Concrete is 15% cement and 85% stone. Just crushed, homogenous, predictable and structurally sound stone. You can't reinforce stone like you can reinforce concrete, and you can't pour stone. Stone will not replace concrete. As soon as the energy crisis ends, concrete prices will fall again. The requirements for stone to be used structurally are high, and I don't think production could ever match the demand that replacing concrete would create, or if it did, it would be a whole lot more expensive.

You can compensate higher variability by building thicker walls than you would build with reinforced concrete (and it still may end up cheaper but it needs to be calculated).

> You can't reinforce stone

Not every structure needs to be reinforced. Stone walls should be fine (at least in places with low seismic activity) and for floor slabs one can continue using reinforced concrete.

We are running out of sand to make cement and concrete [1].

1: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313170-we-are-running-...

The analysis is interesting, but why the alternative of using bricks instead of stone or concrete is not studied at all?

Seems even more efficient to mould clay than to carve stones, even it becomes fully automated.

Firing bricks requires a lot of energy, cutting stone probably requires less energy but would be good to see the numbers.

Bricks are not structural replacements for either concrete or stone.

Brick construction during an earthquake is an absolute nightmare. Steel tensioned stone sounds like it could potentially work around that?

The whole concept is based on local availability of stone, so probably that's the reason. Is clay similarly abundant?

I'm imagining the pit mining to retrieve the volume of large stones needed to keep up with concrete consumption.