you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Eh, that's just good engineering and resource usage (assuming it's not magically energy intensive). Anyone can build a bridge to not fail; it takes an engineer to make a bridge that barely doesn't fail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But upping safety factors by 2 would still use less concrete than previous structures.
    So could be an improvement to safety and cost.

    Best case, the world uses less concrete (which I believe is a huge source of CO2)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Stronger and safer cement wouldn’t just be a boon for construction, but also the health of the planet, as the production of cement makes up roughly 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, I didn't read the article.

    Having now read it, I was a bit concerned that they were going to be harvesting mother of pearl in some horrendous twist of "we can use less concrete! But we have to industrialise the harvesting of molluscs".

    Thankfully it's the micro-pattern in polymers inspired by nature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment