Comment on anons brother has some strong opinions

gray@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  It’s a major driver because of how much it is used. It’s the building material, nothing else even really comes close. If we used bricks to the same degree, that would be the major driver.

  There’s often no good alternative to concrete. There’s lots of newer less CO2 intensive cements and cement replacements out there though. Often comes at a cost on something else though.

  source

  • jnod4@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Bricks would be much more efficient co2 wise, they don’t have the curing process that pollutes

    source

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      They also put out a lot of CO2 and you’d have a hell of a lot of issues scaling the brick production to the same level. Not to mention all the othe associated issues that bricks have.

      It’s just a poor replacement for concrete at the same scale. But that’s not to knock bricks specifically, since nothing really is a good replacement at that scale.

      Best we could do is to not build as much or in such a big scale, but that has issues too.

      source

      • jnod4@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        You can bake bricks using clean energy but the chemical process for creating cement itself creates co2… Y’all down voting and never held a brick in yer lives

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Don’t you have to fire bricks in a kiln? Surely that puts off some CO2?

      source

      • jnod4@lemmy.ca ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        You just cook them up electrically, I haven’t seen a charcoal kiln in ages

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I wonder how the co2 from drying/making bricks compares

      source
• Saleh@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  bricks made by burning clay aren’t that much better. Especially considering that you need more bricks for columns and other load bearing structures.

  source

  • TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    And the alternative would be building with wood which I believe would be even worse

    source

    • Saleh@feddit.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Depends on what you want to do. Wood buildings have more limits in terms of height and structural load. But wood usually means much lower emissions and easier recycling of the building. Of course fire safety is another issue. In comparision to steel, wood does surprisingly well, as a thick wooden column can be burning on the outside, but maintain its load bearing capability on the inside. steel transmits the heat to its inside quickly and looses its stability faster.

      source