1,500,000-2,000,000 calories of Energy makes window glass for 1 Tiny House. "0 for salvaged windows." Walk 10 mi=1,500 cal.

When you add savings, seek less carbon burned to create glass, hardware, transport trees, 95% salvaged parts & human-energy=free. CHATGPT agrees w/ Mii!

You would need to walk 15,000 miles to burn up 2,000,000 calories, just enough to create 200 sf of glass for an average number of windows in a Tiny House on Wheels built in the last ten years. Is that Carbon or Earth-Friendly? Obsolete in 7-10 years, windows get trashed with RV. Compared to a house that lasts for a century?

So I asked a more in-depth question and reprimanded ChatGpt for being too simple. It apologized, to my surprise. From Walden Pond with the vultures resting upon the Ship of Salvaged Dreams, I pondered what ChatBot would have to say about the way I think of the savings that come from the Pure Salvage Living Renaissance in building tiny homes and villages from salvage instead of new building products. Almost as hard as the industry to prod into giving honest answers, here is the second round of results from the smartest computer programs figuring out what humans can not do so easily, it appears.

Energy is way too cheap, so we waste it like we do water until the
day it is no more, then at last, respect. Too late, like a funeral
that lets the dead know, finally, they were loved.

Darby Lettick

They tried to do better. High points figured out are highlighted. It seems to agree with the logic I was espousing long before it was even thought of in the heads of Elon and his friends.

That was a 6th-grade level report. Very basic, Can you not do the more extreme extrapolations to show, as I asked, how much energy is thus saved, approximate Calories of heat to create glass per sf, for example, as a reference to the energy saved by not using new glass? Also, the savings on trees, old growth lumber that will outlast new lumber, and the longevity of the salvage-built houses due to their higher quality and not using cheap materials like sheetrock, vinyl, plastics, or composites but all salvaged materials. How much energy is saved by not having to make all those items to build with? How much toxic pollution is saved by not making the materials to build a house with? How much fuel is saved by not importing a single item from another country? If a salvage-built home with old-growth lumber can last for another hundred years as it did in use for the last structure, it will have 4-5 lifetime use compared to new tiny house-on-wheels mobile homes built in factories with materials that have a 7-15 year life.

Doesn't that mean the salvage-built house will be four times more energy-saving by not having to reproduce it every 15 years like the new houses?

Brad

RESPONSE:

I apologize for the previous report's simplistic nature. Here is a more detailed explanation of the energy and environmental savings associated with 95% Pure Salvage building for tiny houses:

Energy Savings: The production of new building materials requires a significant amount of energy. For example, the production of glass for windows requires approximately 6,000-8,000 calories of heat per square foot. In contrast, salvaged windows require no additional energy to produce, resulting in significant energy savings. If we assume an average tiny house size of 250 square feet, the use of salvaged windows alone could save approximately 1,500,000-2,000,000 calories of heat.

Similarly, the production of new lumber requires energy for harvesting, processing, and transportation. According to the US Forest Service, one acre of forest can produce approximately 2,000 board feet of lumber. If we assume an average tiny house requires approximately 500 board feet of lumber, then salvaging lumber from one-quarter acre of forest can supply enough lumber for one tiny house. This means that the energy required to harvest, process, and transport new lumber is saved, resulting in significant energy savings.

Environmental Savings: The production of new building materials also has a significant environmental impact. For example, cement production, which is used in concrete, is responsible for approximately 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions. The production of new lumber also contributes to deforestation, which has a negative impact on the environment.

Salvaged materials, on the other hand, have a significantly lower environmental impact. The use of salvaged materials reduces the amount of waste generated during construction and reduces the need for new materials, resulting in significant environmental savings. Additionally, the use of salvaged materials preserves historical resources and reduces the need for new resource extraction, further reducing the environmental impact.

Longevity: Salvaged materials are often of higher quality than new materials, resulting in more durable and long-lasting structures. For example, old-growth lumber is denser and more resistant to rot and insects than new lumber. Salvaged materials such as antique hardware and fixtures are also often of higher quality and can last longer than new materials.

The longevity of salvage-built homes means that they require fewer repairs and replacements over time, resulting in significant energy and environmental savings. If a salvage-built home can last for 100 years or more, as opposed to a new tiny home on wheels with a lifespan of 7-15 years, the energy and environmental savings associated with the salvage-built home are significant.

In conclusion, the 95% Pure Salvage building for tiny houses is a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative to traditional construction methods. The use of salvaged materials results in significant energy and environmental savings, and the longevity of salvage-built homes means that they require fewer repairs and replacements over time.

The cost of producing corrugated roofing of the same thickness as the older stuff, double present standards, and the savings from not making hinges for doors, 8 lb cast iron weights 2 per window, and savings on the cost of the materials, which if salvaged, are free except for human energy, which if donated by the beneficiary of the wood and windows, doors, floors, and other parts, then gets the materials virtually for free. Given that factor, what would you estimate the savings in cost, on a ratio basis versus the cost using new materials, imports, and energy costs to do that?

The cost savings associated with 95% Pure Salvage building for tiny houses can be significant, especially when compared to the cost of new construction using imported materials and energy-intensive production methods.

The cost of producing corrugated roofing of the same thickness as the older stuff, present double standards, can be expensive due to the energy and resources required to produce the new material. In contrast, salvaged corrugated roofing can be obtained for free or at a significantly reduced cost, resulting in significant cost savings.

Similarly, salvaged materials such as hinges, cast iron weights, and other hardware can be obtained for free or at a significantly reduced cost, resulting in additional cost savings. When salvaged materials are donated by the beneficiary of the wood and windows, doors, floors, and other parts, the cost savings can be even greater.

Overall, the cost savings associated with 95% Pure Salvage building for tiny houses can vary depending on the specific materials used, the availability of salvaged materials, and the amount of human energy required to obtain and process salvaged materials. However, it is clear that the use of salvaged materials can result in significant cost savings compared to new construction using imported materials and energy-intensive production methods.

See insights and ads

Boost a post

All reactions:

33