Talk:Autoclaved aerated concrete

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Invention This article is within the scope of WikiProject Invention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Invention on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InventionWikipedia:WikiProject InventionTemplate:WikiProject InventionInvention articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hello, Can we add HEBEL's Xella company as a website reference?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TMGroup (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In India BILT and B.G.Shirke andCo manufacture AAC in India. The products are very high in price though they claim that in AAC two of the most important cost components- material and energy consumption is low. How can a product consuming less material and energy be higher in cost?

The above argument is only based on national experience. All kinds of aspects can affect the above question, even greed. The material AAC is almost equal in price to other wall building materials on the European continent. Of course for Indian marked you might take in consideration the cost of labor is very low compared to Europe and the coast for energy is assumable different to the energy expense ore energy efficiency during production in countries out of India. The article never state no where the production expense outperform other wall building material worldwide.

However I agree parts of the article, with the exception of “ Raw Material” needs to be edited, as it lacks of substance and reads as a sales flyer. Sprockletwheel (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)) 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Less greenwashing, please! I agree that this article reads like a sales flyer; furthermore, the environmental benefits of this material are inflated by the writer. Not only is producing the raw materials for concrete notoriously energy-intensive, but this form of concrete cannot be produced on-site, so embodied energy from transport from factory to site must also be considered. Heat-curing the concrete in an autoclave must be energy-intensive as well. The lowered density increases its insulative value and strength; does it also make it less durable? These are all considerations in considering a product for specification. Perhaps someone with access to actual data on these parameters could edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.131.82 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When considering embodied energy of this product relative to poured concrete or concrete masonry units, keep in mind that AAC is mostly air by volume. Therefore, the actual Portland cement content by volume is very low relative to solid concrete or CMU. I agree that this article sounds a bit like a sales pitch, but alas there is not a lot of information on AAC (in English anyway) that does not come from the manufacturers or distributors. My understanding is that AAC has been very popular in Northern Europe for a long time, and so there may be more information available in other languages. I would love to see some of it translated. Randall Nortman (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article appears to be heavily slanted to the producers claims, without any counter information. I got here looking for an overview of the Radon gas issues of AAC that have caused most EU governments to provide special building regs for AAC block in dwellings, only to find that it was treated as a one off 'aggregate' issue, it isn't there are recorded issues with all AAC blocks emitting radon gas. Also to claim that anything that has cement as a constituent is ecologically friendly is misinformation, to put it mildy. It may be the case that 'comparatively' this is an innocuous product, but we should bear in mind that all cement produces its own weight of CO2 while curing, and much more during its production. The cement industry is the single largest specific industrial user of energy in the world, and is the second most consumed commodity globally, water being the first. AAC is not an ecologically friendly product, it is a partially reduced damage product. 81.111.39.70 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since AAC is lightweight the amount of diesel consumed for that of transporting same volume of the concrete or clay brick is lower. The steel and concrete required for bulidng a structure is reduced because of lower vertical weight of walls with AAC bricks. Further more, the labor at the construction site is minimized as well as the time for construction is reduced (the walls made by normal clay brick take more time due to higher handling time of smaller sized heavier bricks than larger sized lighter AAC bricks). Due to its porous nature it has better soundproofing and insulating properties. Due to better insulating properties the airconditioning load also comes down. In all, the premium achieved by using the AAC is larger even if the costs of manufacturing are comparable to that of clay brick or concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.212.46 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]