The great attic insulation debate: blown-in vs. batts

I was staring at my energy bills last winter and knew I had to do something about my attic. The choice came down to paying a crew to blow in cellulose for about $1,200 or buying fiberglass batts and doing it myself for maybe $400. I went the DIY route with the batts to save cash. It took me two full weekends, and I'm still finding itchy fibers in my laundry. Honestly, I'm not sure it made a huge difference in the house temperature. For anyone else in Amarillo who's tackled this, did you notice a real change with batts, or should I have just paid for the blown-in stuff?

3 comments

3 Comments

jamieb802mo ago

You missed the biggest problem with batts in an old Amarillo house. They don't seal the top plates or wire holes, so air just whistles right past them. Blown-in stuff fills every crack and actually stops the draft. Your batts are just a blanket over a screen door.

susansingh2mo ago

Sure, but batts let you actually see what you're working with. Blown-in stuff hides problems like old wiring or rot until it's too late.

the_thomas2mo ago

My uncle in Canyon tried the batt method about ten years ago. He said the same thing, that his house still felt drafty. Turns out he had a whole family of squirrels living up there that had chewed a gap the size of a dinner plate into the eaves. The batts just covered the hole, but didn't stop the wind or the squirrels. He ended up having to fix the damage and then get it blown in anyway. Sometimes the cheaper fix just shows you the real problem you didn't want to pay for.