Concrete is one of the biggest sources of emissions in the world and it feels like a blind spot in our push for greener solutions.
Is there any research being done into alternatives that will scale to what we use concrete for? I've seen alternative home building methods, and different urban planning can reduce the need for large buildings that need it, but I haven't seen good alternatives for roads, tunnels, bridges, etc. Steel sometimes works but has its own problems and is more expensive.
It's funny you should say this - I just recently was on an airplane with a bunch of folks returning from a big Vegas concrete convention. Eavesdropping a bit here and there, it seemed the topic of "greener" concrete was big. The person in the seat next to me was describing how they recently started using a concrete and steel fiber mix so they could pour less and achieve the same strength and durability - the main "customer pitch" she told me was that it would was a lot greener. No idea if any of that is true, but it was interesting to see how focused on it they all were.
Not necessarily. At times, a tiny band-aid on things can be counterproductive. See replacing plastic straws with paper/reusable ones; it's a drop in the bucket, and it's used in part to distract from the much larger overall issue of single-use plastics.
I don't see any evidence that the push against plastic straws is used to distract from other single use plastics.
Indeed, I see the opposite. I see advocacy groups that are fighting against single use plastics using anti plastic straws campaigns as a way to spark conversations about other kinds of single use plastics.
I don't see how paper straws distract from anything. Every time I see a paper straw my immediate thoughts are about how it's not plastic that'll be getting thrown out.
> At face value, these efforts seem benevolent, but they obscure the real problem, which is the role that corporate polluters play in the plastic problem. This clever misdirection has led journalist and author Heather Rogers to describe Keep America Beautiful as the first corporate greenwashing front, as it has helped shift the public focus to consumer recycling behavior and actively thwarted legislation that would increase extended producer responsibility for waste management.
> For example, back in 1953, Vermont passed a piece of legislation called the Beverage Container Law, which outlawed the sale of beverages in non-refillable containers. Single-use packaging was just being developed, and manufacturers were excited about the much higher profit margins associated with selling containers along with their products, rather than having to be in charge of recycling or cleaning and reusing them. Keep America Beautiful was founded that year and began working to thwart such legislation. Vermont lawmakers allowed the measure to lapse after four years, and the single-use container industry expanded, unfettered, for almost 20 years.
No, there are some companies actually trying to create "greener" cements and concrete formulations. We can absolutely split hairs about it, but some are significantly better than conventional and are in the pipeline for use. However, still years away due to regulation testing and standards adoption.
One material that should be used much more in building but isn't: straw!
It's become a recent obsession of mine.
* has a long history of use (no research needed)
* is eco friendly (in fact sequesters carbon)
* cheap
* readily available
* pliable material that is forgiving to build with, even for novices
* quick to erect walls
* is a waste material - usually ploughed back into fields or burned
* has very impressive thermal and sound insulation, so no additional insulation is needed, unlike a concrete walled home or building
I could go on....
Of course not every building or structure can be made from straw bales, but many houses, warehouses or smaller commercial buildings could be. It's a very low hanging fruit in the battle against climate change.
I read that straw is basically outlawed bec it’s hard to make a house with it and still be on the right side of fire safety codes. Especially if you’re using it as part of your insulation strategy.
Yes there is. Geopolymer cement provides an 80% reduction in co2 emissions vs traditional cement. CarbonCure has developed a version of concrete that absorbs co2 during its production, though it cannot be poured and can only be used to make prefab shapes [1].
An issue with these new cements is that there is no economic incentive for companies to change production processes and switch.
It isnt just cost that prevents a switch. Some building codes explicitly state Portland cement as the allowed material. Geopolymer proponents have been working to change building code to stating required material properties instead. Unsurprisingly, geopolymers have taken off in countries with less regulation.
Concrete production represents 4-8% of all worldwide CO2 production. It's a significant percentage. There's talk on sequestering CO2 in concrete itself but I'm not sure how far it has gotten. I do remember some plants in France or Germany having facilities to process clinker byproducts. I wonder how more efficient is that.
Why don’t we focus on the problems we can solve today? Cars, power generation, and improve industrial process that emit green house gasses.
We could solve these issues “today” in a sense. Creating new carbon neutral building materials that last as long as current stuff seems like a huge risk.
That is until the well-connected lobby carbon tax loopholes into the implementation and use the carbon tax yet another tool for regulatory capture to stomp out competition. Or, companies simply shift more production to developing countries to skirt taxes. We can create ecological disasters over there instead...
While I like the idea of attaching monetary costs to otherwise ignored externalities, I don't see the carbon tax having any chance of being fairly and effectively implemented.
Honestly, I think we actually want a high-carbon cement: One full of graphene or other carbon compounds, pulled from the atmosphere. Per the article yesterday [1] we need to remove 2 teratonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere to meet IPCC targets. Maybe some of that will be done by taxpayer-funded carbon sequestration operations that exist only to pump the carbon 'away' in underground reserviors. But I think that if we've laid down 1 Tt of concrete, and could develop something better than that which is carbon-negative, people would be more than happy to pay for that CO2 sequestration, and that progress might actually survive an election cycle.
> Is there any research being done into alternatives that will scale to what we use concrete for?
Flyash, and other pozzolanic industrial wastes. There are literally mountains of it.
Problem? There is no "standard flyash," every power station uses a bit different fuel. Same for industrial wastes.
Second option are natural geopolymers, but they are not that common, and coincidentally, most of countries with a lot of geopolymer deposits are rather rich, and that undercuts economic incentives.
Been looking into graphene and it can reduce the amount of concrete and increase the strength. Of course, can graphene be made at a commercial level and out of the lab
Is there any research being done into alternatives that will scale to what we use concrete for? I've seen alternative home building methods, and different urban planning can reduce the need for large buildings that need it, but I haven't seen good alternatives for roads, tunnels, bridges, etc. Steel sometimes works but has its own problems and is more expensive.