PVC days limited?

Mike H Said:

clvr83 Said: Definitely less labor with PVC? If so, thats surprising considering basic 60mil PVC isnt much more.

Yes. No priming. no rolling, no taping... just running a heat welder down the seam. You have to probe the seam, which could correlate to the rolling, but it goes quicker and takes much less effort... ie: no carpal tunnel WC claims. Plus the cost of tape, glues, and all the other accessories that goes with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

A lot more pleasant to work with too !!

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

Mike H Said:

TomB Said: Mike,

Agreed - Except for the fact it is indeed all about marketing

Why do you feel that way?

Oh - I forgot; Its for world peace. ;)

I took the time to answer your question. Dont know why mine deserves such a snide effort in return. ???

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didn't mean any harm.

I couldn't find where you "answered" a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My "question" would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVC's demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

TomB Said:

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didnt mean any harm.

I couldnt find where you answered a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My question would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVCs demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

From page 1 "TPO from what I understand has been mft'd in Europe for years, and has indeed performed very well. The problem isn't so much TPO, but rather the fact that it's been manufactured to be the LOW COST leader in the US. When made to higher standards, a standard that is unsupported by the US market price point, it can be a good product."

Plus I thought the other writings at least contributed to the spirit of the question.

I don't think PVC is going anywhere soon. It's been too good for too long. A very strong case is made for a PVC that's 30+ years old, of which I have many, vs. a TPO that is proving to fail in as few as 8 years. The simple question is: What's cleaner and "greener", the roof that stays on the roof, or the roof that goes in the landfill?

Why do you think it's all about marketing?

Mike H Said:with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

I was referring to TPO vs PVC labor, because I've done a bunch of TPO. But thanks for the reply. I already expect this is a change that I'll wish I'd done sooner.

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

Oops! Sorry for the whimsical retort. Didnt mean any harm.

I couldnt find where you answered a question of mine(?). To reiterate-Let me re-phrase: My question would be if anyone had an opinion as to the viability of the notion of PVCs demise due to the global tree-hugger mentality.

From page 1 TPO from what I understand has been mftd in Europe for years, and has indeed performed very well. The problem isnt so much TPO, but rather the fact that its been manufactured to be the LOW COST leader in the US. When made to higher standards, a standard that is unsupported by the US market price point, it can be a good product.

Plus I thought the other writings at least contributed to the spirit of the question.

I dont think PVC is going anywhere soon. Its been too good for too long. A very strong case is made for a PVC thats 30+ years old, of which I have many, vs. a TPO that is proving to fail in as few as 8 years. The simple question is: Whats cleaner and greener, the roof that stays on the roof, or the roof that goes in the landfill?

Why do you think its all about marketing?

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVC's, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears they've held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I don't get it.

TomB Said:

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVCs, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears theyve held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I dont get it.

Not sure I completely understand, as I thought you were saying Carlisle's new material push "all about the marketing". But if I understand what you're saying, unplasticized PVC ain't so bad? Phthalate is bad stuff. No doubt about it, so I would tend to agree that pvc's that use it aren't all that good either. ie: durolast.

But Fibertite, using virgin pvc and KEE (KEE is not migratory and a solid at ambient temperatures, and very non-reactive) has not phthalate to my knowledge, and any product using KEE in lower percentages would also have to use less phthalate.

In '97 or '98 I was golfing with then Firestone BP division Pres. Paul Mineart. We did a fair amount of Ultraply 78 at the time but Fibertite was still the bulk of our "pvc". When he wanted to know what they could do to get a bigger chunk of that business I told him, "Stop buying from Cooley and start making your own. I hate using private labelled products because I don't like being in a situation where finger pointing can occur.

He said then, "Mike, we are committed to a KEE sheet. It's just better, but KEE is very hard to formulate and we have not been successful formulating the product. Until we can get it right, we'll continue with the Cooley sheet."

