

Stronger-than-steel fibre spun from wood - WestCoastJustin
http://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/tra-kan-ersatta-bomull-och-glasfiber-1.481498

======
hyperion2010
A while back I read an article about how this [1] was going to replace plastic
in the near future. It seems that since that time it has downgraded to
improving the material properties of plastics. The best part is that you can
make this stuff out of sawdust. Hopefully the research mention in tfa will
open up more uses for otherwise 'useless' waist from industrial processes.
Unfortunately there is no information on how long the base fibres need to be
to make this stuff. 1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocellulose](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocellulose)

------
peterclary
“The new technology promises not only biodegradable structural materials but
soft natural textiles that could be substituted for cotton, which is widely
believed to be close to reaching peak cultivation.”

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044876/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044876/)

~~~
jobu
First time I've heard of "peak cotton". While I'm sure this wood texture could
supplement cotton, I can't believe that trees would grow fast or efficiently
enough to replace cotton.

------
netcan
Something out the ays material science gets reported is broken. It's hard to
distinguish between things that are theoretically possible and those that are
in production now. Cost of production is also an issue.

Can we make a pencil out of this stuff. What would it cost?

~~~
lambda
This is true of pretty much all science reporting (at least, on things that
are claimed to have some practical benefit).

I think that the science reporters figure that if they simply report on every
successful test, regardless of how far it is from being practical, eventually
they will be the ones to have broken the news on "the next big thing".

------
emil0r
How would you prevent rot?

~~~
ars
Keep it dry. Coat it with something waterproof and it should last.

How old is the oldest wood structure?

~~~
robin_reala
Depends what you mean by ‘structure’. If you mean extant building then Hōryū-
ji[1] has a claim. If you widen your definition then there’s structures like
Woodhenge[2].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-
ji](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C5%8Dry%C5%AB-ji) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodhenge)

~~~
ars
> Depends what you mean by ‘structure’

If you want to be specific, then I mean where wood is kept under significant
tension load.

So I guess woodhenge doesn't count since that's compression load. (Only
tension load actually stresses the wood fibers in a way that's comparable with
the product discussed in the article.)

~~~
willvarfar
Does a pyramid count as a structure by your definition then?

~~~
ars
Don't get caught up by the word "structure". It's just a simple term I used
for the purpose.

The actual subject here is the tension load, the word "structure" is just the
most convenient term for it.

(But in any case a hollow pyramid would certainly be under tension. You would
need an arch if you wanted pure compression.)

------
fideloper
If wood becomes even more in demand, will we plant more trees then we kill? We
humans are already destroying our forests as it is.

~~~
peroo
Possibly, but that won't help the flora or fauna since young, planted forests
have completely different ecosystems than the rainforests we're tearing down.
Arguably it won't help co2 emissions much either since old forests capture
enormous amounts of carbon in the ground, which planted forests don't.

~~~
jobu
While I agree that tree plantations aren't as biodiverse as natural forests, I
had been lead to believe that young, fast growing trees sucked in more carbon
than mature, stable forests.

Do you have any citations for why forests are better, CO2-wise? My google
search results turned up a mixed bag.

