Also, do we really want to build houses that are meant to last 2000 years? It seems expensive and very impractical when you want to tear it down to build something new.
In general, salvaging material from construction demolition isn’t worth the time, with some exceptions like copper. The metal and concrete will be recycled, everything else is garbage.
A less expensive option would be woodwork that covers a channel in the wall, romex and Cat6 cable don’t need a raceway so you could skip the wall duct. If you want to get fancy, add some hinges on the woodwork to allow for easy access :D
There are lots of similar wall systems for commercial applications, google ‘wall panel system’ for some examples. It is super useful when you add something that is recessed in the wall later on.
Gypsum wallboard aka drywall is used because it’s cheap, light, it’s easy to install, and easy and cheap to finish.
For wiring at least, the wall itself isn’t the enemy, that’s easily navigable with a drill bit, multitool (or a rotozip, or a jab saw), and fish tape, it’s the dang ‘hardlid’ (drywall or wood, non-removable) ceilings that complicate things.
ACT grid ceilings make adding receptacles, switches and jacks into a finished wall pretty easy, you just drill into top of the wall, cut an opening in the wall, and use a fish tape to pull in your wire or cable, and then put in your cut-in box or LV ring and your device or jack.
The best real-world, not made-up example of "circular economy" is the Japanese women who work as prostitutes in order to make money to spend on their handsome bar-provided boyfriends. Lmao.
Joker_vD•5mo ago
Kinda mind-boggling how this has been parodied since forever [0], yet is still true. And we're not even talking about the Soviet-style production organization where frugality was never paid more than lip service: you'd think that in a competitive environment there'd be enough pressure to save up on the input resources wasted.
[0] https://youtu.be/YUQ-v62VqgM?t=188
WJW•5mo ago
The linked article in turn links to a research paper at https://www.woodresearch.sk/wr/201202/12.pdf, and while that paper does support that only ~20% of a tree gets sawn into long pieces of (construction) lumber, it absolutely does not support that the remaining 80% is waste. For example, ~37+9= 46% goes to the production of chip and particle boards, a decent amount becomes firewood, the paper industry takes some "waste" wood as input for cellulose production, sawdust has a variety of purposes and even the leaves and stumps can simply be composted.
tomrod•5mo ago
WJW•5mo ago
While coppicing does results in fairly straight trees, they're still circular and will result in large amounts of waste if you try to cut dimensional lumber out of it.
jeffbee•5mo ago
Any time you find yourself surprised by a claim, that's your signal to dig into the sources.
y0eswddl•5mo ago
jeffbee•5mo ago
sidewndr46•5mo ago
Going by volume is also remarkably useless because if a tree produces some large non-dense structure like a leaf it skews the numbers. The issue with industrial forestry isn't waste, but monocropping and habitat destruction.
dghlsakjg•5mo ago
I live in BC and a huge portion of the tree is left in the forest. All of the branches, smaller trees, tops and other bits not worth transporting are burned in slash piles or left in the forest to decompose. There is typically at least a foot thick layer of wood debris left in the cut block after the logging companies come through.
Some forestry companies near me allow firewood processors to come through and grab the leftovers out of the clear cuts, but it is pretty close to a rounding error.
jeffbee•5mo ago