Dear Earthalk: How do 3D printed houses stack against conventional in relation to sustainability both during construction and then in use?
-J. Houses via e -mail
3D printed houses quickly gain the traction as a sustainable alternative to the traditional building. Proponents say that they use less material, create less waste and promise efficient long -term performance. The question is whether all of this in real life adds up compared to conventional houses.
3D printing offers several clear advantages. The additive process builds walls in layers with only what is needed and drastically reduces waste. According to Bay Management Group, 3D methods can significantly reduce the process of process and the connection and create a shorter supply chain and a more environmentally friendly result. In contrast to conventional framing, in which off -cuts and excess materials are discarded, printed houses almost use the entire output. Realistically, this can reduce the total material consumption by up to 90 percent.
And there is speed. A community of 100 3D printed houses built in the Wolfs Ranch was completed in just four to six weeks per house: a fraction of the six to eight months that are typical of wood frame building. This means fewer machine lessons, fewer diesel trucks that transport materials and are burned less energy on site. In Melbourne, Australia, Luyten recently built a 3D -printed house in a total of just three weeks.
Sustainability claims also depend on materials. Some 3D houses use advanced concrete mixtures such as lavacrete that provide strength and reduce carbon emissions. Others experiment with biological feed such as wood waste with corn resin. Habib Dagher of the advanced structures and composites centers described a model called Biohome3d as “100 percent renewable because it is really biologically based”. The pellets used in print can be recycled and reused several times while maintaining the material properties. Many 3D printed houses deliver thanks to concrete walls that improve insulation and reduce the heat requirements. Companies like Mighty Buildings are now integrating the isolation of Ultra -Low GWP (global warming potential) to further reduce CO2 footprint during operation.
There are challenges. The pressure still depends on concrete, which has a high embodied carbon, unless it is compensated for or replaced more environmentally friendly. Many finished houses still need traditional craftsmen to install sanitary, cabling, window and interior equipment. Zonation codes and construction rules also limit acceptance in many markets. But after integration into renewable energies and better materials, these houses could overlook or surpass conventional sustainability standards for both construction and ongoing use.
Contacts
Earthtalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501 (c) 3 non -profit organization Earthtalk. For more information, see https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.