The construction sector can significantly reduce carbon emissions by decreasing cement usage, which accounts for 9-10% of global energy related CO2 emissions. To address this, this study explores alternative materials: mass-timber and low-carbon cement due to expected urbanization with increasing cement demand. However, the potential emission reduction and cost-saving prospects at the city scale remain uncertain. Here, this paper creates future scenarios and compares mass-timber and low-carbon cement in terms of carbon mitigation and cost savings. Results indicate that mass-timber buildings offer net-negative emissions and cost savings compared to conventional concrete-frame buildings. While low-carbon concrete buildings can achieve net-negative emissions, they require a cost increase. Both alternative building materials reduce emissions by ~80.4% at a city-wide scale, with mass-timber buildings emerging as the superior choice due to environmental and economic factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akihiro Okuyama (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: