Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NimusNix t1_ix0vl5x wrote

'Love affair'

I think they mean unfortunate necessity.

44

jimius t1_ix1jp1l wrote

We use concrete because it is cheap and easy to use. There are better materials out there for a long time, centuries even. But the problem is always price or labour. So without a carbon tax, cement will be able to externalize it's true costs towards the environment.

5

NimusNix t1_ix1k4xt wrote

>We use concrete because it is cheap and easy to use.

Right.

>There are better materials out there for a long time, centuries even. But the problem is always price or labour.

Which is why it is less a love affair and more akin to an abusive relationship.

>So without a carbon tax, cement will be able to externalize it's true costs towards the environment.

This will help, but there is a hopeful new process on the horizon that injects the CO2 right back into the concrete to trap it while building it. Hopefully that pans out, also.

5

jimius t1_ix1pal3 wrote

Or, like you mentioned, we just leave this abusive relationship...
Concrete will always be useful for certain things, like foundations, elevator shafts. But it should not be the ubiquitous building material that it is.

−1

Positive_Housing_290 t1_ix2fak6 wrote

We use concrete because it is the most used material in the world besides water. Why? Bc it IS the BEST building material ever invented.

There isn’t a better building material than concrete.

5

Words_Are_Hrad t1_ix2poak wrote

A strong, weather resistant material that can be used as a liquid until put into place and left to cure. If it had been invented recently it would be considered a technological miracle with just how useful it is.

1

Select_Repair_2820 t1_ix3q3tj wrote

Then why don't they build concrete houses in hurricane prone areas? Whenever I see a news report, there's always just ripped apart wooden houses

1

Positive_Housing_290 t1_ix41n30 wrote

The price for concrete housing is much more than a stick frame house. They do have concrete homes. They are called ICF homes (insulated concrete form) homes

They are a monolithic concrete envelop. The benefits: there will never be any bug infestations (ie termites), the reduce the amount of A/C or heat needed to cool& heat the house, they can reduce outside noise by 80%, & they withstand hurricane winds.

The cons of an ICF house? The initial price. It is higher to construct. The benefits far outweigh the cost in my opinion.

2

Jaded_Prompt_15 t1_iwzoem6 wrote

If we can "fix" concrete, nuclear becomes a lot more attractive.

All the concrete is why new nuclear power plants can take decades to be carbon neutral.

20

jimius t1_ix1kb7m wrote

That translates to 12 grames of Co2<sup>e</sup> per KwH, which is equal to wind (solar being 20+). So less or cleaner conrete would help to make that impact even lower. But these sites are also heavily over engineered.

4

Surur t1_iwzqvhg wrote

I am surprised the article did not mention carbon capture more, especially since the industry expects it to make the largest contribution on their roadmap to net zero.

15

XAWEvX t1_ix05hpl wrote

All of those numbers seem oddly optimistic to me, we are going to capture 36% of all CO2 we produce by 2050?

>As of 2022, about one thousandth of global CO2 emissions are captured by CCS

according to wikipedia

8

Surur t1_ix06dpt wrote

I assume with the source so concentrated (the outlet in their picture), this would be an ideal use case.

5

filosoful OP t1_iwzgphk wrote

Major industry groups like the London-based Global Cement and Concrete Association and the Illinois-based Portland Cement Association have now released detailed road maps for reducing the 8 percent that cement-making is contributing to the total of CO2 emissions, to zero by 2050.

Many of their strategies rely on emerging technologies; even more are a matter of scaling up alternative materials and underutilized practices that have been around for decades. And all can be understood in terms of the three chemical reactions that characterize concrete’s life cycle: calcination, hydration, and carbonation.

10

MLS_Analyst t1_iwzior6 wrote

Biosolids! There's a lot of data out there showing that using HTC-processed biosolids in place of sand in bricks & concrete can cut down on energy use by 50%, and at 10% replacement could offset all of the emissions from cement production.

https://youtu.be/p6CF-umWLZg?t=591

As always: we have the technology to make this happen. It's just a question off whether we have the political will.

8

just-cuz-i t1_ix11if0 wrote

“Political will” currently means “can rich people get more profit.”

