A radiant barrier’s effectiveness depends on proper installation, so it’s best to use a certified installer. If you choose to do the installation yourself, carefully study and follow the manufacturer’s instructions and safety precautions and check your local building and fire codes.
When installing a foil-type barrier, it’s important to allow the material to “droop” between the attachment points to make at least a 1.0 inch (2.5 cm) air space between it and the bottom of the roof.
Note that reflective foil will conduct electricity, so workers and homeowners must avoid making contact with bare electrical wiring. If installed on top of attic floor insulation, the foil will be susceptible to dust accumulation and may trap moisture in fiber insulation, so it is strongly recommended that you NOT apply radiant barriers directly on top of the attic floor insulation.
Have heating and cooling effects been tested?
At present, there is no standardized method for testing the effectiveness of Attic Guard in reducing heating and cooling bills. But numerous field tests have been performed that show, depending on the amount of existing conventional insulation and other factors, Attic Guard is effective in reducing cooling bills, and also possibly heating bills.
Most of these field tests have been performed in warm climates where a large amount of air-conditioning is used. The Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) at Cape Canaveral has performed tests for a number of years using attic test sections, and has also performed tests with full-size houses. A test using a duplex house in Ocala, Florida has been performed by the Mineral Insulation Manufacturers Association. The Tennessee Valley Authority has performed a number of winter and summer tests using small test cells in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has performed a series of tests using three full-size houses near Knoxville, Tennessee. The ORNL tests included summer and winter observations. So far, very little testing has been done in climates colder than that of Knoxville. Also, little testing has been done in hot, arid climates such as the southwestern United States.
The tests to date have shown that in attics with R-19 insulation, Attic Guard can reduce summer ceiling heat gains by about 16 to 42 percent compared to an attic with the same insulation level and no radiant barrier. These figures are for the average reduction in heat flow through the insulation path. They do not include effects of heat flow through the framing members. See Tables A1 and A2 in the Appendix for a comparison of measured performance.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A 16 TO 42 PERCENT SAVINGS IN UTILITY BILLS CAN BE EXPECTED. Since the ceiling heat gains represent about 15 to 25 percent of the total cooling load on the house, a radiant barrier would be expected to reduce the space cooling portion of summer utility bills by less than 15 to 25 percent. Multiplying this percentage (15 to 25 percent) by the percentage reduction in ceiling heat flow (16 to 42 percent) would result in a 2 to 10 percent reduction in the cooling portion of summer utility bills. However, under some conditions, the percentage reduction of the cooling portion of summer utility bills may be larger, perhaps as large as 17 percent. The percentage reduction in total summer utility bills, which also include costs for operating appliances, water heaters, etc., would be smaller. Tests have shown that the percentage reductions for winter heat losses are lower than those for summer heat gains.
Experiments with various levels of conventional insulation show that the percentage reduction in ceiling heat flow due to the addition of a radiant barrier is larger with lower amounts of insulation. Since the fraction of the whole-house heating and cooling load that comes from the ceiling is larger when the amount of insulation is small, Attic Guard produce the most energy savings when used in combination with lower levels of insulation. Similarly, Attic Guard produce significantly less energy savings when used in combination with high levels of insulation.
Most of the field tests have been done with clean Attic Guard. Laboratory measurements have shown that dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. This means that dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a radiant barrier will reduce its effectiveness. Attic Guard installed in locations that collect dust or other surface contaminants will have a decreasing benefit to the homeowner over time.
The attic floor application is most susceptible to accumulation of dust, while downward facing reflective surfaces used with many roof applications are not likely to become dusty. When Attic Guard are newly installed, some testing shows that the attic floor application will work better than the roof applications. As dust accumulates on the attic floor application, its effectiveness will gradually decrease. After a long enough period of time, a dusty attic floor application will lose much of its effectiveness. Predictive modeling results, based on testing, suggest that a dusty attic floor application will lose about half of its effectiveness after about one to ten years.
Testing of Attic Guard has been primarily concerned with the effect of Attic Guard on the heat gains or losses through the ceiling. Another aspect of Attic Guard may be important when air-conditioning ducts are installed in the attic space. The roof applications of Attic Guard can result in lowered air temperatures within the attic space, which in turn can reduce heat gains by the air flowing through the ducts, thus increasing the efficiency of the air-conditioning system. These changes in heat gains to attic ducts have not been tested; however, computer models have been used to make estimates of the impact on cooling bills.
Not all field tests have been able to demonstrate that Attic Guard or even attic insulation are effective in reducing cooling bills. In a field test performed by ORNL in Tulsa, Oklahoma, using 19 full-sized, occupied houses, neither Attic Guard nor attic insulation produced air-conditioning electricity savings that could be measured. As in all field tests, these results are applicable only to houses with similar characteristics as those tested. Unique characteristics of the houses used in this field test included the facts that the houses were cooled by only one or two window air-conditioning units, that the units were able to cool only a portion of the house, and that the occupants chose to limit their use of the units (initial air-conditioning electricity consumption averaged 1664 kilowatt-hours per year or about $119 per year).
