[HN Gopher] Sargablock: Bricks from Seaweed
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Sargablock: Bricks from Seaweed
        
       Author : thunderbong
       Score  : 131 points
       Date   : 2023-08-18 14:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fortomorrow.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fortomorrow.org)
        
       | downrightmike wrote:
       | [flagged]
        
       | f6v wrote:
       | In the 50s, my grandparents were making bricks from hay and mud.
       | You'd be surprised, the houses are still standing. Very eco-
       | friendly, should make a startup selling this.
        
         | sedatk wrote:
         | They can even call it something catchy, like "mudbrick(tm)".
        
       | dopa42365 wrote:
       | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.7684...
       | 
       | > Studies carried out by the Secretariat of Ecology and
       | Environment of Quintana Roo state, Mexico, found that the
       | resistance of the bricks is 75-120 kgf/cm2
       | 
       | That's far below concrete, isn't it?
        
         | terminous wrote:
         | - First-class brick has a compressive strength of 105 kg/cm2.
         | 
         | - The compressive strength of a second-rate brick is 70 kg/cm2.
         | 
         | - Common building bricks have a compressive strength of 35
         | kg/cm2
         | 
         | - The compressive strength of sun-dried brick is between 15 and
         | 25 kg/cm2.
         | 
         | Source: https://housing.com/news/compressive-strength-of-
         | bricks-mean...
        
         | abathur wrote:
         | The primary link doesn't explain the other 60% of the
         | formulation, but IIRC (from watching the video linked in my
         | top-level comment) the other component is waste dirt from
         | construction projects.
         | 
         | I'd expect it to be less strong than concrete, so I guess more
         | fair comparisons might be mud bricks, other mud-brick + X
         | formulations, and traditional clay bricks?
         | 
         | edit: but worth noting that the paper you linked does mention
         | that someone _else_ is making  "sargacreto" that is 40%
         | sargassum and 60% concrete, though it says there aren't numbers
         | to cite for its strength yet.
        
         | frandroid wrote:
         | Yeah I'm thinking, one 5-point earthquake and this falls apart?
         | I mean it's better than mud bricks, but...
        
           | toast0 wrote:
           | You should be able to reinforce this while building, just
           | like with other masonry.
           | 
           | Additionaly, if the structures are fairly small, and the
           | walls are properly tied together, that may be enough.
        
           | hgomersall wrote:
           | I'm not an expert, but I'd be surprised if concrete is at all
           | earthquake resistant without rebar.
        
             | dghughes wrote:
             | Ancient Romans didn't use rebar in their concrete but they
             | did use aggregate of different densities depending on what
             | section of the building would be under stress. Plus if
             | cracks form their concrete self heals due to the compounds
             | used in it.
        
               | mrguyorama wrote:
               | How many earthquakes did ancient rome suffer?
        
           | culi wrote:
           | Concrete isn't known for being very earthquake resistant. If
           | you're building for that wood is a much better choice
        
         | ajmurmann wrote:
         | Wouldn't the proper comparison be other bricks?
        
         | karaterobot wrote:
         | Yep, and well below titanium as well. So, if you've got a beach
         | where a bunch of titanium washes up every year, my advice is to
         | use that instead.
        
           | benj111 wrote:
           | whats the compressive strength of sand?
           | 
           | could just use that.
        
         | culi wrote:
         | "Concrete" is a composite material that can vary wildly
         | depending on composition and process. These tests on grade M10
         | concrete for example concluded with 136, 131, and 147 kg/cm2
         | for their 3 samples. For plain cement, generally grade M15 is
         | used[1] which is about 153 kg/cm2
         | 
         | [0] https://civilplanets.com/compressive-strength-of-concrete/
         | 
         | [1] https://theconstructor.org/concrete/grades-concrete-
         | strength...
        
       | abathur wrote:
       | I watched something on YT recently about this. I think it was
       | https://youtu.be/2fXiboAGQvM (8m 12s, "How Bricks Made From
       | Invasive Seaweed Clean Mexico's Beaches | World Wide Waste |
       | Insider Business")
       | 
       | It shows a bit of the process if you're curious.
       | 
       | The guy seems to have a big heart, and (naively) appears to be
       | turning a stinky problem into a win-win-win.
        
         | tantalor wrote:
         | naively?
        
           | abathur wrote:
           | I lack both the firsthand experience and research background
           | to understand if there are ~obvious reasons (to people with
           | domain knowledge) that this isn't actually a win-win-win.
        
             | tantalor wrote:
             | Oooooh I thought you were implying "the guy" was naive.
             | Thanks for clearing that up.
        
