> 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.
jeffbee · 47m ago
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.
lallysingh · 20m 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 · 13m 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.
jfitgktkgkgktkt · 29m 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 · 23m 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.
jeffbee · 45m 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 · 36m 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
dinkblam · 1h 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 · 46m 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 · 32m 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.
em3rgent0rdr · 30m 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.
There is no "homelessness" crisis, most people already have homes!!! We just need rich to stop vandalising poor peoples homes!
No comments yet
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.