> the wooden beams in a building are usually just 20% of the original wood taken from source. The remaining 80% is lost as production waste in the form of sawdust, scraps, discarded parts, and so on.
Kinda mind-boggling how this has been parodied since forever [0], yet is still true. And we're not even talking about the Soviet-style production organization where frugality was never paid more than lip service: you'd think that in a competitive environment there'd be enough pressure to save up on the input resources wasted.
You can't just say "80% is wasted" when it's just wood that is used for other purposes than timber. Until we can convince Mother Nature to grow trees which are perfectly straight and preferably already square, the process of converting a cylindrical log to a square beam will inherently have some cutoffs.
The linked article in turn links to a research paper at https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf, and while that paper does support that only ~20% of a tree gets sawn into long pieces of (construction) lumber, it absolutely does not support that the remaining 80% is waste. For example, ~37+9= 46% goes to the production of chip and particle boards, a decent amount becomes firewood, the paper industry takes some "waste" wood as input for cellulose production, sawdust has a variety of purposes and even the leaves and stumps can simply be composted.
It's mind-blowing because it is bullshit and a total misrepresentation of the paper it cites. What the paper says is that less than 20% of the volume of the tree (including the branches and the leaves and the stump) becomes dimensional lumber, 40% becomes chipboard, 7% is firewood, 2.3% is sawdust, and the remainder is burned.
Any time you find yourself surprised by a claim, that's your signal to dig into the sources.
sidewndr46 · 17m ago
I'm surprised they didn't count the root system as well, those are usually gargantuan for the trees I see raised for lumber.
Going by volume is also remarkably useless because if a tree produces some large non-dense structure like a leaf it skews the numbers. The issue with industrial forestry isn't waste, but monocropping and habitat destruction.
y0eswddl · 23m ago
69.3% still leaves 30% of tree being burned after cut down... An insane amount imo
lallysingh · 1h ago
I wonder if advancing robotic tech can help in the disassembly/reassembly process. Stuff that isn't cost effective right now (e.g. removing drywall sheets for reuse) could be replaced with things that are cost effective when it's cheap robot labor doing it.
nradov · 1h ago
Those drywall sheets generally won't be in good enough condition to reuse. Insurance concerns over possible mold infection make this a non-starter.
quickthrowman · 1h ago
Removing drywall sheets for reuse is basically impossible. There’s a couple dozen screws holding each piece of drywall in place and they’re not easily removable without damaging the drywall.
In general, salvaging material from construction demolition isn’t worth the time, with some exceptions like copper. The metal and concrete will be recycled, everything else is garbage.
jeffbee · 2h ago
I am extremely wary of these circular economy memes because even though I find them appealing and reasonable in isolation, the only time I have ever seen the claims in the wild is when local NIMBYs are using them as a way to prevent development by trying to force the developer into an uneconomical means of demolishing the building they want to replace.
potato3732842 · 1h ago
The vibe this stuff gives off to me is the "environmentally friendly" materials racket wherein some jerks lobby for some public/private rule/requirement change that's favorable to some product on the basis of the environment and that product is only marginally better for the environment (usually because it takes a recycled thing as one of its inputs) while being substantially more expensive/less performant per dollar. But the people pushing for the change don't care because are or are paid by the people who make the new thing that wouldn't have seen serious adoption without the change favorable to it.
No comments yet
jfitgktkgkgktkt · 1h ago
Good tent can last 20 years! We just need to abolish the police and demolishions!
There is no "homelessness" crisis, most people already have homes!!! We just need rich to stop vandalising poor peoples homes!
nemomarx · 1h ago
I've seen plenty of people sleeping rough without tents on the street. Not everyone can afford a tent - some sleep alone, some drag a mattress or sleeping bag around and try to find spots to use.
anovikov · 59m ago
People have been doing construction for millennia. It's the world's biggest industry by economic impact and employment. If there were dramatic improvements possible there, they'd be done a long time ago.
The best real-world, not made-up example of "circular economy" is the Japanese women who work as prostitutes in order to make money to spend on their handsome bar-provided boyfriends. Lmao.
y0eswddl · 21m ago
I'm not so sure I agree with your insinuation that in our society we always do everything possible to optimize everything we do...
dinkblam · 2h ago
or build to last. there are still roman buildings around after 2000 years, but a new house is designed to last only a few decades...
mailund · 2h ago
Not to say there's nothing wrong with modern construction, but keep in mind that most roman buildings also only lasted a few decades. You only see that ones that didn't disappear.
Also, do we really want to build houses that are meant to last 2000 years? It seems expensive and very impractical when you want to tear it down to build something new.
infecto · 1h ago
I don’t know if that is the right approach. While I am sure fashions changed in Ancient Rome, I am not sure how fast the pace of innovation was. Within a hundred years modern building techniques have changed massively. I know certain Europeans always love to tout their stone homes but for lots of the world it’s not very practical or cost effective.
bluGill · 1h ago
Those Roman buildings are not what you want to live in. Just adding electric lights which you want is going to be a major effort and likely ruin a lot of what made it a nice building in the day. Not to mention you want indoor plumbing (without the lead pipes). Modern insulation so you can have modern HVAC...
em3rgent0rdr · 1h ago
Or at least have buildings be easily reconfigurable.
Kinda mind-boggling how this has been parodied since forever [0], yet is still true. And we're not even talking about the Soviet-style production organization where frugality was never paid more than lip service: you'd think that in a competitive environment there'd be enough pressure to save up on the input resources wasted.
[0] https://youtu.be/YUQ-v62VqgM?t=188
The linked article in turn links to a research paper at https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf, and while that paper does support that only ~20% of a tree gets sawn into long pieces of (construction) lumber, it absolutely does not support that the remaining 80% is waste. For example, ~37+9= 46% goes to the production of chip and particle boards, a decent amount becomes firewood, the paper industry takes some "waste" wood as input for cellulose production, sawdust has a variety of purposes and even the leaves and stumps can simply be composted.
Any time you find yourself surprised by a claim, that's your signal to dig into the sources.
Going by volume is also remarkably useless because if a tree produces some large non-dense structure like a leaf it skews the numbers. The issue with industrial forestry isn't waste, but monocropping and habitat destruction.
In general, salvaging material from construction demolition isn’t worth the time, with some exceptions like copper. The metal and concrete will be recycled, everything else is garbage.
No comments yet
There is no "homelessness" crisis, most people already have homes!!! We just need rich to stop vandalising poor peoples homes!
The best real-world, not made-up example of "circular economy" is the Japanese women who work as prostitutes in order to make money to spend on their handsome bar-provided boyfriends. Lmao.
Also, do we really want to build houses that are meant to last 2000 years? It seems expensive and very impractical when you want to tear it down to build something new.