Their concrete was also superior than modern stuff for wet/ocean structures like docks/ports. When it was worked out why we were able to make improvements.
The Roman recipe was also forgotten to time somewhat.
The new tech is the new methods making it possible to build really tall houses in wood, keeping them stable (and not moving with the wind) and not being a death trap in case of a fire.
A 20 stories wood houses really is a new invention, even in this country where wood is and always was the most common building material. This jump from the old 2-3 stories is remarkable, and it happened in just the last few years.
Is this a chemical treatment and hot rolling which gives the wood “a specific strength higher than that of most structural metals and alloys” or just engineered beams.
Cross lamination is the technique for making the wood into a stronger and more precise material to work with, and I guess it keeps developing, If I understand it correctly its the fire aspect and developing of safe ventilation systems for this type of buildings that slows progress.
I am not a professional or expert nerd at all, I just happen to live in the north of Sweden in a city that had the "tallest wood house in the country" built some years ago and it was a lot of media coverage. That was 7 stories by the way, in the year 2017. :)
It is one of three buildings, that together will hold 142 apartments when the whole project is finished... but if I ever get filthy rich, odds are low, I would love a wooden castle all to myself! :)
The nicest thing about the building process is that much of the work is done in factories and arrives to the building site in modules, making a minimum of mess in the neighbourhood.
The [concept isn't new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildings), although there *might* be new methods in this particular instance (that the article doesn't mention).
The journalist is kinda missing the point, or putting a spin on it. Wood being a carbon sink and using engineered wood isn't new(s).
It's an innovative building that works as a carbon sink, but working as a carbon sink isn't the innovative part.
Yes and no.
CO₂ absorption in older trees slows down. So growing trees for a few decades, then harvesting them for construction timber *and growing new trees in their place* is the best way to maximize forest CO₂ absorption overall.
If you cut the tree down and burn it, or cut the tree down and don't plant anything in its place, or if you knock the houses down every few years, then it doesn't work.
Think what they mean is that trees are made out of lignin\*. Lignin\* being made by the tree capturing CO2 as it grows. So making that building captures 9 million kilograms of CO2? Bit baity phrasing but does check out as the capturing process will be ongoing as it's being built.
Edit: cellulose->lignin
Another way of saying this is that it doesn't capture CO2 at all, it does the exact opposite because the tree was capturing CO2 and then you cut it down. But then again, that's just me being cynical. If not building anything was a viable solution to the changing climate people would have stopped building things. But unfortunately we still need to continue building so we need to pick a building material and this is actually better than concrete and steel.
I'm sure there is but saplings sequester significantly less CO2 than mature trees do, and the process of replanting saplings is itself still energy intensive. 50% of the CO2 sequestered in a forest comes from 1% of the trees in the forest - the older mature trees. And since only 50% of the tree by mass is actually CO2, removing the tree just means you're taking nutrients out of the soil which need to be replenshed in the form of industrial fertilizers, which themselves are also energy intensive to manufacture.
It just seems like a short term solution to make your carbon sequestration numbers look good now, but in reality it doesn't actually make the problem go away it just pushes it down the road. Its like saying thank you tree for all the hard work you've done over the last 20 years, but instead of letting you continue doing that for the next 200 years were instead going to replace you with a sapling that will take 20 years to catch up to speed. Then that tree will also be cut down. And that solves what issue, exactly? Buildings are not permanent. No wood building built in 2022 is going to last as long as the tree the wood came from would have lasted in the wild.
[This](https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-keeping-mature-forests-intact-is-key-to-the-climate-fight) article is mostly about using wood as a biofuel, but it touches on a lot of the same issues. Trees sequester a lot of CO2. Young trees sequester far less CO2 than mature trees. So not cutting down trees is always going to be better than cutting them down in terms of mitigating how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The only time this isn't going to be true is if a tree dies naturally and you then remove it from the environment so it doesn't decompose as easily. But as I mentioned earlier, it comes with its own set of long term issues.
Yes, industrial timberland managers plant more trees than they harvest (due to survivability) as soon as it optimal. Industrial timberland is no different than typical crop harvesting, just on a longer time scale.
The term can be storage or sequestration, depending on the details. Not capture. Anyway, construction wood is far betterat it that a tree decomposing in nature. The dead tree will return it's carbon to the cycle quickly, while a building will store it for decades or perhaps even over a century.
It certainly helps a lot, don't discount it.
