25
3210.001
Lenchuk, Paul
Paper
National Concrete Masonry Association
1977
?
N
Just a few years ago, the price of natural gas, petroleum, coal, and other energy sources was cheap enough so that no one worried about how much was being used. When one building material claimed it was a better conserver of energy than another, most of the public and many professionals yawned since energy conservation was not the critical element in the choice of one building material over another.As a result, many claims went unchallenged. Concrete masonry always had a built-in advantage in that it was a dense material, made with an air cavity. This air cavity served as an insulator against heat and cold. Other building materials had to add insulation in order to resist heat flow–insulation that concrete masonry already had. Naturally, enough insulation would be added to these products so that in any public documentation, they always compared favorably to the plain concrete block.
This has been done by metal building manufacturers and by the wood industry. In each case in their advertisements, the comparisons have not been of metal or wood against equally insulated concrete masonry. It usually was a comparison of the plain concrete block compared to their product after it was insulated to surpass that of block.
The ordinary man on the street was fooled by these comparisons because he did not realize that he was not being given a comparison of two equals–two building materials each insulated to provide the same U factor. Design professionals knew better, of course,
But with the cost of energy rapidly increasing and energy conservation now being a national effort, the time has come to set the record straight and give the concrete masonry side of the story–a material which can stand up with any other material as a conserver of energy, and which is, in many cases, a superior one.