zlacker

>>hrl+(OP)
This should be an economics piece, not an environmental piece. The author states that "one of iron’s unalterable properties is that it rusts" yet further on acknowledges the existence of stainless steel.

There's nothing wrong with reinforced concrete, but the incentives to produce long lasting buildings are not there. The cheapest bidder will generally win and their building will last the "design life" of the building, but often not much more. The simplest way to change this is to extend the design life, which would result in stainless steels or another more expensive material being used in this application.

>>brutus+J5
There's also basalt fiber reinforced concrete. Stronger than rebar and doesn't rust.

>>kortex+Nj
But steel's more ductile, so basalt-reinforcement failures are less gradual, providing less margin of safety or ability to patch repair (all things being equal). It's more similar to glass reinforcement (both available in bars, mats, and fibers), which is seeing increased use, but better than glass.

>>readfl+Sq
Good point. I've heard similar complaints about engineered wood (glulam and friends) for structures vs regular lumber. In fires, solid lumber fails gradually and makes lots of noises before it does, whereas engineered wood just goes BANG and fails at some point.

I don't think this stops these new products from being used, it's just another engineering tradeoff.