InventWood is about to mass-produce wood that's stronger than steel

Mechanical properties & “stronger than steel”

• Commenters dig into the cited Nature paper: densified wood reaches ~550–600 MPa tensile strength along the grain, with density ~1.3 g/cc and ~10× higher specific strength than mild structural steel.
• It is highly anisotropic and relatively brittle: strong in tension along fibers, weaker in compression and especially across fibers; unlike steel it doesn’t yield ductilely before failure.
• Several note that “stronger than steel” is marketing shorthand: it can beat low‑end steels in specific tensile strength, but not high-strength steels, and only in one direction.

Process, energy use & chemistry

• The process: boil wood in NaOH + Na₂SO₃ for hours to partially remove lignin/hemicellulose, then hot-press at ~5 MPa for many hours to densify.
• People question energy intensity (boiling + long pressing vs arc furnaces) and whether the pulping chemicals can be effectively recovered like in Kraft mills. Environmental impact of sulfite pulping is flagged as a concern.
• There is some confusion over whether resins are added; in the cited research and demos, the product is essentially pure wood with modified structure, not resin-infused composite.

Form factor, joining & workability

• Likely limited to relatively simple, pressed shapes (beams, panels). Complex automotive/airframe geometries would be expensive because you can’t quickly stamp and form it like sheet steel.
• Joining is more like wood (fasteners, adhesives) than steel (welding). That changes joint design and may be a structural limitation.
• Expect drilling/cutting to resemble very dense hardwoods or panzerholz: workable with good tooling but harder on bits, not magical “unmachinable” material.

Applications, cost & markets

• Construction is seen as the natural first market: beams, façade panels, maybe mass-timber‑like systems. Some compare it to CLT, glulam, panzerholz, Lignostone, Masonite.
• Industry voices anticipate it will be much more expensive than existing engineered wood and probably more expensive than steel for structural capacity, making niche, high‑value uses (facades, specialty beams, possibly flooring) more realistic initially.
• Automotive/aviation/space ideas (cars, planes, ships, satellites, machine tools) are floated but most doubt economics and manufacturability there.

Fire, durability, insulation

• Mass timber behavior in fire (charring, retained integrity) is cited as a plus; others point to catastrophic failures of some lightweight engineered wood beams in house fires.
• Long‑term resistance to moisture, swelling, rot, and fungal attack is unclear; the original work required coatings to prevent humidity swelling.
• Densification removes air, probably reducing thermal insulation of members; could increase thermal bridging unless wall systems adapt.

Environment, forestry & skepticism

• Strong interest in carbon benefits vs steel/concrete, but also questions about forestry limits, plantation wood quality, and whether this is truly “green” given chemicals and energy.
• Some highlight extensive prior art in densified wood and similar products that never displaced metals, suggesting cost, anisotropy, and code/regulatory barriers are likely constraints.
• Use of obviously AI/CG imagery on the company site and lack of real‑world structural demos in the article raise suspicions about maturity and over‑hype.