Blatantly political rant

[Greg Anos]

Here's another of those suburb lovin' alt-energy threads. (and this one's in Texas - a double victory).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25723033/

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Put simply (because it's late, and I've gotta pack for a conference), the wood, structural metals, cement, copper wiring, piping, glass, roof shingles, all of that can be recycled into new building material. Then you use that in combination with material from other houses to build more efficiently laid-out, environmentally-harmonic housing, and hold many more people in such a structure than 1 family per 2000 sq ft.

G'night, Gracie.

Imagine the labor necessary to deconstruct the house in a manner that could be recycled, then the energy necessary to reform the parts not easily recycled, (like the wall board and shingles - they have to be reformed in order to make reuseable product), and then the additional labor to build the new high-density low sq. footage housing. (And if you want a high-rise building, you can't use most of the materials, anyway, as lumber can't support more that 3-4 stories at most.) And playing with bare housing insulation, rebuilding you power grid, your water grid, your sewer grid....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Imagine the labor necessary...

Yes, there can be additional labor involved. On the other hand, the labor and real (IOW environmental as well as economic) expense of milling or mining new materials and shipping them to your site can often equal or surpass the costs of recycling locally. And you have the added benefit of NOT milling or mining new materials.

Now, imagine the real cost of just letting those homes, and all that useful material, just rot away, forcing you to rebuild from new materials... you've just doubled (at least) the cost of building a home, because you did not recycle the old material, essentially throwing it away.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, there can be additional labor involved. On the other hand, the labor and real (IOW environmental as well as economic) expense of milling or mining new materials and shipping them to your site can often equal or surpass the costs of recycling locally. And you have the added benefit of NOT milling or mining new materials.

Now, imagine the real cost of just letting those homes, and all that useful material, just rot away, forcing you to rebuild from new materials... you've just doubled (at least) the cost of building a home, because you did not recycle the old material, essentially throwing it away.

If you research the actual costs, I suspect you'll find it's faster, simpler, and cheaper to just demolish the existing property and build new housing on the land. If what you suggest were as attractive as you believe, it would be done now, and for the most part, it isn't.

Lots of the stuff you advocate recycling are either renewable resources (lumber), or sufficiently plentiful that the concern in recycling isn't scarcity of the material, it's reducing the amount that becomes refuse that must be stored somewhere (glass).

I assure you, the homes won't be allowed to just rot away. The underlying land is likely to be too valuable to be left to lie fallow that long.

You can look at recycling the material you've demolished, but reusing it to build new housing is unlikely. The process of dismantling the existing dwelling will render much of it unusable directly, unless you exercise enough care in dismantling to significantly increase the time required and the costs of doing it.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, there can be additional labor involved. On the other hand, the labor and real (IOW environmental as well as economic) expense of milling or mining new materials and shipping them to your site can often equal or surpass the costs of recycling locally. And you have the added benefit of NOT milling or mining new materials.

Now, imagine the real cost of just letting those homes, and all that useful material, just rot away, forcing you to rebuild from new materials... you've just doubled (at least) the cost of building a home, because you did not recycle the old material, essentially throwing it away.

And, wouldn't the influx of new jobs be a boon to the economy?? At least here in the US where the economy is rather sucky??

I must say that the eco-friendly house that is being built down the road from me looks rather interesting. It looks like it's being built out of recycled metal and styrofoam .... I mean that seriously.

It will be interesting to compare heating and cooling bills with them when they finish and move in.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, there can be additional labor involved. On the other hand, the labor and real (IOW environmental as well as economic) expense of milling or mining new materials and shipping them to your site can often equal or surpass the costs of recycling locally. And you have the added benefit of NOT milling or mining new materials.

Now, imagine the real cost of just letting those homes, and all that useful material, just rot away, forcing you to rebuild from new materials... you've just doubled (at least) the cost of building a home, because you did not recycle the old material, essentially throwing it away.