               | abathur wrote:
               | Fair :)
        
               | culi wrote:
               | I also had the same impression. Only commenting to add
               | another data point and point out it might be worth
               | rewording if you're not outside the edit window :)
        
               | abathur wrote:
               | Long past, unfortunately.
        
       | ricardo81 wrote:
       | I guess this solution would also be carbon negative due to the
       | locked carbon in the organic material.
        
         | Cthulhu_ wrote:
         | As long as the bricks aren't fired, but that looks like it's
         | the case.
         | 
         | That said, I'm sure the carbon will be released again if the
         | bricks are broken and wetted. Best thing is to bury it
         | somewhere dry I suppose.
        
       | CapitalistCartr wrote:
       | The link seems to be Slashdotted into oblivion.
       | 
       | Here's an article in the Mexico News Daily explaining it:
       | 
       | https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/mr-sargassum-built-13-house...
        
       | jibe wrote:
       | When you make a brick from the Sargassum, does it release or hold
       | onto the CO2?
        
         | Cthulhu_ wrote:
         | If it's dried, it should hold onto the CO2. Of course, if the
         | brick is broken, weathered and wettened it'll probably release
         | it again, plus if it's fired that process will emit more CO2
         | than it sequesters.
         | 
         | I don't think it's a carbon sink, but more like a way to make
         | something useful (that isn't compost) out of something
         | unwanted. Note that the people collecting it also get paid by
         | the seaside hotels to do so.
        
       | nine_k wrote:
       | In short: sargassum seaweed is washed onto shores anyway, why not
       | use it to make bricks? They form the bricks using a standard
       | block-making machine, dry them at the sun, build small houses out
       | of these, and plan to _donate_ these houses to local families in
       | need.
       | 
       | They say that they use 40% of seaweed in the bricks, and 60% is
       | "other organic material". I wonder what material is this.
       | 
       | I also wonder how well the sargassum bricks withstand weather.
        
         | samstave wrote:
         | [flagged]
        
         | dehrmann wrote:
         | They're not kiln-fired, are they?
         | 
         | It feels like they're just making adobe with seaweed instead of
         | straw.
        
           | nerdponx wrote:
           | Sure, but why not?
        
           | karaterobot wrote:
           | The linked article says they are dried in the sun for four
           | hours.
        
             | zdragnar wrote:
             | Yeah, that's distinctly different from kiln firing. Various
             | clays take on significantly different physical
             | characteristics depending on heat treatment.
             | 
             | It is possible to build a solar powered kiln, but "dried in
             | the sun" is a different process than what clay goes
             | through- which makes sense, since organic matter and dirt
             | wouldn't benefit from a kiln anyway.
        
           | Cthulhu_ wrote:
           | That's how it was described as in a video about it too.
        
         | jncfhnb wrote:
         | > sargassum seaweed is washed onto shores anyway, why not use
         | it to make bricks?
         | 
         | I mean the obvious question is whether that is a safe
         | construction practice
        
           | sverhagen wrote:
           | What kind of safety are you thinking of?
           | 
           | What I'm wondering is: are there other impacts from removing
           | the seaweed from the shores; does it change the ecosystem
           | around the shore in undesirable ways?
           | 
           | Also: is the supply really up for the demand?
        
             | jncfhnb wrote:
             | Will the house collapse is what I'm wondering
        
               | tinco wrote:
               | Why would they make bricks out of seaweed if they thought
               | the house would collapse?
        
               | natpalmer1776 wrote:
               | Why would someone build an MVP for a product that has no
               | clear or viable path to monetization? Because someone
               | wants the product to exist enough that they're willing to
               | give you money to make it happen.
        
               | jncfhnb wrote:
               | Because someone will buy it. Hence regulations.
               | 
               | But that's the question. The question is has it been
               | tested to be surely safe.
        
               | hadlock wrote:
               | The Bible describes Egyptians making bricks from mud and
               | straw. In europe and the US it's referred to as "cobb"
               | which if you plug that word in to youtube is a deep
               | rabbit hole of building sturdy and sustainable homes for
               | cheap, even today. You need thicker walls (about triple)
               | than what you might see in a lightweight modern home made
               | by 2x4s and drywall, but the lower cost of materials (and
               | much lower cost of labor) offsets this. The incredible
               | thermal mass of the walls also helps to regulate internal
               | temperature during the daytime. But to answer your
               | question, typically no they do not collapse unless the
               | roof goes without any maintenance, which is unlikely in a
               | tropical region.
        
             | jccooper wrote:
             | The seaweed is removed anyway; resorts and beach
             | authorities remove it because it makes for an unpleasant
             | beach.
        
