Anyone heard of Secotherm?

phil24_7

How do these products react to the expansion and contraction of old lime mortar and stone houses? These houses 'move' quite a bit throughout the seasons.

Frameworker

I do not think the issue is whether these products work or not; the real issue is the exorbitant profit some of the companies charge for applying the product. It is not much more difficult than applying emulsion to a wall, other than access. Most if not all products claim they are easy to apply by brush, roller or low pressure spray. How much energy they save is very debatable, and depends very much upon the type of wall. I suspect the claimed saving of up to (those magic two words!!) 30% of your energy bill is absolute best case scenario and in reality would be much less than that. The main issue I have is not whether these products work or not but the unbelievable amount being charged for applying the creme by some of these companies. I have asked the company that quoted me £42/sq.mt to explain how they arrived at that figure; bearing in mind the cost of the product is only in the region of £3-5 per sq.mt. It has comes as no surprise at all that all I have heard is a thundering silence!!
Essentially all I am saying is be very cautious when dealing with these companies, as the cremes can be applied for a fraction of the price being quoted, in which case it may make the energy savings reasonably cost effective.

dominoman

Whether it works or not, a figure of 30% saving is clearly nonsense.

The total heat loss through all walls of a house can approach 25-30%, so to save 30% of heating costs means this layer of fancy glue stops all heat transmission via the walls. Seems unlikely...

Spend the money on a nice holiday instead.

phil24_7

Even using their best (from the 2, not completely impartial reports) figure it would take 30+ years to recoup the money!

stator

phil24_7 wrote: »

Even using their best (from the 2, not completely impartial reports) figure it would take 30+ years to recoup the money!

According to the PDF linked above payback for "Stormdry" was 15 years. If it's lasts 15 years that's not an awful result.
£500 installation, £2100 over 60 years.

I'm guessing £500 is a DIY application?

I think the whole "you mustn't insulate an old house because it needs to breathe" argument is a bit of an old wives tail.

phil24_7

stator wrote: »

According to the PDF linked above payback for "Stormdry" was 15 years. If it's lasts 15 years that's not an awful result.
£500 installation, £2100 over 60 years.

I'm guessing £500 is a DIY application?

I think the whole "you mustn't insulate an old house because it needs to breathe" argument is a bit of an old wives tail.

One of the links gives a £132 potential saving (this would be impossible to reach as it is their calculations 'theoretical' maximum) per year. One quote from above for over £4K. This equals 30.3 years to break even at impossible to reach theoretical maximums!

It's not an old wives tale. Old houses were designed to allow moisture from the ground, the air, and from the rain outside to pass through the fabric of the building. To the inside of the building in the winter (where it would be warmer due to heating) and to the outside in the summer (where the sun *pah ha ha ha!* would dry it out). This is why many old houses suffer with damp as we put non breathable finishes on the inside (gypsum plaster) and outside (portland cement based render) as well as stopping draughts which help to remove humid air from the interior.

Anything which slows or stops this process will cause problems unless these are mitigated beforehand.

Regards
Phil

phil24_7

I will also hasten to add that neither of the reports are independent, both have people with a vested interest in the results, taking part in the testing and funding.

nsw

You seem to know what you are talking about. I am very keen on insulating my house but have no idea whether or not this insulation will be worth it . So much confusing advice around! Do you think it really is a good idea? I live in a semi, built in the 50s, no cavity. It gets very cold in the winter and impossibly hot when we have a hot spell. I have put in all the internal insulation I could afford, adding more would be inappropriate due to the loss of space.

Grenage

nsw wrote: »

You seem to know what you are talking about. I am very keen on insulating my house but have no idea whether or not this insulation will be worth it . So much confusing advice around! Do you think it really is a good idea? I live in a semi, built in the 50s, no cavity. It gets very cold in the winter and impossibly hot when we have a hot spell. I have put in all the internal insulation I could afford, adding more would be inappropriate due to the loss of space.

Any money spent on that junk would be better spent on heating bills. External insulation would have far more impact.

phil24_7

Indeed. PROPERLY (good luck with that) installed external insulation would be the way forward. Insulation to 1m below ground level would also help. In fact someone on here externally insulated then build another wall around their property, effectively making a cavity wall! A bit overkill for most but if you have the time/effort/money/space available then it is the best of all worlds!