Umm...Steve - I want to let people live in them, as is. The expenses are already sunk. Somehow, that seem to put me in the category of an ecological AntiChrist...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, wouldn't the influx of new jobs be a boon to the economy?? At least here in the US where the economy is rather sucky??

I must say that the eco-friendly house that is being built down the road from me looks rather interesting. It looks like it's being built out of recycled metal and styrofoam .... I mean that seriously.

It will be interesting to compare heating and cooling bills with them when they finish and move in.

From the list of materials, I do worry about their fire safety. Styrofoam is nasty in a fire....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, wouldn't the influx of new jobs be a boon to the economy?? At least here in the US where the economy is rather sucky??

Depends. Will the new jobs created go the the locals who need jobs? That will depends upon the skill sets required, and whether the local jobless possess them.

I must say that the eco-friendly house that is being built down the road from me looks rather interesting. It looks like it's being built out of recycled metal and styrofoam .... I mean that seriously.

It's quite possible.

It will be interesting to compare heating and cooling bills with them when they finish and move in.

They might do very well. The biggest factors are siting and insulation. A lot of attention got devoted to "passive" designs for structures, designed to retain heat (and cold) rather than wasting it. Passive design principles were ignored for years when energy costs were low because they had higher up front costs, but they are being taken more seriously mow.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Depends. Will the new jobs created go the the locals who need jobs? That will depends upon the skill sets required, and whether the local jobless possess them.
Dennis

Or whether people are willing to be retrained. Me ... I seem to retrain and switch careers about every 15 to 20 years.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Or whether people are willing to be retrained. Me ... I seem to retrain and switch careers about every 15 to 20 years.

Or whether they can be, and whether it helps if they are.

When you decided to become a lawyer, how long did you train?

It's not quite so bad in things like construction, but most jobs in the field, like carpentry, plumbing, masonry and electrical work are skilled trades that require fairly extensive training which may take too much time. If there's a big push to recycle big houses into affordable smaller ones, chances are good the labor to do it will be largely imported, and it may be done by the time the locals are trained to do it themselves.

And construction is a cyclical business, dependent upon the economy, and most construction workers spend fairly long periods on the bench waiting for jobs to become available.

There's an economist in Germany (whose name I don't recall at the moment) getting attention. He's been studying the changes wrought by globalization, off shoring, and changes in technology that have made some positions obsolete, with corresponding unemployment. He's come to the conclusion that many of the displaced workers simply won't get new jobs, and is exploring what can be done about them.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Umm...Steve - I want to let people live in them, as is. The expenses are already sunk. Somehow, that seem to put me in the category of an ecological AntiChrist...

Hey, I was asked what you do with an abandoned home. Supposedly, if it was still in usable shape, it wouldn't be abandoned...

Assuming, then, that the house as-is is not usable, recycling its materials into a new dwelling makes sense. And as I said, it might cost more to tear it apart, but as others have pointed out, it is a source of jobs. And I maintain that repurposing used materials is still better than mining and milling new materials.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Hey, I was asked what you do with an abandoned home. Supposedly, if it was still in usable shape, it wouldn't be abandoned...

Assuming, then, that the house as-is is not usable, recycling its materials into a new dwelling makes sense. And as I said, it might cost more to tear it apart, but as others have pointed out, it is a source of jobs. And I maintain that repurposing used materials is still better than mining and milling new materials.

Not only that, but I have a number of friends in architectural salvage. People pay big bucks for parts of old houses .... doors, floor boards, windows, ... even old barn wood goes for a premium these days. Granted, it's more the case with turn of the century stuff (rather than a lot of the crapola that was built in the 50s and 60s), but ... if an old door can be recycled as a "vintage" door, and some idiot in my town is willing to pay $3000 dollars for it ... well then ... why not??

The value of much of the material could be several times the value of the house ... even if it was taken apart bit by bit. And, as to some of it ... how hard can it be to take down a door?? Even if it's not the greatest looking door .... I have friends who will repurpose it as a headboard or a coffee table and charge a freaking mint for it. (A little joint compound here ... some paint and stain there ... and bingo ... fine art!!)

