I think that it's a bit of a shame that you are being downvoted, since the point that (I think) you are making is valid.
Namely you need to look at the total cost of manufacture, especially with respect to the environment and/or CO₂ impacts.
This process, excluding inputs, has a lower CO₂ impact than traditional concrete. It also, currently at least, produces a less useful concrete, as it isn't as strong.
The question is what is the net environmental and CO₂ impact when you also include the inputs.
One area where this new process has a positive impact:
* No need for virgin river sand, although it is unclear if desert sand could be used. At least this would be a good way to "recycle" concrete, which is notoriously hard to re-use.
One area where it has a negative impact:
* This concrete is no longer vegan friendly. Although to be fair, many plantation woods are not strictly vegan either, since may plantations directly lead to a lowering of biodiversity and/or loss of animal habitat. Sand mining is also typically not "victimless".
* Requires a more diverse input/supply chain. Although the article doesn't really go into the impacts of this, so it's hard to estimate how bad this is. For example, do we need a kg of gelatine per kg of concrete, or per tonne of concrete?
I am being downvoted because I tried to make the point as succinctly as I could. It turns out, stating something with childish simplicity doesn't sound smart. I am also being downvoted because as other comments have noted, their intuition states that the solution could have a margin positive net impact versus the externalities associated with industrial concrete production. And according to the doctrine of technology solutionism, which is the doctrine of most people who read HN (myself included sometimes), the onus is frequently on the skeptic to show through rational analysis that the innovative solution has greater harm than benefit, while the believers in the innovative solution are allowed to suspend doubt and use their intuitive judgement to rationalize the relative efficacy of the solution at hand. It's like the technologists' version of Bertrand Russell's Teapot.
There is a difference between a succinct argument and an incomplete argument. I'll leave it there because you seem like you want a reason to be offended.
Fascinating. This is an input that I hadn't considered.
However "Vegan" things is definitely a tricky subject… for example cars often have leather seats and/or steering wheels. And it can be quite hard to get a "decent trim" car, and _not_ get leather. Tesla do offer "non-animal-leather" seats, but not all manufacturers have such an option.
Links to why it would be useful to use Desert sand in concrete: Desert sand is not really usable for most things that we want sand for, for example, it is not suitable for concrete, since it is too fine. (https://petroleumservicecompany.com/blog/could-desert-sand-b...)
Namely you need to look at the total cost of manufacture, especially with respect to the environment and/or CO₂ impacts.
This process, excluding inputs, has a lower CO₂ impact than traditional concrete. It also, currently at least, produces a less useful concrete, as it isn't as strong.
The question is what is the net environmental and CO₂ impact when you also include the inputs.
One area where this new process has a positive impact: * No need for virgin river sand, although it is unclear if desert sand could be used. At least this would be a good way to "recycle" concrete, which is notoriously hard to re-use.
One area where it has a negative impact: * This concrete is no longer vegan friendly. Although to be fair, many plantation woods are not strictly vegan either, since may plantations directly lead to a lowering of biodiversity and/or loss of animal habitat. Sand mining is also typically not "victimless". * Requires a more diverse input/supply chain. Although the article doesn't really go into the impacts of this, so it's hard to estimate how bad this is. For example, do we need a kg of gelatine per kg of concrete, or per tonne of concrete?