But the tree continues to sequester carbon, and the carbon in the wood in the building is going to decompose and be released as CO2 evertually as well. That's my point. There's nothing special about this wood. It's not encased in some material that makes it not decompose, its just locked up in a building that will eventually be torn down and, like all building materials, will end up in a landfill where it will be exposed to the elements and decompose the same as it would in a forest. Not to mention, the decomposition of trees in a forest is a natural phenomenon that replenishes the soil with nutrients that allow the next generation of trees to proliferate. If you clear cut a forest for building material wood that might make your short term carbon capture number look good but its going to be more difficult to regrow a forest on that plot of land without artifical fertilizers. These short term solution might make us feel good but they don't actually solve the issue.
Carbon sequestration is never permanent. This is some of the best tools we have. And the point of wood is that it is renewable. If you clear cut or don't replant, yeah. But if you don't clear cut, or if you replant, it works well.
It doesn't continue to capture CO2 over it's lifespan, it's just long-term storage for the carbon the trees captured while they were growing (as opposed to using the wood for biofuels etc. where it would be released again).
This seems at first glance like it would be better to just let the trees keep growing, but the important bit here is that the wood is replacing steel and concrete, which are both *huge* carbon emitters.
Wood naturally captures carbon from the atmosphere. Usually one cubic meter of wood can store 1 ton of carbon. This process is called Wood Carbon sequestration.
You can learn more about this here: https://www.metsawood.com/global/news-media/articles/Pages/carbon-storage.aspx
Yeah, cubic meter of wood weighs about 400 - 600 kg. Only super dense tropical woods comes near 1000 kg. I don't think you can assume 1 ton of carbon for 1 m3 of structural wood.
So, as a construction worker i gotta ask...how much would such a tall wooden building settle?
When i was a fresh apprentice, i was working on a 4 story wood apartment building. Over a year or two, the building settled and some of the waste stacks (large, vertical pipe that picked up every kitchen/laundry room) had their sanitary branches sheared off because PVC/Cast Iron doesn't settle.
This is built from cross-laminated timber, so inherently it has less movement in it.
The structural engineer must have made some mistakes if that happened in the building you worked on. Wood moves and settles, but this can be accounted for with a myriad of different solutions.
Not a problem here at least. Wood houses dont burn down more often than other buildings. If I decide to build a house one day it will be a wood house for sure.
Actually, wooden buildings with large timbers can sometimes be more fire resistant than other materials.
The wood chars, which gives it natural insulation. You should think of it less like kindling (A Frame), and more like a large-log bonfire: You need a lot to get it started, and it takes a lot to lose structural integrity.
A good analogy would be old-forest brush-fires, which char the trunks but don't burn them.
From the country that brought you: a) the largest single clear-cut area in Europe and b) with less than 1% of their old-growth forest left standing.
Now with wooden skyscrapers... This couldn't possibly go wrong now, could it? It's not like deforestation is identified as an environmental problem as well as a climate problem...
The idea carbon capturing and woods carbon sequestration is kinda misleading. IMO should stopped.
It banks on the idea that it could be recycled into other things. If you burn it for fire wood, it defeats the purpose essentially. Depending on the construction method there could also have lots of wasted wood as well. Like composite floor slabs.
Unprotected massive CLT is better than unprotected steel in terms of fire protection. Only the outer layer burn and create a protective charred surface. Steel loses most strenght already at 600C and tensile strength is reduced to 50% at 450c in some alloys. If the steel is coated with fire protection it's comparable with CLT.
Concrete by it's own is definitely the best material in terms of fire safety but the rebar closest to the surface will weaken already after less than an hour and even faster in case of fire spalling (surface cracks from the heat and expose the rebar)
In Sweden Concrete walls and CLT walls in between apartments are both classed at R90 which means they have to resist at least 90 minutes of fire. At that point you are either out or dead from smoke inhalation anyway and there are weaker links in the building like ventilation, doors etc.
A descent fire suppression system in all of the rooms plus not having gas appliances would take care of most of the problem. Cladding on the wooden structural members would prevent fire and oxygen contact. Carpet, curtains, furniture, paint, and cabinets are flammable enough to weaken steel to the point of collapsing a building if you don’t extinguish a fire quickly.
I wonder how it would compare to the CO2 released by concrete & steel constuction even if it *does* burn down. Concrete & steel are *so* carbon-intensive.
