4 ms·
>And it is a horrific pollutant. The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0] B
by xxs 3y ago
>And it is a horrific pollutant.
The CO2 produced for the manufacture of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (<200kg/tonne)[0]
Bricks are around 0.5kg CO2 per kg produced (500kg/tonne). Bricks have bit lower (but similar) density than concrete, say 2000kg/m3. That makes them a lot more pollutant than concrete. Brick require a lot higher labour and transport costs as well.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...
- strken 3y agoFor fired bricks, yes; I believe unfired mudbrick embodies about half the CO2 of concrete, although it hasn't got the strength of fired bricks. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_Energy_and_CO2_Analyses_of_Mud-brick_and_Cement-block_Houses https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285041812_Embodied_...
- birracerveza 3y agoMaybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls, and it's also a very efficient cleaning method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon
- Kbelicius 3y ago> Maybe this is why some cultures periodically set their homes on fire. Strengthens the walls Well, the wikipedia link that you provided says that there is no evidence for that claim since the houses were destroyed in the burning. Two possible explanations on wikipedia for why it was done are recycling of building material and symbolic end of houses.
- xxs 3y agothe remark was about "architects were blindingly obsessed", concrete is a 'better alternative'
- CalRobert 3y agoWhich is a good reason to use wood.