5

UncommonHouseSpider t1_ix1q1jm wrote

Not to mention contributing considerably to high temperatures in large cities due to heat absorption

3

Words_Are_Hrad t1_ix2qspi wrote

No it doesn't. The albedo of concrete is quite high compared to many other building materials. And is also higher than many natural features including grass. The only reason a grass field is cooler is because of the evaporation cooling from moisture in the plant. The main driving force of heat islands is the lack of evaporative cooling from building materials and the low albedo of asphalt road surfaces.

4

FuturologyBot t1_iwzmo0r wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/filosoful:

Major industry groups like the London-based Global Cement and Concrete Association and the Illinois-based Portland Cement Association have now released detailed road maps for reducing the 8 percent that cement-making is contributing to the total of CO2 emissions, to zero by 2050.

Many of their strategies rely on emerging technologies; even more are a matter of scaling up alternative materials and underutilized practices that have been around for decades. And all can be understood in terms of the three chemical reactions that characterize concrete’s life cycle: calcination, hydration, and carbonation.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yzeq9s/the_road_to_lowcarbon_concrete_humanitys_love/iwzgphk/

1

Helgafjell4Me t1_iwzopqo wrote

What ever happened with that concrete formula that actually absorbs carbon as it cures??? I thought for sure that would have gone mainstream. I seem to remember them saying it was even stronger than traditional concrete.

1

bitfriend6 t1_iwzy07i wrote

Ranking construction via Co2 emissions made by vehicles is incredibly dumb compared to the actual life-cycle emissions of the building including expected end-of-life and demolition. If Americans could see what insurance companies do, wood construction would be almost entirely banned.

The only reason concrete is considered "dirty" is because of America's construction lobby. Wood timber housing contains all the plastics that are leeching into watersheds and destroying the biosphere, and most wood homes aren't expected to last longer than 50 years. The amount of plastic in them doubles every decade, just within structural elements as more plywood types are used. Concrete homes are actually durable, can last longer than a century, and don't become a pile of construction debris crushed inside a landfill. I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands, of wood homes dumped this way whereas every concrete structure I've seen dismantled was ultimately recycled to make new concrete.

1

chameleondoesitagain t1_ix1itlg wrote

not humanity but greedy corporations. Stop blaming the people

1

xmmdrive t1_ix2v255 wrote

Can we fix the longevity and maintability while we're at it?

Current concrete recipes seem to have pathetic short lives (50-100 years) and are pretty much impossible to patch once cured.

1

[deleted] t1_ix0f5qk wrote

Plants capture carbon. Rather it all goes to the oxygen producers

0

Alis451 t1_ix0x93u wrote

The ocean captures carbon as well in the form of carbonic acid that then is removed by shellfish in the form of Calcium Carbonate. Over years of life they die leaving their shell to break down and build up into sediment rock, known as Limestone, which is then mined and used as ingredient for cement. Side note: Limestone that has been heated and pressurized becomes Marble.

5

FastAndForgetful t1_iwzxzro wrote

Oh good. We can’t build out of wood, we can’t build out of plastic, and now we can’t build out of cement. What’s next? We can’t build out of mud?

−3

Surur t1_iwzzr9z wrote

> We can’t build out of wood,

Why?

7

Alis451 t1_ix0wrce wrote

idiots who think we cut down all the forests for lumber... deforestation is because of space for animals or humans, the Paper/Lumber industry replants trees so they still have a job in 10 years.

0

decidedforu t1_ix1cwwd wrote

Super funny that our green president first started road construction then tried to squish petrol use. Haha.

−3

artaig t1_iwzuksh wrote

Not just emissions. It's extremely unhealthy (traps humidity and grows mold, etc). Use wood and brick in your homes people. And for extra cheap insulation: straw bales. Designed a bunch of them.

−9

howard416 t1_ix0a4gj wrote

While I'm all for a reduction in concrete use, it's misleading at best to say that it "grows mold". Nor does it "trap humidity" because, on its own, it is quite vapor permeable.

Wood and brick are generally not a replacement for where you'd use concrete in a home anyway.

3