It was very shortly thereafter that FBPco stopped offering that product.

Maybe the clorine represents a long term hazard in the landfill, but KEE sheets are proven to leach slower, deteriorate slower and just make a better product, so I'd still contend that the push toward KEE is not a marketing ploy, but a legitimate effort to make and promote a better product. Even DL, as I was told from a highly involved individual is trying to formulate elvaloy into their product.

Mike H Said:

TomB Said:

The bottom line, is that the 20 yr. old debate on PVC continues. There are always two sides to an opposition. Undoubtedly, PVC is not a healthy material. However, PVC is everywhere, in everything & has huge supporters, (primarily big biz - those that profit from it).

Many countries, major cities & fortune 500 companies have banned or instilled policies in attempts to phase-out pvc. Europe has adopted a uPVC classification/category which stands for un-plasticized PVC, in attempts to curtail the frenzy, so-to-speak.

I read where 10-12 yrs ago, Firestone had committed to phase-out PVCs, (referencing particularly roofing materials). It appears theyve held to their promise.

I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another. My personal affiliation has demonstrated, same company has drastically different marketing approaches in different regions of the USA, as well.

Companies have HUGE investments in product production/marketing programs/client loyalty/image, etc.

How can it NOT be about marketing? I dont get it.

Not sure I completely understand, as I thought you were saying Carlisles new material push all about the marketing. But if I understand what youre saying, unplasticized PVC aint so bad? Phthalate is bad stuff. No doubt about it, so I would tend to agree that pvcs that use it arent all that good either. ie: durolast.

But Fibertite, using virgin pvc and KEE (KEE is not migratory and a solid at ambient temperatures, and very non-reactive) has not phthalate to my knowledge, and any product using KEE in lower percentages would also have to use less phthalate.

In 97 or 98 I was golfing with then Firestone BP division Pres. Paul Mineart. We did a fair amount of Ultraply 78 at the time but Fibertite was still the bulk of our pvc. When he wanted to know what they could do to get a bigger chunk of that business I told him, Stop buying from Cooley and start making your own. I hate using private labelled products because I dont like being in a situation where finger pointing can occur.

He said then, Mike, we are committed to a KEE sheet. Its just better, but KEE is very hard to formulate and we have not been successful formulating the product. Until we can get it right, well continue with the Cooley sheet.

It was very shortly thereafter that FBPco stopped offering that product.

Maybe the clorine represents a long term hazard in the landfill, but KEE sheets are proven to leach slower, deteriorate slower and just make a better product, so Id still contend that the push toward KEE is not a marketing ploy, but a legitimate effort to make and promote a better product. Even DL, as I was told from a highly involved individual is trying to formulate elvaloy into their product.

Mike, Ok - Fun is fun, but enough is enough. I don't have a dog in this fight. One could blather-on defensively/offensively on the merits/pitfalls of PVC's forever.

Bottom line; We all know PVC works well as a roofing material, is overall superior economically, (best bang for the buck), - Makes manufactures, suppliers, contractors lot's of money. We also know PVC's aren't healthy. Will the godless progressives or heartless capitalists win-out?

TomB,

I really don't understand the attitude in your replies to me?

It's not at all about fun, fighting, defending or whatever you think is going on here. Nor from my end is it about big business, small business, progressives or capitalists. We're all in business to survive financially, one way or another.

You asked a question that's being discussed. You made a statement I wanted to know more about. When I try to make it a discussion instead of an opinion-statement, you sound more like a dog backed into a corner than a guy that wants to have a legitimate conversation about roofing materials. I suspect that ISO and darn near every product we use on a roof is bad for our environment. Are they better or worse than PVC? Fact is,... I don't know know. I hoped you did.

If you don't want to discuss it, then why ask the question and why throw out statements you don't want to delve into?

I could say Coloradoans are all pot smoking, gun hating, enviro-whacko, flaming liberals that don't want to face facts, but it wouldn't make it true just because I said it. With a lot of family on the front range, and a few good friends on the back side, I know a few that fit that bill, and I know more than a few that don't. Met a few in Ohio too.

I just wanted to know why you thought KEE, or whatever it was you were referring to, was nothing more than a marketing ploy and if it was a statement you were applying to Carlisle only or the entire pvc roofing industry as a whole? Really. It was as simple as that. I'm a curious guy, and I wanted to discuss it. I find it a lot more interesting than shingles.

If we could eliminate plastics altogether, it might not be a bad thing. I don't know if a "good" plastic exists, but we'd give up an awful lot in the process getting rid of them.

While I much prefer the feel of metals and leather and natural fabrics, which is worse, the air pollution and landscape destruction that goes with steel and aluminum production, or putting plastic in our landfills and littering our waters and landscapes? I dunno, honestly. We were destroying the environment long before polymer science took off.

If we were to really dig deep into the heart of the question, when a person considers that almost all of our polymers are oil derivatives, and the asphalt of our forefathers is a thing of past due to the vast improvements in refinery capability to separate out the chemicals used in these polymers... could it be that the old asphalt grandpa used, and the asphalt we pave our roads with, is just as bad for our environment as PVC? Maybe.!? How much more green house gas and damage would we do if we only used glass bottles, returned them all, washed them before using again? How much more would they cost? Maybe we should use cowhide water bags rubbed with seal blubber. How much more methane would be produced from the additional cows, and how many more trees would be cut to open the fields for hay and grain to feed them?

Maybe in an effort to support the growing human population, plastics offer the lesser of all available evils when looking at the big picture. ? . ? Again, I dunno.

The truth is that I don't know all of the "We all know's..." in your last post, and I don't know if you get your info from PETA, the NFIB, the FFA, the NRA or Grandmammies Anonymous. But I was willing to listen.

clvr83 Said:

Mike H Said:with EPDM. I find PVC to be much more efficient to install.

I was referring to TPO vs PVC labor, because Ive done a bunch of TPO. But thanks for the reply. I already expect this is a change that Ill wish Id done sooner.

Sorry, didn't catch that. No difference. Some guys like welding TPO, some like PVC. It's not that one's harder than the other, just a little different. TPO tends to have a narrower welding window but also welds at a little lower temps. On the other hand a high KEE sheet has a pretty narrow window and is susceptible to false welds if guys don't take their probing seriously.

Then there's Sarnafil, which has to be taken to smoking temps in order to weld right, and to TomB's point, that black, foul smelling, ,chlorine laden smoke probably aint too good for anyone.

But, once you're onto any one of them, there's no difference.

I'd regret seeing this thread disintegrate because I'm finding information in it that is valuable even though I don't do singleply systems myself. Here's a quote from Tom:

"I was told the other day that a particular major roofing manufacture was a promoter of PVC on one particular continent, yet, opposed it on another..."

That would be marketing at work, or, translated, allowing marketing goals to supercede ethical considerations. I could say asphalt shingles are a good thing and keep my fingers crossed while avoiding thinking about the fact they don't come from a renewable source and have to be changed out every twenty or thirty years. I could say cedar shingles are a good thing and keep my fingers crossed while avoiding thinking about all the clear-cut slopes that aren't producing new healthy forest ecosystems anytime soon. I love cedar shakes and shingles. I could keep my fingers crossed while trying not to think of how they, too, have to be changed out every generation.

I always find it better to tell the truth to clients and others, even if it means that a clear answer is problemmatic. "Marketing" as I interpret it here means saying whatever you think will put you in a better light and increase sales, offering mutually exclusive opinions in different markets, or having no belief whatsoever and pretending to one or more of them as need dictates.

In everyday language that would be called hypocrisy or speaking with a forked tongue. Marketing in my opinion isn't inherently bad, but it's a little dangerous. Actually, anytime we manipulate the truth we're taking a moral risk. "Nice contradiction between fact and fact will make the whole read human and exact."

