New construction with sand-lime brick + ETICS - Criticism?!

I had it glued to the house quite deliberately, as I wrote above, because it fulfills its function very well and is not hazardous waste but a completely normal building material... which, unlike many other supposedly ecologically harmless materials, can be recycled very well...

But you don't have to do that, because if installed properly, it will stay on at least until the plaster comes off anyway.

You think it is the worst thing you can do... for what reason?

It is not hazardous waste; your packaging from the TV made of the same EPS goes into the [Gelbe Tonne] and is recycled, and this has been done for decades... but suddenly people are shouting that it is hazardous waste just because it is applied to house walls? You see, something is wrong there...

I don't believe that the TV packaging is the same EPS overall. In the insulation, there are certainly a lot of additives, for example due to fire resistance and other factors. I don't think it's as extremely bad as some here claim, but it's not completely harmless either. Maybe a bit more objectivity?

sent from mobile

EPS cannot be disposed of or recycled as easily as some users here have portrayed.

Since I am an avowed opponent of ETICS and therefore want to prevent "bias," I recommend taking a look at the new study by the Fraunhofer Institute in collaboration with FIW Munich. It states, among other things: **"If deconstruction cannot be avoided, the authors believe that energetic recovery will be the preferred method for the next few decades. Because the foreseeable hazardous classification of the flame retardant HBCD used would significantly limit recycling options.

Therefore, the study recommends that the industry focus strongly in the future on developing new fastening technology for easier deconstruction and technically advancing the issue of adding layers."

So it will still take a number of years before EPS is fully recyclable; which necessarily presupposes that new insulation materials of this type must be developed. The problem currently is more the durability of the material and thus the question of disposing of first-generation insulation panels. So the argument "hazardous waste" cannot be so easily dismissed.

**Source: Study “Deconstruction, Recycling and Utilization of ETICS” by the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics and FIW Munich

Rhenish greetings

No one doubts that HBCD is in there, yet EPS is treated the same as Styrofoam in the same plants...

But HBCD is also in sofas, textiles, and electrical appliances as a flame retardant... is all of that now hazardous waste?

Isn't there a double standard being applied here?

Isn't a double standard being applied here?

To do one thing without leaving the other: I agree with you. Only - the choice always remains! Rhineland greetings

As I wrote above, I consciously had it adhered directly to the house because it fulfills the function very well and is not hazardous waste but a completely normal building material...which, unlike many other supposedly ecologically harmless materials, can be recycled very well...

But you don’t have to, because if properly installed, it will stay on at least until the plaster comes off anyway

I think the EIFS simply does not fulfill one function well at all, namely to form a proper exterior skin of the building. It is neither hard nor durable, it does not withstand (accidental) impact, nor the effects of certain animals (woodpeckers...) and permanent weathering. A monolithic construction is better in this regard. Especially double-shell. That’s why I also believe that EIFS is the worst thing you can do.

On the other hand, I do of course agree with you: it works, so it’s not really "bad," but the alternatives are, in my opinion, better. And I hardly believe any builder cares so much about an ecologically clean conscience that the recyclability of the insulation has a major influence on the decision.