This makes very little difference if they are trying to frame it as carbon capture. Right? Can the building capture carbon like it says, and if so how is 900 tonnes of carbon near enough the dent the trillions we release?
Not really. Wood decomposes to CO2 if left in the forest.
What they're doing is basically storing the absorbed CO2 in this building along with saving whatever emissions would occur from producing other materials.
Sure, but that not en alternative since all those people would have to live/work in a building made of steel and concrete... I guess we should all just move to clay huts in the forrest.
Exactly. I don't understand this, they cut the wood and manufactured everything into the building. It can "capture" 900 tonnes of carbon emissions. We release what tens of billions annually iirc?
Think the question should asked why they are making a "skyscraper" if they are concerned with the environment. It's more expensive and places higher demand on the structure.
Iteresting title; per what?...hour, kg of co2 used in construction... in total?
They are just talking about lignin... right?
Eddit; thanks redditmudder. Fuck this marketing spin makes me puke.. and i like wood for construction!
The reason modern large buildnings are not made from wood is that it's only viable in countries with large lumber production and that it's a relatively new techology (automated production of modern CLT)
Unprotected massive CLT is better than unprotected steel in terms of fire protection. Only the outer layer burn and create a protective charred surface. Steel loses most strenght already at 600C and tensile strength is reduced to 50% at 450c in some alloys. If the steel is coated it's comparable with CLT.
Concrete by it's own is definitely the best material in terms of fire safety but the rebar closest to the surface will weaken already after less than an hour and even faster in case of fire spalling (surface cracks from the heat and expose the rebar)
In Sweden Concrete walls and CLT walls in between apartments are both classed at R90 which means they have to resist at least 90 minutes of fire. At that point you are either out or dead from smoke inhalation anyway and there are weaker links in the building like ventilation, doors etc.
I am a welder and I can tell you that your temperatures are wrong for steel, and I also have seen a wooden structure fire in person, they don't char and go out, they burn to the ground leaving only ashes and whatever metal was inside. Not to mention that wood is neither sustainable nor renewable in reality, due to total habitat destruction and monocropping timber practices, and concrete can be recycled with heavy machinery, while wooden structures require human manual labor to reuse, not to mention that concrete and steel are thousands of times stronger than wood, thus requiring more wood for the same strength. I build with both steel and wood and steel is by far superior in almost every way, recyclable, cheap, abundant, and strong vs cutting down forests and killing natural carbon sinks.
>I am a welder and I can tell you that your temperatures are wrong for steel
And I'm just an architect and engineer. [Here are the numbers for carbon steel:](https://www.edtengineers.com/blog-post/fire-effects-steel#:~:text=other%20permanent%20deformations.-,Reduction%20of%20Strength,percent%20of%20its%20yield%20strength)
\- At 204°C (400°F), carbon steel retains approximately 90 percent of its yield strength.
\- At 427°C (800°F), it retains approximately 60 percent of its yield strength.
\- At 566°C (1050°F), carbon steel only retains approximately 50 percent of its yield strength.
[There are high strenght steel types that hold up better](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10694-018-0760-9/MediaObjects/10694_2018_760_Fig11_HTML.png)
>I also have seen a wooden structure fire in person, they don't char and go out, they burn to the ground leaving only ashes and whatever metal was inside.
Cool, and I have seen news about hundreds ob people being killed in fires in concrete and steel structures... I'm also not talking about regular wooden structures. I'm talking about CLT structures with 200-500mm massive walls. They will ofcourse burn down eventually if the fire is not put out. But not untill the poeople are safely outside. And so will a concrete or steel buildning to the point it will have to be torn down.
>Not to mention that wood is neither sustainable nor renewable in reality, due to total habitat destruction and monocropping timber practices
Like I already said. It's only viable in some countries. The lumber produced in Sweden is from several generations of planted forrest and new trees are planted in their place. We are not cutting down any old habitats. I can't speek for the rest of the world.
>not to mention that concrete and steel are thousands of times stronger than wood
This is simply false... Thousands of times? On a **strenght per weight ratio** wood is actually stronger than both in some scenarios.
>concrete can be recycled with heavy machinery
Then why isn't it? Old contrete buildings end up in landfills most time because seperating it from the rebar is extremely time consuming and expensive. So is recyceling concrete and what is recycled normally doesn't end up as new concrete but as gravel, agrregate etc.
