The circular economy could make demolition a thing of the past
19 points
11 hours ago
| 5 comments
| theconversation.com
| HN
Joker_vD
10 hours ago
[-]
> 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.

[0] https://youtu.be/YUQ-v62VqgM?t=188

reply
WJW
10 hours ago
[-]
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.

reply
tomrod
9 hours ago
[-]
To my understanding, Japan has already done that. https://www.openculture.com/2020/10/daisugi.html
reply
WJW
7 hours ago
[-]
According to the comments that is just a variation of coppicing, which is several millennia old and practiced around the world. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppicing which also mentions the Japanese variant)

While coppicing does results in fairly straight trees, they're still circular and will result in large amounts of waste if you try to cut dimensional lumber out of it.

reply
jeffbee
10 hours 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.

reply
dghlsakjg
6 hours ago
[-]
The log that makes it to the mill is what those stats are about. Not the tree as a whole.

I live in BC and a huge portion of the tree is left in the forest. All of the branches, smaller trees, tops and other bits not worth transporting are burned in slash piles or left in the forest to decompose. There is typically at least a foot thick layer of wood debris left in the cut block after the logging companies come through.

Some forestry companies near me allow firewood processors to come through and grab the leftovers out of the clear cuts, but it is pretty close to a rounding error.

reply
jeffbee
5 hours ago
[-]
The paper that underlies this claim is not starting from the log, it is starting from the whole tree.
reply
sidewndr46
8 hours 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.

reply
y0eswddl
8 hours ago
[-]
69.3% still leaves 30% of tree being burned after cut down... An insane amount imo
reply
jeffbee
5 hours ago
[-]
You're never gonna believe how much of the overall volume of, say, a tomato plant, gets "wasted" by this standard.
reply
lallysingh
9 hours 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.
reply
nradov
9 hours 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.
reply
quickthrowman
9 hours 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.

reply
MisterTea
4 hours ago
[-]
If you have seen the film Brazil you will remember the scene where Harry Tuttle, a rogue heating engineer, removes a modular wall panel to service the equipment behind it. Now I know most homes have no need for such modularity and most people value aesthetics over practicality and prefer the seamless look, but I would totally want that in my home. Would make adding or moving wiring, fixtures and plumbing a breeze.
reply
SpicyUme
2 hours ago
[-]
I've daydreamed about building a house with one, maybe two, channel areas midway up every wall for easy access to wiring and such. Possibly pipes as well, but that might not be needed. I've lived in places with wainscotting, incorporating the covers into that would work for me. Seamless walls don't always stay seamless anyway, but maybe I'm just over my plaster walls and the little cracks that form.
reply
quickthrowman
16 minutes ago
[-]
There are lots of similar wall systems for commercial applications, google ‘wall system’ for some examples. It is super useful when you add something that is recessed in the wall later on.

Gypsum wallboard aka drywall is used because it’s cheap, light, it’s easy to install, and easy and cheap to finish.

For wiring at least, the wall itself isn’t the enemy, that’s easily navigable with a drill bit and fish tape, it’s the dang ceilings that complicate things. ACT grid ceilings make adding receptacles or switches into a finished wall pretty easy, you just drill into the wall, cut an opening, and use a fish tape to pull in your wire or cable.

reply
jeffbee
10 hours 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.
reply
potato3732842
9 hours 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.
reply
anovikov
8 hours 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.

reply
y0eswddl
8 hours 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...
reply
dinkblam
10 hours 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...
reply
mailund
10 hours 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.

reply
infecto
9 hours 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.
reply
bluGill
9 hours 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...
reply
em3rgent0rdr
9 hours ago
[-]
Or at least have buildings be easily reconfigurable.
reply