So, okay

I've worked my way through the article

And... I don't know.

First, potentially is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lots of things are potentially energy-effecient, but a quick 'command+f' shows no mention of 'carbon neutral' or 'carbon negative'. But, hey, if its more environmentally friendly than alternatives, that's great too, and an easier bar to reach. From my reading, it sounds like that's not the goal either, this isn't attempting to be the future of carbon capture, but rather to reduce emissions concerning construction, which, great.

But the second, arguably bigger hurdle, is affordability, and that, I can't find any mention of. There's no price comparison between this method, vs contemporary materials.

Corporations would jump on this like nothing else if it were cheaper than present methods.

Scalability would definitely help towards this end, yes. But would it achieve it is still up in the air. And I've no reason to believe a construction company would want this, instead of, say, normal wood. Yes, its more durable than regular wood, but so are a lot of things. What in the normal construction process is this aiming to replace?

And as the news article says, thats not even something they've figured out, yet. That's their 'next step'. The primary article just outlines how they made it.

So I frankly, don't have a lot of hope for this project. The science behind it, great. But its real world applicability? That's not something they've figured out.