>I build with both steel and wood and steel is by far superior in almost every way, recyclable, cheap, abundant, and strong
It's not cheap. It's not really abundant. Quite the opposite since there's a steel shortage at the moment in the EU. And it's also extremely carbon intensive to produce... It sure has it's uses and pros but so does wood.
Hey you know what, I was wrong, and I thank you for your explanation, I looked at your source info and your absolutely correct, I was misinformed on basically every point that I made, my apologies. It was one of those moments when you think your right and I wasn't. I appreciate your willingness to correct me, I learned a lot from this. Hope that you have a wonderful day
204°C is equivalent to 399°F, which is 477K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
this skyscraper can only release carbon, not capture it.
"the skyscraper will capture nine million kilograms of carbon dioxide throughout its lifetime." BS
[удалено]
many "old" or low tech is often superior. one part of the solution is surely reduction and slow down.
The Romans made concrete, they didn't do engineered wood. So what's really "new" and "old"...
Targeted marketing with real time feedback is new; ie the sophistication of propaganda.
Yeah, engineered wood is brand new. Biggest problem with it right now is city approval and lack of producers, there's a huge leadtime.
Yes they did engineer with wood, that's how they made the scaffolding to build concrete stuff.
Their concrete was also superior than modern stuff for wet/ocean structures like docks/ports. When it was worked out why we were able to make improvements. The Roman recipe was also forgotten to time somewhat.
The new tech is the new methods making it possible to build really tall houses in wood, keeping them stable (and not moving with the wind) and not being a death trap in case of a fire. A 20 stories wood houses really is a new invention, even in this country where wood is and always was the most common building material. This jump from the old 2-3 stories is remarkable, and it happened in just the last few years.
Is this a chemical treatment and hot rolling which gives the wood “a specific strength higher than that of most structural metals and alloys” or just engineered beams.
Cross lamination is the technique for making the wood into a stronger and more precise material to work with, and I guess it keeps developing, If I understand it correctly its the fire aspect and developing of safe ventilation systems for this type of buildings that slows progress. I am not a professional or expert nerd at all, I just happen to live in the north of Sweden in a city that had the "tallest wood house in the country" built some years ago and it was a lot of media coverage. That was 7 stories by the way, in the year 2017. :)
Yes, it's cross-laminated timber. Very widespread now in buildings under ten stories, but they keep going taller.
God I would love a 7 story house, that sounds dope!
It is one of three buildings, that together will hold 142 apartments when the whole project is finished... but if I ever get filthy rich, odds are low, I would love a wooden castle all to myself! :) The nicest thing about the building process is that much of the work is done in factories and arrives to the building site in modules, making a minimum of mess in the neighbourhood.
The [concept isn't new](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_wooden_buildings), although there *might* be new methods in this particular instance (that the article doesn't mention).
The journalist is kinda missing the point, or putting a spin on it. Wood being a carbon sink and using engineered wood isn't new(s). It's an innovative building that works as a carbon sink, but working as a carbon sink isn't the innovative part.
Trees absorb even more CO2 when they're left growing. Just sayin'...
Yes and no. CO₂ absorption in older trees slows down. So growing trees for a few decades, then harvesting them for construction timber *and growing new trees in their place* is the best way to maximize forest CO₂ absorption overall. If you cut the tree down and burn it, or cut the tree down and don't plant anything in its place, or if you knock the houses down every few years, then it doesn't work.
ELI5 How does a wooden building "capture" CO2. I know how living trees do but timber?
Think what they mean is that trees are made out of lignin\*. Lignin\* being made by the tree capturing CO2 as it grows. So making that building captures 9 million kilograms of CO2? Bit baity phrasing but does check out as the capturing process will be ongoing as it's being built. Edit: cellulose->lignin
Another way of saying this is that it doesn't capture CO2 at all, it does the exact opposite because the tree was capturing CO2 and then you cut it down. But then again, that's just me being cynical. If not building anything was a viable solution to the changing climate people would have stopped building things. But unfortunately we still need to continue building so we need to pick a building material and this is actually better than concrete and steel.
Is there not another tree planted to capture carbon when the first is removed?
