Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ViolentCommunication t1_j16jikz wrote

I read the article, but do not understand what the input material feedstock is. Lab grown plant culture? What is this exactly? What inputs does it need to grow to industrial scales?

5

InconsistentEffort20 t1_j16k6pi wrote

If properly managed wood is fully sustainable. It is probably the cheapest "useful" material we have to build with. People really like the look of certain natural woods. It takes virtually no energy or other material to grow trees.

This lab grown alternative seems to lose literally all of the advantages of using real wood while offering no obvious advantages.

75

sickmoth t1_j16kqz2 wrote

You can grow wood, but 3D printing cannot create wood.

1

HanaBothWays t1_j16mj0i wrote

I was going to post this but you already posted it LOL

A lot of people have really shit-tier instincts about what is sustainable, what creates harmful waste, what is “bad for the environment,” etc.

Forestry practices for growing and harvesting wood to be used in paper, building, furniture making, etc. are on the whole pretty good throughout most of the world these days! Most chopping down of old growth is for mining or oil extraction or clearing space for cattle ranching or something.

26

radicalceleryjuice t1_j16wxbe wrote

Can you point to any documentation of sustainable logging practices on a large scale? Here in BC we're far from sustainable. The logging companies like to say they're "planting the forests of the future," but I was out there for years and they sure seem to be putting profits ahead of future generations and future ecosystems.

I trust the ecologists and environmental organizations more than I trust what the industry says. Dr. Suzanne Simard's critique of BC's forestry practices aligns with what I saw out there: basically they're planting rows of trees that they think will be worth the most money, but the health of the ecosystems are degrading, which is leading to increased disease and reductions in water retention and resilience, all of which is compounding with climate change to result in increased wild fires.

Also, here in BC they are still cutting old growth forests, despite how little we have left.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208360119

6

aquarain t1_j16yvsj wrote

Wood. The original carbon fiber.

1

morganml t1_j170b0q wrote

but 2x4s will still be the wrong damn size.

1

radicalceleryjuice t1_j171gy7 wrote

No, I said we have issues here, and I asked about documentation about sustainable practices elsewhere.

I've certainly read about unsustainable practices elsewhere, but I've heard of sustainable practices, and it's possible that other places are doing better than Canada. For instance Switzerland has better management from what I've seen and heard, but I think they're the exception not the rule. I'd be happy to learn that sustainable practices are more widespread than I'd realized.

5

outsidetheparty t1_j18kc9n wrote

No, we can’t. Not even close. This is preliminary research, it’s nowhere near production-ready technology.

I’m so sick of the overinflated headlines on this site

9

usatovo t1_j1952mf wrote

I guarantee you forestry practices in BC are more ecologically sound than in Brazil or India or SE Asia or most of the rest of the world. And they’re right, practices in BC still leave a lot to be desired. Definitely not saying this technology is better but current logging and tree farming techniques are far from sustainable.

2

bigsnow999 t1_j19b93g wrote

Can we set the density for 3D-printed wood?

1

SolidFaiz t1_j19ffz7 wrote

I’m only cheering if this is scalable

1

bajo2292 t1_j19gwn6 wrote

Exactly and not just scallable but profitable. The main problem I see is time needed to 3D print for example cubic meter of wood in a timely manner if it takes too long it’s not scalable

1

dcazdavi t1_j19tz2m wrote

we've never need to cut down trees when alternatives like hemp are better in every single way; we will continue to cut down trees despite this advancement.

1

radicalceleryjuice t1_j19u2mp wrote

I very much want Canada to follow the bit about making things better, while avoiding the bit about letting things get really bad first :-/

There has been progress in Canada, but industry and government are a long way from really listening to the ecologists. I do think there are people in government and industry who care... and others who don't.

In Canada there are official standards, and a commission that checks every mining/extraction operation that might impact biodiversity etc... but the mining/extraction operations almost always get the green light because they promise jobs, and biodiversity keeps declining. Keystone species like the caribou are on the edge of endangered status. Meanwhile, studies show that those companies never create nearly as many jobs as they promise.

Seeing what is "officially" happening in Canada, and then reading the independent reports inspires me to have healthy scepticism about what industry/government presents to the public.

2

enkiloki t1_j1a6jmi wrote

Show me the table produced using this method and I'll believe.

1

phloaty t1_j1dpsrt wrote

Half of timber land in the US is privately owned and in small plots. Most of that is sustainably harvested. Weyerhaeuser is the largest landowner in my state with something like 10% of the land. They clearcut in plots about every 20 years but they do a good job of only doing small bits at a time. There’s plenty of wildlife because they plant scotch pine and not spruce, which does not support a healthy wildlife ecosystem.

1