I'm enjoying the discussion from the sidelines, though. Don't quit now.

Egg, well said. I've been shaking some singly ply in to my roofing menu for about five years, and I've thought about going after more. I like to have all the answers, but thats an endless quest.

Mike: Thanks for the input.

Mike H Said:

If we could eliminate plastics altogether, it might not be a bad thing. I dont know if a good plastic exists, but wed give up an awful lot in the process getting rid of them.

While I much prefer the feel of metals and leather and natural fabrics, which is worse, the air pollution and landscape destruction that goes with steel and aluminum production, or putting plastic in our landfills and littering our waters and landscapes? I dunno, honestly. We were destroying the environment long before polymer science took off.

If we were to really dig deep into the heart of the question, when a person considers that almost all of our polymers are oil derivatives, and the asphalt of our forefathers is a thing of past due to the vast improvements in refinery capability to separate out the chemicals used in these polymers... could it be that the old asphalt grandpa used, and the asphalt we pave our roads with, is just as bad for our environment as PVC? Maybe.!? How much more green house gas and damage would we do if we only used glass bottles, returned them all, washed them before using again? How much more would they cost? Maybe we should use cowhide water bags rubbed with seal blubber. How much more methane would be produced from the additional cows, and how many more trees would be cut to open the fields for hay and grain to feed them?

Maybe in an effort to support the growing human population, plastics offer the lesser of all available evils when looking at the big picture. ? . ? Again, I dunno.

The truth is that I dont know all of the We all knows... in your last post, and I dont know if you get your info from PETA, the NFIB, the FFA, the NRA or Grandmammies Anonymous. But I was willing to listen.

Tough discussion. I've often wondered the same with all the talk about how evil plastics are. Damn near every product we install isn't "healthy" per say. However, what's the alternative..??

It's an argument that can't ever be won imo. Chew up the natural resources.... or live with plastic. I wonder how much a car would cost without any plastic in it..? Any plastic in the Prius...? Just curious....

While wood can make a fine roof on a steep slope, doesn't seem to be worth a damn on flat roofs. Seems homeowners insurance is a little pricey with wood shingles too..

Typically, from the conversations I've been in, the enviro-weenies tend to focus on one glaring negative of a product (ie: toxicity), while ignoring all of the other aspects of the alternative. Manufacturing, transport, removal, disposal, etc.

Why the hard on for PVC...? Is a typical pvc sheet more toxic, or dangerous to the world than epdm, tpo, or any of the other products we waterproof with ..? I don't think so, not when all the factors are considered. Granted, Im no chemical engineer. Im just a roofer.

However, taking labor issues out of the equation..... I've seen more TPO failures than any other roofing material for low slope applications in the last 20yrs. It's not even close in my experience. I've seen plenty that were 7-8yrs old as well. On the flip, I've seen with my own eyes, & walked on with my own feet, multiple roofs that were 20+yrs old, epdm, pvc, modified, & even some BUR.

I've personally welded new pvc to 15yr old pvc with no problems, & yet...couldn't weld a patch on a 3yr old TPO roof. In my mind anyways, a good pvc, is a considerably better product than any TPO I've seen.

My question is, what's better for everyone in the big picture. Putting on one pvc roof that lasts 20-30yrs & being content with all the factors involved, or putting on 3 TPO roofs in the same time frame. From a cost perspective, it's a no brainer. Without having a degree in the environment, I'm still betting that with all things considered, the pvc solution is going to be less expensive, with much less environmental impact.

I've always looked at TPO as a low cost, temporary solution. The only reason the Al Gores of the world support it in my opinion, much like everything else they support..... because they have a financial interest in it.