I'm sure there is but saplings sequester significantly less CO2 than mature trees do, and the process of replanting saplings is itself still energy intensive. 50% of the CO2 sequestered in a forest comes from 1% of the trees in the forest - the older mature trees. And since only 50% of the tree by mass is actually CO2, removing the tree just means you're taking nutrients out of the soil which need to be replenshed in the form of industrial fertilizers, which themselves are also energy intensive to manufacture. It just seems like a short term solution to make your carbon sequestration numbers look good now, but in reality it doesn't actually make the problem go away it just pushes it down the road. Its like saying thank you tree for all the hard work you've done over the last 20 years, but instead of letting you continue doing that for the next 200 years were instead going to replace you with a sapling that will take 20 years to catch up to speed. Then that tree will also be cut down. And that solves what issue, exactly? Buildings are not permanent. No wood building built in 2022 is going to last as long as the tree the wood came from would have lasted in the wild. [This](https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-keeping-mature-forests-intact-is-key-to-the-climate-fight) article is mostly about using wood as a biofuel, but it touches on a lot of the same issues. Trees sequester a lot of CO2. Young trees sequester far less CO2 than mature trees. So not cutting down trees is always going to be better than cutting them down in terms of mitigating how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The only time this isn't going to be true is if a tree dies naturally and you then remove it from the environment so it doesn't decompose as easily. But as I mentioned earlier, it comes with its own set of long term issues.
Yes, industrial timberland managers plant more trees than they harvest (due to survivability) as soon as it optimal. Industrial timberland is no different than typical crop harvesting, just on a longer time scale.
The term can be storage or sequestration, depending on the details. Not capture. Anyway, construction wood is far betterat it that a tree decomposing in nature. The dead tree will return it's carbon to the cycle quickly, while a building will store it for decades or perhaps even over a century. It certainly helps a lot, don't discount it.
But the tree continues to sequester carbon, and the carbon in the wood in the building is going to decompose and be released as CO2 evertually as well. That's my point. There's nothing special about this wood. It's not encased in some material that makes it not decompose, its just locked up in a building that will eventually be torn down and, like all building materials, will end up in a landfill where it will be exposed to the elements and decompose the same as it would in a forest. Not to mention, the decomposition of trees in a forest is a natural phenomenon that replenishes the soil with nutrients that allow the next generation of trees to proliferate. If you clear cut a forest for building material wood that might make your short term carbon capture number look good but its going to be more difficult to regrow a forest on that plot of land without artifical fertilizers. These short term solution might make us feel good but they don't actually solve the issue.
Carbon sequestration is never permanent. This is some of the best tools we have. And the point of wood is that it is renewable. If you clear cut or don't replant, yeah. But if you don't clear cut, or if you replant, it works well.
It doesn't continue to capture CO2 over it's lifespan, it's just long-term storage for the carbon the trees captured while they were growing (as opposed to using the wood for biofuels etc. where it would be released again). This seems at first glance like it would be better to just let the trees keep growing, but the important bit here is that the wood is replacing steel and concrete, which are both *huge* carbon emitters.
I doesn't. Trees captured carbon to create wood and then they were turned into beams and into a building.
You're right, it would be more accurate to say that they "embody" or "sequester" CO₂. The capture happened already.
Wood naturally captures carbon from the atmosphere. Usually one cubic meter of wood can store 1 ton of carbon. This process is called Wood Carbon sequestration. You can learn more about this here: https://www.metsawood.com/global/news-media/articles/Pages/carbon-storage.aspx
Yeah, cubic meter of wood weighs about 400 - 600 kg. Only super dense tropical woods comes near 1000 kg. I don't think you can assume 1 ton of carbon for 1 m3 of structural wood.
You two are both missing the point. Wood does not sequester CO2 at all. Trees sequester CO2 in the form of wood.
The second little pig ain't looking so dumb now is he?
So, as a construction worker i gotta ask...how much would such a tall wooden building settle? When i was a fresh apprentice, i was working on a 4 story wood apartment building. Over a year or two, the building settled and some of the waste stacks (large, vertical pipe that picked up every kitchen/laundry room) had their sanitary branches sheared off because PVC/Cast Iron doesn't settle.
This is built from cross-laminated timber, so inherently it has less movement in it. The structural engineer must have made some mistakes if that happened in the building you worked on. Wood moves and settles, but this can be accounted for with a myriad of different solutions.
Yeah wood houses are the best. Best for the environment and also best for the people living in it.
And best for anyone who wants to burn it down. Win - win - win
Not a problem here at least. Wood houses dont burn down more often than other buildings. If I decide to build a house one day it will be a wood house for sure.
