That makes sense. 70% less material is a staggering amount, that would probably offset if it ran on literal coal and steam
Comment on 3D printing a house
SorteKanin@feddit.dk 15 hours ago Not sure about speed but I imagine it could be pretty speedy, if for no other reason than the fact that it can run with much fewer workers and probably also running during the night. I mean even if it was half as slow as manual labour, if it ran for 24 hours, it would still be faster overall.
But another point is that it uses much less material, 70% less according to the article. I suppose that helps with costs and CO2 emissions.
the_fuckler@nord.pub 15 hours ago
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
If you’re switching to concrete, emissions will be worse than pretty much anything else you could use. Concrete is already responsible for some 8-12% of all global CO2 emissions.
What do you mean switching? Think this is more about using less concrete than stopping to use it entirely. That also helps, but yea it’s a problem.
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Most houses around these parts are made of wood, not concrete.
In Denmark it’s usually bricks or other stone like materials or concrete. Never understood why there is this difference across the world in how houses are usually built, but wood seems a very… Temporary material for something like a house? I’ve lived in buildings from the 1910s, I can’t imagine anything made of wood lasting that long.
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 hours ago
US defaultism
A lot of the rest of the world build with brick and mortar.