Could you be more specific? What is the content of the "controversial discussions" you are refering to? 

The actual energy economy discusion and the legal regulations fosters the use of insulation material in buildings in an extent which is not yet economical. There are actually only a few architects and civil engineers which recognize this situation by their real life experience and starts first critical discussions and offers technical proofs.

This controversity is known and although their arguments are open documented .....  no reaction at the legal institutions can be recognized up to now.

This should be changed........ 

Everybody who is in agreement with this facts is welcome here to give his input.

With best regards

Joachim

The feasibility (or sustainability) of any engineering project or problem solution is to be based on as wide a spectrum of parameters and constrictions on the multi-objective optimization, taking into account the feasable life-time and the future time going to bear the influence of that project or problem even after the life-time, if possible. Any discussion based on personal or regional specific conditions will be futile. The official specifications set should provide also the appropriate flexibility to cover specific conditions for the expert engineers and architects.

I agree with Abdurrahman that this is a very difficult discussion. Opposite conclusions can easily be reached because the subject is very sensitive to the underlying assumptions. I have published a method that might help identify the balance between energy savings and energy production. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148111004022

But determining the inputs for the calculations in the method is always a hazzle... 

Steffen - I found your cited paper most interesting and definitely a practical approach for many European countries where the economical boundary conditions (and energy prices) have a more or less meaningful correlation to construction and equipment material cost. If we would apply these functions here in the US, we will hit a wall much faster. The real challenge also becomes to estimate the future impact of environmental recovery cost that could hit us in the next 50 years or maybe sooner depending on what resources are used to as primary energy. Assuming that you produce your energy from renewable sources makes your model very applicable - unfortunately we are (still) far from that though we see incidental efforts in the right direction.  

The controversial discussion is based amongst others on the behaviour of  insulation material when it is used more extensively than in the years before. The advantage of saving more energy following national energy saving regulations espcially in Germany fosters the use of polymeric foam. This seems to increase the fire load of buildings. Using polymer foams with enlarged thickness may change the conditions for ingnition.

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o34slPoa-8

There are research works going on, publications, specifications and standards. Fire behaviour of fibrous mineral wool and foamed polymers ("glass wool"," stone wool", polystyren, polyurethane, etc.) are being progressively improved. The long-term cost-benefit optimization and sustainability should also be taken into consideration in making a decision between mineral and polymer based materials.

Can you specify these research groups? What are the improvements?

Best regards

Michael