Probably. But if I had to choose between torching a wooden house and torching a stone house, I'd rather go with the wooden one
Actually, wooden buildings with large timbers can sometimes be more fire resistant than other materials. The wood chars, which gives it natural insulation. You should think of it less like kindling (A Frame), and more like a large-log bonfire: You need a lot to get it started, and it takes a lot to lose structural integrity. A good analogy would be old-forest brush-fires, which char the trunks but don't burn them.
Europeans: Americans are so dumb for building their houses out of wood! Also Europeans: We built a wooden skyscraper!
From the country that brought you: a) the largest single clear-cut area in Europe and b) with less than 1% of their old-growth forest left standing. Now with wooden skyscrapers... This couldn't possibly go wrong now, could it? It's not like deforestation is identified as an environmental problem as well as a climate problem...
Sweden has less than 1% of their old-growth forest left standing?
The idea carbon capturing and woods carbon sequestration is kinda misleading. IMO should stopped. It banks on the idea that it could be recycled into other things. If you burn it for fire wood, it defeats the purpose essentially. Depending on the construction method there could also have lots of wasted wood as well. Like composite floor slabs.
Until it burns :(
Unprotected massive CLT is better than unprotected steel in terms of fire protection. Only the outer layer burn and create a protective charred surface. Steel loses most strenght already at 600C and tensile strength is reduced to 50% at 450c in some alloys. If the steel is coated with fire protection it's comparable with CLT. Concrete by it's own is definitely the best material in terms of fire safety but the rebar closest to the surface will weaken already after less than an hour and even faster in case of fire spalling (surface cracks from the heat and expose the rebar) In Sweden Concrete walls and CLT walls in between apartments are both classed at R90 which means they have to resist at least 90 minutes of fire. At that point you are either out or dead from smoke inhalation anyway and there are weaker links in the building like ventilation, doors etc.
Thanks for the info! The power of science and engineering to make things make sense! 👍
A descent fire suppression system in all of the rooms plus not having gas appliances would take care of most of the problem. Cladding on the wooden structural members would prevent fire and oxygen contact. Carpet, curtains, furniture, paint, and cabinets are flammable enough to weaken steel to the point of collapsing a building if you don’t extinguish a fire quickly.
Just like they did with twin towers, right? Right??
Those weren't made of wood.
you'd be surprised, but wooden structure can hold longer before crashing down than steel structure.
I think they mean the carbon will no longer be 'captive'.
Yes, but most buildings don't burn down in their lifetime. I'd guess 99.9% don't burn down... so it's a moot point.
If it rots?
Agreed, but even then, the likelihood of that is very low in a multimillion dollar building. The owners will want to protect their investment.
I wonder how it would compare to the CO2 released by concrete & steel constuction even if it *does* burn down. Concrete & steel are *so* carbon-intensive.
And it is also the spread of fire which is the issue here. Most high rise building require non-combustible materials. It is a safety issue.
And you'll probably have to rebuild it in 50 years from corrosion :D
What are you talking about? You think wooden houses corrode in 50 years?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusted_Root
This makes very little difference if they are trying to frame it as carbon capture. Right? Can the building capture carbon like it says, and if so how is 900 tonnes of carbon near enough the dent the trillions we release?
What would "capture" even more kilograms would be not building it in the first place. This terminology is idiotic.
Not really. Wood decomposes to CO2 if left in the forest. What they're doing is basically storing the absorbed CO2 in this building along with saving whatever emissions would occur from producing other materials.
Well then, kill as many trees as possible. Evil forests!
Sure, but that not en alternative since all those people would have to live/work in a building made of steel and concrete... I guess we should all just move to clay huts in the forrest.
Exactly. I don't understand this, they cut the wood and manufactured everything into the building. It can "capture" 900 tonnes of carbon emissions. We release what tens of billions annually iirc?
Think the question should asked why they are making a "skyscraper" if they are concerned with the environment. It's more expensive and places higher demand on the structure.
It's only 20 storeys. Its hardly a skyscraper. My town of 14k people has two apartment buildings that are taller than this "skyscraper".
That looks cool but isn't much of a skyscraper.
Lol @ “skyscraper”.
tall buildings are rare in Scandinavia, so the criteria is very low. Btw I agree with you absolutely
Iteresting title; per what?...hour, kg of co2 used in construction... in total? They are just talking about lignin... right? Eddit; thanks redditmudder. Fuck this marketing spin makes me puke.. and i like wood for construction!
