4 ms·
Has someone done the math comparing these structures to all-concrete structures in terms of CO2/energy usage? I'm sure concrete lasts longer, but if a mostly wo
by deegles 8y ago
Has someone done the math comparing these structures to all-concrete structures in terms of CO2/energy usage? I'm sure concrete lasts longer, but if a mostly wood structure lasts half as long but creates less than 50% of the emissions then it should come out ahead?
- max76 8y agoThis is really hard to accurately predict. The average wood structure with concrete foundation lasts 120 years. We have a good understanding of how much CO2 is costs to build an all-concrete structure today, and we have a good understanding of how much CO2 it costs to build a conventional building today. How much CO2 will it cost to build the replacement building in ~100 years from now? What will the energy requirements of a conventional building built 100 years from now be compared to the energy requirements of our options today? Think about how much different a structure built in 1918 is compared to one build today.
- Someone 8y agoIt could even come out a win at “last’s half as long” and “costs 60% of”, if a portion of the concrete buildings get abandoned or demolished before their life expectancy is up because of changed requirements. Extreme example: many Olympic Games venues don’t need a life expectancy of decades.
- jgamman 8y agoanother thing to consider is that approx. half the emissions associated with a building come from heating and cooling during its lifetime. saving 10% in carbon for the construction and then skimping on say, double glazing and passive solar means you lose out over the long term.