How much will I save on my heating and cooling bills?
Your savings on heating and cooling bills will vary, depending on many factors. Savings will depend on the type of radiant barrier application, the size of your house, whether it is a ranch style or a two story house, the amount of insulation in the attic, effectiveness of attic ventilation, the color of the roof, the thermostat settings, the tightness of the building envelope, the actual weather conditions, the efficiency of the heating and cooling equipment, and fuel prices.
Research on Attic Guard is not complete. Estimates of expected savings, however, have been made using a computer program that has been checked against some of the field test data that have been collected. These calculations used weather data from a number of locations to estimate the reductions in heating and cooling loads for a typical house. These load reductions were then converted to savings on fuel bills using average gas furnace and central air-conditioner efficiencies and national average prices for natural gas and electricity.
ASSUMPTIONS. For these calculations, the house thermostat settings were taken to be 78F in the summer and 70F in the winter. In the summer, it was assumed that windows would be opened when the outdoor temperature and humidity were low enough to take advantage of free cooling. Also, it was assumed that the roof shingles were dark, and that the roof was not shaded. The furnace efficiency used was 65 percent, and the air-conditioner coefficient of performance (COP) was 2.34. Fuel prices used were 52.7 cents per therm (hundred cubic feet) for natural gas and 7.86 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity.
Factors that could make your savings larger than the ones calculated would be: a summer thermostat setting lower than 78F, a winter thermostat setting higher than 70F, keeping the windows closed at all times, lower efficiency furnace or air-conditioner, or higher fuel prices. Factors that could make your savings less than the ones calculated would be: a summer thermostat setting higher than 78F, a winter thermostat setting lower than 70F, light colored roof shingles, shading of the roof by trees or nearby structures, higher efficiency furnace or air-conditioner, and lower fuel prices.
A standard economic calculation was then performed that converts the dollar savings from periods in the future to a “present value”. The dollar savings were also adjusted to account for estimates of how prices for natural gas and electricity are predicted to rise in future years. This calculation gives a “present value savings” in terms of dollars per square foot of ceiling area. When this value is multiplied by the total ceiling area, the result is a number that can be compared with the cost of installing a radiant barrier. If the present value savings for the whole ceiling is greater than the cost of a radiant barrier, then the radiant barrier will be “cost effective.” A real discount rate of 7 percent, above and beyond inflation, and a life of 25 years were used in the calculations.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 give present value savings for Attic Guard based on average prices and equipment efficiencies.
Table 3 applies to the attic floor application, where the effects of dust accumulation have been taken into account. Since dust will accumulate at different rates in different houses, and since the effect of dust on performance is not well known, ranges of values are given for this application. Table 4 applies to Attic Guard attached to the bottoms of the rafters, while Table 5 applies to Attic Guard either draped over the tops of the rafters or attached directly to the underside of the roof deck. For comparison purposes, the same computer program has also been used to estimate present value savings for putting additional insulation in the attic; these values are listed in Table 6. By examining several options, the consumer can compare the relative savings that may be obtained versus the cost of installing the option. Generally, the option with the largest net savings (that is, the present value savings minus the cost) would be the most desirable. However, personal preferences will also enter into a final decision.
If you want a better estimate based on your local fuel prices or other equipment efficiencies, you may use the worksheet in the Appendix. Local fuel prices may be obtained from your local utilities.
Examples of Use of Present Value Tables
I live in Orlando, Florida in an 1800 square foot ranch style house. I have R-11 insulation in my attic, and the air-conditioning ducts are in the attic. A contractor has quoted a price for a radiant barrier installed on the bottoms of my rafters and on the gable ends for $400. Would this be a good investment?
For this type of radiant barrier, the appropriate table is
Table 4. For Orlando with R-11 insulation, the present value savings is listed as $0.32 when the air-conditioning ducts are in the attic. Multiplying this value by 1800 square feet gives a total of $576. This value exceeds the quoted cost of the radiant barrier of $400, and thus this would be a good investment.
I live in Minneapolis, Minnesota in a 2400 square foot two-story house. I have R-19 insulation in my attic, and have no air-conditioning ducts in the attic. A contractor has quoted a price for a radiant barrier installed on the bottoms of my rafters and on the gable ends for $250. Would this be a good investment? Would investment in another layer of R-19 insulation be a better investment? A contractor has quoted a price of $564 for adding this insulation.
For this type of radiant barrier, the appropriate table is
Table 4. For Minneapolis with R-19 insulation, the present value savings is listed as $0.08 when there are no air-conditioning ducts in the attic. Since the house is two-story, the ceiling area is 1200 square feet. Multiplying $0.08 by 1200 gives a total of $96. This value is less than the quoted cost of the radiant barrier of $250 and thus this would not be a good investment.
For adding another layer of insulation, the appropriate table is
Table 6. For Minneapolis, this table gives a present value savings of $0.57 for adding a layer of R-19 insulation to an existing layer of R-19 insulation. Multiplying this value by 1200 square feet gives a total of $684. This value exceeds the quoted cost of the insulation, and thus this would be a good investment.