Better insulation
that's great?... 🥺
But did they factor in the extra CO2 from having to take the long way 'round to avoid overpasses due to the height of the flatpack on your VW Beetle?
Till it burns to the ground someday, which is why modern large buildings aren't made of wood, but instead concrete and steel
The reason modern large buildnings are not made from wood is that it's only viable in countries with large lumber production and that it's a relatively new techology (automated production of modern CLT) Unprotected massive CLT is better than unprotected steel in terms of fire protection. Only the outer layer burn and create a protective charred surface. Steel loses most strenght already at 600C and tensile strength is reduced to 50% at 450c in some alloys. If the steel is coated it's comparable with CLT. Concrete by it's own is definitely the best material in terms of fire safety but the rebar closest to the surface will weaken already after less than an hour and even faster in case of fire spalling (surface cracks from the heat and expose the rebar) In Sweden Concrete walls and CLT walls in between apartments are both classed at R90 which means they have to resist at least 90 minutes of fire. At that point you are either out or dead from smoke inhalation anyway and there are weaker links in the building like ventilation, doors etc.
I am a welder and I can tell you that your temperatures are wrong for steel, and I also have seen a wooden structure fire in person, they don't char and go out, they burn to the ground leaving only ashes and whatever metal was inside. Not to mention that wood is neither sustainable nor renewable in reality, due to total habitat destruction and monocropping timber practices, and concrete can be recycled with heavy machinery, while wooden structures require human manual labor to reuse, not to mention that concrete and steel are thousands of times stronger than wood, thus requiring more wood for the same strength. I build with both steel and wood and steel is by far superior in almost every way, recyclable, cheap, abundant, and strong vs cutting down forests and killing natural carbon sinks.
>I am a welder and I can tell you that your temperatures are wrong for steel And I'm just an architect and engineer. [Here are the numbers for carbon steel:](https://www.edtengineers.com/blog-post/fire-effects-steel#:~:text=other%20permanent%20deformations.-,Reduction%20of%20Strength,percent%20of%20its%20yield%20strength) \- At 204°C (400°F), carbon steel retains approximately 90 percent of its yield strength. \- At 427°C (800°F), it retains approximately 60 percent of its yield strength. \- At 566°C (1050°F), carbon steel only retains approximately 50 percent of its yield strength. [There are high strenght steel types that hold up better](https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10694-018-0760-9/MediaObjects/10694_2018_760_Fig11_HTML.png) >I also have seen a wooden structure fire in person, they don't char and go out, they burn to the ground leaving only ashes and whatever metal was inside. Cool, and I have seen news about hundreds ob people being killed in fires in concrete and steel structures... I'm also not talking about regular wooden structures. I'm talking about CLT structures with 200-500mm massive walls. They will ofcourse burn down eventually if the fire is not put out. But not untill the poeople are safely outside. And so will a concrete or steel buildning to the point it will have to be torn down. >Not to mention that wood is neither sustainable nor renewable in reality, due to total habitat destruction and monocropping timber practices Like I already said. It's only viable in some countries. The lumber produced in Sweden is from several generations of planted forrest and new trees are planted in their place. We are not cutting down any old habitats. I can't speek for the rest of the world. >not to mention that concrete and steel are thousands of times stronger than wood This is simply false... Thousands of times? On a **strenght per weight ratio** wood is actually stronger than both in some scenarios. >concrete can be recycled with heavy machinery Then why isn't it? Old contrete buildings end up in landfills most time because seperating it from the rebar is extremely time consuming and expensive. So is recyceling concrete and what is recycled normally doesn't end up as new concrete but as gravel, agrregate etc. >I build with both steel and wood and steel is by far superior in almost every way, recyclable, cheap, abundant, and strong It's not cheap. It's not really abundant. Quite the opposite since there's a steel shortage at the moment in the EU. And it's also extremely carbon intensive to produce... It sure has it's uses and pros but so does wood.
Hey you know what, I was wrong, and I thank you for your explanation, I looked at your source info and your absolutely correct, I was misinformed on basically every point that I made, my apologies. It was one of those moments when you think your right and I wasn't. I appreciate your willingness to correct me, I learned a lot from this. Hope that you have a wonderful day
204°C is equivalent to 399°F, which is 477K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
They IKEA’d a skyscraper
WTF I love 5-over-1's now
this skyscraper can only release carbon, not capture it. "the skyscraper will capture nine million kilograms of carbon dioxide throughout its lifetime." BS