Global warming impact of HFCs in CCSPF vs. transportation emissions of rigid foam
The consensus about the global warming impact of HFCs in closed cell spray foam and XPS rigid foam makes it pretty clear that they should be avoided.
But what about the impact of transportation of the material? Rigid foam seems like it must be inefficient to transport around, since it uses up space on a truck/container without really making use of the full weight capacity of those vehicles. Closed cell spray foam is much more compact and space efficient, being compressed into liquid bottles. Perhaps this could change the equation enough that CCSPF wouldn’t be such a bogeyman compared to EPS and polyiso?
(XPS, of course, would not be redeemed by this, since it has HFCs AND suffers from the presumed transportation inefficiency.)
Has anyone analyzed this? I don’t know enough of the particulars of the shipping industry to try and work it out myself. There is also a potential counterpoint, which is that rigid foam tends to be made more locally than spray foam. I believe this is true but I’m not certain.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part