[adamjc]

> "For centuries, builders tried to cut costs by limiting how much cement they used and incorporating recycled waste materials into their concrete," says Salvatore Aprea, head of the Acm research group. "The challenge now is to revive these old methods—not for financial reasons but for the sake of our planet."

I put it to you that if it was financially viable and simple ("ancient methods"), it would already be done.

Good luck to them

[baq]

Financial viability is just (ahem) a question of pricing in externalities correctly (i.e. tax CO2). It must happen, when exactly and on what schedule is a very good question.

[icegreentea2]

These old techniques come from a time with completely constraints. Modern techniques are generally all about creating uniformity as far upstream as possible to them deploy cheaper labour/logistics systems/automation downstream. Think about modern masonry. The "bricks" are uniform, the mason man knows exactly how they can be shipped, moved around the site, and individually placed. Concrete mixes are standardized as much as possible and the optimized so that the man with the trowel can work as efficiently as possible.

Working with off cuts/minimally processed stone is harder. You need to be able to manipulate a greater variety of shapes and sizes. Stuff doesn't stack. It takes way more brain and finesse on the work site to make things work well.

These ancient methods are in many ways much more complicated (not simple) than modern methods. But they are complicated in ways that we're just starting to be able automate well (computer vision systems to sort/group/place irregular blocks for example).

[beAbU]

The article is about increasing sustainability, not financial viability.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Those are the same thing in reality.

[ChatGTP]

I find it a bit hard to imagine you’re the first person to think of this, let alone those people working on it who I’m sure are a bit familiar with concrete then you ?