Construction Sand

We all know only river/beach sand is valuable and growing in price every years. Imagine there is process to convert desert sand into construction sand: it will mean deserts become valuable resource deposits. It will be the new oil(oil is getting replaced by renewables). That process exists and is called "Finite" sand.
The problem is they keep the binder paste "secret"...
https://www.fastcodesign.com/90165549/the-next-great-building-material-it-could-be-sand-from-deserts
http://materialfinite.com/
https://materia.nl/article/finite-concrete-desert-sand/
These are current sand prices per ton
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/construction-sand-price.html

dicks

>>2
Vaginal sand

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.

salt is a more valuable resource

>>5
Salt is a byproduct of desalination of water which is quite advanced field with new membranes, filters and methods discovered each year. There is enough salt in the ocean and salt mines aren't exhausted yet.
Construction sand has actual shortages, sand mafias, beach theft(by trucks), mining of riverbeds in third world, rock crushing/grinding(because rock gives off great sand/gravel). Its fascinating field because only a small percent of available sand is fit for construction and cheap enough to recover(that why e.g. ocean beds filled with sediment sand are not mined yet).

>>6
Minor correction:sand near the shoreline is already being mined where beach/river sand is unavailable, because its profitable.
Deep ocean sand and far from shore is currently not mined, but there are projects for mining minerals there(more profitable per ton).

Salt comes from based guy take too much acid.

If salt were worth a lot of money, angry GNUbeards over 30yo would be rolling in it.

The company linked in the OP advertises it's product as biodegradable. Why the hell would you want to build with biodegradable material? You can't substitute something that will decay naturally for concrete.

>>10
That's not our problem
It's the hipsters' problem

>>10
its probably something like "biodegradable in favorable conditions in 50-100 years".

>>10

Why the hell would you want to build with biodegradable material?

you had better ask literally every construction worker since the dawn of man. Since they all do it I mean.

>>12
what if I want it to stay for more than 100 years?

>>12
You'll have to recycle and rebuild it again.

>>13
Being forced to replace a bridge twice as often is a larger impediment to commerce than rebuilding a single story house every now and again. Every material degrades, but considering what concrete is used for having a concrete substitute quickly degrade is a bug, not a feature.

>>16
That is about the same as normal lifespan and you can't recycle concrete.
``Steel and concrete bridges are usually constructed with a design life of between 50 and 100 years. ``

>>17
Yes, but in practice steel and concrete structures frequently are in place for longer than that. For instance, here's a railway bridge over the Hackensack river that was built in 1910 and today is still used very intensively to send freight to New York City. It certainly isn't in great shape and that it has yet to be replaced is the fault of a bizarre lack of political will, but imagine how much worse things would be if it had weathered away years ago.