "clean fuels"...... it's level of one-sidedness is similar to that of the Greenpeace site.
Clearly you've got a lot of info on this topic, and i wasn't able to come up with anything like what you've mentioned from the EPA directly... can you provide an epa.gov URL? Or at the very least the name and issue-number of a peer-reviewed scientific journal? I know those often aren't available online, but we have a pretty great library where i work.
Anyhow, i'm not sure if you missed it above, but nowhere have i stated that i personally (or anyone reasonable for that matter... ie LEEDS) think that PVC in windows shouldn't be used... quite the opposite in fact. Currently, PVC is a good viable material for use in windows and doors. It would be better if it were stiffer (to allow thinner frames, ala fiberglass) and of course if it were less toxic in production and disposal, and there are probably other things that a "window engineer" would wish for if s/he was speccing out the "ideal" material to make windows from.
In the meantime, in the real world, PVC is a pretty good option. That doesn't mean people shouldn't look for other options though, no matter how much the "The Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council" might wish that people would quit thinking and just buy PVC forever.
So... how about that EPA link?
edit: i didn't use any magic to find the sponsor of the industry-shill site dioxinfacts.org (even that name gives it away, they're not trying to hide)... it's right on the contact page: http://www.dioxinfacts.org/contact_us/index.html
I happen to live in DC, and would be happy to chat sometime, or attend any open-to-the-public hearing you might suggest, in your capacity as consultant (lobbyist?) to EPA etc.
Anyhow, it looks like we're both quoting questionable sources... me Google and you "The Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council" (the dioxinfacts.org website). The other website sure looks a lot more grassroots, but also very one-sided advocating what it calls "clean fuels"...... it's level of one-sidedness is similar to that of the Greenpeace site.
Clearly you've got a lot of info on this topic, and i wasn't able to come up with anything like what you've mentioned from the EPA directly... can you provide an epa.gov URL? Or at the very least the name and issue-number of a peer-reviewed scientific journal? I know those often aren't available online, but we have a pretty great library where i work.
Anyhow, i'm not sure if you missed it above, but nowhere have i stated that i personally (or anyone reasonable for that matter... ie LEEDS) think that PVC in windows shouldn't be used... quite the opposite in fact. Currently, PVC is a good viable material for use in windows and doors. It would be better if it were stiffer (to allow thinner frames, ala fiberglass) and of course if it were less toxic in production and disposal, and there are probably other things that a "window engineer" would wish for if s/he was speccing out the "ideal" material to make windows from.
In the meantime, in the real world, PVC is a pretty good option. That doesn't mean people shouldn't look for other options though, no matter how much the "The Chlorine Chemistry Division of the American Chemistry Council" might wish that people would quit thinking and just buy PVC forever.
So... how about that EPA link?
edit: i didn't use any magic to find the sponsor of the industry-shill site dioxinfacts.org (even that name gives it away, they're not trying to hide)... it's right on the contact page: http://www.dioxinfacts.org/contact_us/index.html
reply
I am not quoting questionable sources... I simply provided internet sources that are providing contrary information to your "Google" searches.
As stated... find better sources if you wish to share accurate facts with consumers on a larger scale... like these sites. As also stated, much of my documentation is in hard copy, which I provide to manufacturers and agencies that I consult with. Many of these documents are publc record as they are government funded but are not on the internet. The two I posted took me about 5 minutes to find. The internet has everything for everyone... just keep looking and you'll find something that agrees with your viewpoint... but that doesn't make it factual.
As stated... find better sources if you wish to share accurate facts with consumers on a larger scale... like these sites. As also stated, much of my documentation is in hard copy, which I provide to manufacturers and agencies that I consult with. Many of these documents are publc record as they are government funded but are not on the internet. The two I posted took me about 5 minutes to find. The internet has everything for everyone... just keep looking and you'll find something that agrees with your viewpoint... but that doesn't make it factual.
Dude,
Don't get discouraged because i called your sources questionable. In fact, simple searches on terms like "pvc recycling" stand on their own.. they will return whatever is out there. Or do you claim that search results are biased? I'm sure Google indexes both of those sites too, they just don't have the PageRank credibility to show up on the first page of results for the terms i happened to chose. You (anyone) can of course pick your own search terms.
I'll ask again.. please provide some ACTUAL links to legit EPA or other government sources, or to peer-reviewed scientific journals, if you want to prove your point. Otherwise, you have no more (possibly less, based on your insistence without supporting documentation) credibility than i do. Of course, i haven't claimed to have any credibility, other than that of a reasonably intelligent guy who reads.
If you can't give an actual reference, just say so. Otherwise, the conversation is fruitless...... you can't keep on saying "trust me, i have the hardcopy right here"
I heard that from the shyster window-salesman that was over my house the other night. From a real professional (like those that seem to hang out here), i would expect to be able to independently verify the information provided.
[edit: damned typos!]
Don't get discouraged because i called your sources questionable. In fact, simple searches on terms like "pvc recycling" stand on their own.. they will return whatever is out there. Or do you claim that search results are biased? I'm sure Google indexes both of those sites too, they just don't have the PageRank credibility to show up on the first page of results for the terms i happened to chose. You (anyone) can of course pick your own search terms.
I'll ask again.. please provide some ACTUAL links to legit EPA or other government sources, or to peer-reviewed scientific journals, if you want to prove your point. Otherwise, you have no more (possibly less, based on your insistence without supporting documentation) credibility than i do. Of course, i haven't claimed to have any credibility, other than that of a reasonably intelligent guy who reads.
If you can't give an actual reference, just say so. Otherwise, the conversation is fruitless...... you can't keep on saying "trust me, i have the hardcopy right here"
I heard that from the shyster window-salesman that was over my house the other night. From a real professional (like those that seem to hang out here), i would expect to be able to independently verify the information provided.
[edit: damned typos!]
Last edited by scirocco on Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: reply
Further, you certainly could apply this statement to the two links you HAVE cited.FenEx wrote:The internet has everything for everyone... just keep looking and you'll find something that agrees with your viewpoint... but that doesn't make it factual.
800-399-4623