You know ... maybe 35 years ago, they were demolishing this old hotel in downtown Los Angeles. They had people lining up to purchase parts from it. I got a lot of furniture (for about 1 cent on the dollar), and people were grabbing bricks right left and sideways. There is a big market for used bricks ... has been for a long time.

If you want to see a building taken down fast ... just tell a bunch of decorators that they can take whatever they can carry ... one cent on the dollar of wholesale value. Building will go *poof-vanished* and all will be recycled into the homes of professional football and baseball players.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Not only that, but I have a number of friends in architectural salvage. People pay big bucks for parts of old houses .... doors, floor boards, windows, ... even old barn wood goes for a premium these days. Granted, it's more the case with turn of the century stuff (rather than a lot of the crapola that was built in the 50s and 60s), but ... if an old door can be recycled as a "vintage" door, and some idiot in my town is willing to pay $3000 dollars for it ... well then ... why not??

The value of much of the material could be several times the value of the house ... even if it was taken apart bit by bit. And, as to some of it ... how hard can it be to take down a door?? Even if it's not the greatest looking door .... I have friends who will repurpose it as a headboard or a coffee table and charge a freaking mint for it. (A little joint compound here ... some paint and stain there ... and bingo ... fine art!!)

Yep. You can certainly recycle a lot of parts of older houses that were decent in the first place.

The question is whether you can economically recycle them into new housing on the same site. My gut feeling is "No, you can't". In technical terms, housing construction is (or should be) "flexible mass production". You do it affordably by using a standard design that can be customized in detail, using standard parts that can be made and bought in quantity.

If you are trying to recycle existing material from existing housing into new dwellings on the same ground, forget standard parts. Each new dwelling, of necessity, becomes an example of "unique product production", requiring a custom design to make use of the available parts. It's a lot more expensive to do it that way.
______
Dennis

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yep. You can certainly recycle a lot of parts of older houses that were decent in the first place.

The question is whether you can economically recycle them into new housing on the same site. My gut feeling is "No, you can't". In technical terms, housing construction is (or should be) "flexible mass production". You do it affordably by using a standard design that can be customized in detail, using standard parts that can be made and bought in quantity.

If you are trying to recycle existing material from existing housing into new dwellings on the same ground, forget standard parts. Each new dwelling, of necessity, becomes an example of "unique product production", requiring a custom design to make use of the available parts. It's a lot more expensive to do it that way.
______
Dennis

Granted ... but there's still a viable market for it ... and it should count as recycling. And, why should it be site specific?? I understand that there is a cost to move materials ... but I would think there could be some differentiation between materials that could be sold at a premium, and those that would be less valuable and still amenable to reuse.

But ... honestly, just from an aesthetic viewpoint, I hate the idea of homes being too much the same. It just makes me think of Daley City .. and the houses made of ticky tacky. If that's where we have to go in order to make recycling work ... then .... I'll pass.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Granted ... but there's still a viable market for it ... and it should count as recycling. And, why should it be site specific?? I understand that there is a cost to move materials ... but I would think there could be some differentiation between materials that could be sold at a premium, and those that would be less valuable and still amenable to reuse.

I'm all in favor of recycling the materials. As mentioned, I just don't think it's economical to reuse the material in the new housing you are constructing.

But ... honestly, just from an aesthetic viewpoint, I hate the idea of homes being too much the same. It just makes me think of Daley City .. and the houses made of ticky tacky. If that's where we have to go in order to make recycling work ... then .... I'll pass.

They don't have to look too much the same, but if the goal is keeping costs down, there will be an incentive to standardize where possible.

The question is who will live in the new housing, and what they can afford to pay. If you can afford it, by all means, build something unlike anything else in the neighborhood. Most folks can't afford it, and will happily settle for a house of their own that they can afford, even if it does look just like the neighbor's.
______
Dennis