MikeH,

My first reaction was to ask if you've every considered politics or been to law school. Then I read my original post. Once again, I must apologize for my "short-hand speak" of sorts, (my wife reminds me of it all the time). I'm a "KISS" kind of guy, so I sometimes, (a little more often than not), speak in brevity. I also listen that way at times, sorting out what information I think is relevant/useful and dispelling all the other blather, (kind of a Charlie Brown/adult thing). It's helpful in day-to-day/fast-track business operations, so long as one can discern when it's applicable. Maybe I'm simply lazy. The older I get, the lazier/realizing that what we're doing down here really isn't that important, type attitude. All that being said - (There, I can do it too!)

What I was attempting to communicate was; With all the frenzy to eliminate PVC's of the past 20yrs, (i.e., countries in Europe, municipalities, gov't entities, in the USA & the rest of the world, as well as fortune 500 companies, end users of PVC, such as auto manufactures, roofing materials & institutions, succumbing to the pressure), and the simple fact we can reasonably ascertain that the production of PVC, use and disposal are harmful- More so than that of TPO we're told.

Then there's the hearsay, such as the fact I was told of a particular proponent, (roofing manufacturer),of PVC on one continent, yet a major proponent of TPO on another, simply due to gov't restrictions. Which following a bit of research seemed plausible. Two positives = Positive = (moe $).

This is not to encourage a debate on ones' opinion as to the merits or pitfalls of PVC or TPO, but rather as to the possibilities of TPO out-performing PVC in the sales/consumption arena, in the years to come.

& that my friends is all I have to say on the subject....I'm out for a bike-ride.

This is all good imo. Not the least of the to-the-good momentum it has supplied is it got me to actually start looking more closely.

I'm not finding fault with anything Andy put up there in his post, but just for the record, when Greenpeace takes on those Japanese factory-fishing boats out in the open water I don't consider them enviro-weenies. Factory fishing has decimated whole massive populations of aquatic life not the least of which was the Cod population. What's happening in the oceans is a major concern. But I digress...

After Googling, I did a free sign-up for a green building publication which was pretty darned informative. Mike has the jump on us because he has a background in chemistry and he is also thorough in his thinking and his approach to everything he engages in. I always enjoy his take on things. The Phthalate business was an eye-opener for me.

Anyway, in the interest of passing on information, it should be mentioned that land-fill liners are made of PVC because they are stable and one has to distinguish between disposal of PVC in landfill and disposal of PVC by incineration. Here is a quote from the article:

"...To the credit of the chlorine and PVC industries and government regulatory bodies, however, vast improvements have been made in manufacturing processes over the past twenty years, and many of the worst environmental offenders (DDT, dieldrin, and CFCs, for example) are already gone or on their way out. The residual vinyl chloride gas in PVC products has been reduced to (perhaps) insignificant levels, compared with two decades ago. The environmental and health risks associated with PVC are greatest at the two ends of its lifetime: during manufacturing and disposal (if by incineration). Most PVC products are safe to use and some offer significant durability, cost, and maintenance advantages compared with competing products. Concerning the costs of a chlorine phase-out both Greenpeace and the chlorine industry have exaggerated or blatantly misled the public. An often-quoted report by the Charles River Associates (CRA), which was commissioned by the Chlorine Institute, estimates the cost of eliminating chlorine to be $102 billion per year in higher product costs. A cursory look at these cost estimates shows that half of all chlorine use could be eliminated for $4 billion per year and 96% of the chlorine could be phased out for $18 billion per year. $53.6 billion of the $102 billion CRA total is attributed to the cost of eliminating chlorine from pharmaceuticals (representing just 1.3% of chlorine use), which no party has explicitly suggested. ...

Here is the link:https://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/should-we-phase-out-pvc?share-code=014d15282c652226517feb7bdb589c5b

The entire article is very well worth the read, especially for those of us who really don't have a grasp on the history of how any of these related products are actually produced or the efforts that have been made to control toxicity and improve product. Basic knowledge is something we all need and usually pays off in spades in all sorts of ways.

It's Colorad'ns :laugh: