zlacker

[return to "The problem with reinforced concrete (2016)"]
1. throwa+Qa[view] [source] 2021-05-25 22:33:49
>>hrl+(OP)
An interesting read, albeit with information that is likely familiar to many. Given the issues surrounding concrete with greenhouse gases, recycling, and landfill contribution, it seems that timber (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/wood-...) may actually be a more viable alternative. We have techniques to grow it sustainably, it can be a carbon sink within a city, and it is mostly natural wood so it can decompose.

As an economics exercise, it may also be interesting to price in the cost of dismantling/disposing of construction materials into the initial construction cost. I wonder if doing so will steer materials development away from composites that are difficult to recycle towards something new.

◧◩
2. rektid+8f[view] [source] 2021-05-25 22:59:57
>>throwa+Qa
This is the only post I found mentioning recycling, and I think that's a key factor in this all. My generation is going to be the first saddled with a lot of old buildings we have to deal with. We are going to have to get good at recycling buildings.

My understanding that the economics have already really pushed us massively forwards in the past decade or two, that we are far more aggressive about recycling construction aggregate[1].

The article has a nod midway through to these concerns,

> The many alternative materials for concrete reinforcement – such as stainless steel, aluminium bronze and fibre-polymer composites – are not yet widely used. The affordability of plain steel reinforcement is attractive to developers. But many planners and developers fail to consider the extended costs of maintenance, repair or replacement.

This definitely seems like a huge societal blind-side to me. As much as it's an issue of planners and developers, I feel like there's a consumer lack of understanding. The invisible hand can't push effectively here, can't reward the builders doing it right adequately. In part because society is not aware, doesn't know what to ask for, doesn't have standards, doesn't view & comprehend the role of maintenance & ultimately recycling. These are far off things.

As my generation starts to see the limits of sustainability, see where so very many many creations begin to become risks & hazards & losses rather than values, we may develop some sense, but switching over into a fear-based emotional reaction isn't necessarily a great fix. Trying to give us all a picture of the life-cycle, the costs, the trade-offs; that seems like the necessary task. Regulating our ability to see & ascertain.

Hopefully we just get better & better about recycling. It'd be so interesting to see how reinforcements are extracted from construction aggregate today. Stainless steel reinforcement isn't expensive... if you can safely view it not as a sunk construction cost, but as a semi-long term loan for a building. Where-as more advanced materials like fiber-polymer, I tend to imagine, may have wonderful characteristics in use, I also tend to imagine them as likely having less recoverability. Steel: material we know how to re-cast.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_recycling

[go to top]