             | blacksmith_tb wrote:
             | Well they do say the seaweed is invasive, so removing it
             | seems like it would actually be plus for the beach
             | ecosystem (unless it's replacing some native seaweed that
             | no longer washes up, I suppose).
        
         | abathur wrote:
         | > 60% is "other organic material". I wonder what material is
         | this.
         | 
         | IIRC from the YT video in my top-level comment, it's dirt.
         | 
         | > I also wonder how well the sargassum bricks withstand
         | weather.
         | 
         | dopa42365's comment
         | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176903) links a paper
         | with the following claim:
         | 
         | > Studies carried out by the Secretariat of Ecology and
         | Environment of Quintana Roo state, Mexico, found that the
         | resistance of the bricks is 75-120 kgf/cm2, while its
         | durability can be up to 120 years, regardless of the region or
         | climate type where they are used (Desrochers et al., 2020).
         | Currently there is no other sustainable material as resistant,
         | or with such a long useful life. Sargabricks are therefore seen
         | as a viable and safe material for the creation of ecofriendly
         | buildings.
         | 
         | (edit: But the OP link also contains this 120y assertion. I
         | haven't checked the paper's citations, so I'm not sure if
         | everyone's depending on the cited study's analysis, or if that
         | study is laundering claims by the people making the bricks)
        
           | alimbada wrote:
           | > _I also wonder how well the sargassum bricks withstand
           | weather._
           | 
           | In the video they mention the first house built using these
           | bricks was in 2018. It's still standing and looks like it's
           | in good condition. They also mention the homes they build
           | with these bricks are strong enough to withstand hurricanes.
        
             | culi wrote:
             | Worth noting that these characteristics generally hold for
             | most cob bricks as well. It doesn't seem like it's
             | particularly special because of the seaweed except that
             | it's a way to use an abundant resource. Significant imo
             | because of the minimal treatment necessary and lack of
             | ecological harm in construction.
             | 
             | Wanna renovate? Wanna expand your building? Wanna take it
             | apart and rebuild it entirely? It's basically just dirt so
             | it's flexible to future growth and needs with minimal
             | costs. The West tends to build buildings as if they're
             | permanent but of course even skyscrapers need to come down
             | eventually. All that glass, plastic, and even stuff like
             | asbestos previously, is eventually gonna be taken apart.
             | Usually mostly dumped to a landfill
        
         | unwind wrote:
         | _I wonder what material is this._
         | 
         | Maybe old fishing nets and random plastic trash, considering
         | its all recovered from beaches? Heh. Nah, perhaps hay/grass?
         | Not sure what acts as a binding agent, either.
        
           | nine_k wrote:
           | Incorporating old, strong plastic filaments would be a
           | terrific reuse idea.
           | 
           | I don't think the get enough disused fishing nets for that,
           | and these nets would need a lot of cutting.
        
             | 100k wrote:
             | I helped with a study of the compression strength of
             | concrete blocks when I was in high school. It was a long
             | time ago, but IIRC, the blocks augmented with monofilament
             | (it was fishing line) performed well.
        
         | 1024core wrote:
         | > and 60% is "other organic material". I wonder what material
         | is this.
         | 
         | I'm guessing some binding agent like clay?
        
       | twalling wrote:
       | cached version -
       | https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BvdFhn...
        
       | nkg wrote:
       | Sargassum is a disaster for the economy of caribbean countries
       | because many rely on tourism (read white sand beaches), so it may
       | be a good idea to take advantage of it, but how can we be sure
       | that enough sargassum will wash up on the shore for the next 6
       | months ? Wether we view sargassum as a disaster or sargassum as a
       | raw material, the problem is that we can't control its flow.
        
         | inkcapmushroom wrote:
         | In that case it's probably smart he's doing this as a non-
         | profit rather than a business. A business might go under if the
         | sargassum stops, a non-profit can just wait or just go to other
         | localities where they are getting sargassum and help them build
         | homes there instead.
        
           | mym1990 wrote:
           | A non-profit is still...a business...its just a non-profit
           | business. I don't think being non-profit exempts a business
           | from staying alive without funding, wherever that comes from.
           | I'm not saying your last point isn't valid though.
        
       | Knee_Pain wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | dvh wrote:
       | Don't they mould?
        
         | Modified3019 wrote:
         | Yes, but only on prolonged contact with moisture.
         | 
         | Same with wood.
        
         | Tagbert wrote:
         | Like any adobe-style brick, they need to be protected from
         | moisture.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-18 23:00 UTC)