Slashdot Mirror
A Concrete Solution To Pollution
PreacherTom writes "With concerns over global warming and pollution control reaching an all-time high, an Italian company has developed an interesting solution. It is called TX Active: a concrete that literally breaks down pollutants in the air. The effects are significant: 'In large cities with persistent pollution problems caused by car emissions, smoke from heating systems, and industrial activities, both the company and outside experts estimate that covering 15% of all visible urban surfaces (painting the walls, repaving the roads) with products containing TX Active could abate pollution by up to 50%.' Even more significant is that the cost is only 30% over that of normal concrete. Remarkable."
30% increase in price may not convince those that don't consider the environment that important. Maybe in some places like California or parts of Europe this will take off, but I don't see it becoming commonplace for industrialized or developing cities.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
global warming and pollution control
So WTF does this have to do with global warming? Or does the concrete break down CO2 also?
Too many buzzwords man
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
FTA: TX Active not only hastens the decomposition of organic and inorganic pollutants, it also prevents their build-up on surfaces, helping to preserve a building's pristine appearance over time.
So the long-term cost may be lower because you can spend less on cleaning your prestigious HQ.
And if you use limecrete rather than concrete then you can reduce CO2 emmisions by 40% as well.
Limecrete
I have an idea, perhaps we can control pollution forming toxins at the source.
For example in cars we could promote less intial generation (perhaps even regulate fuel consumption),
Then before it even leaves the car we run it through some type of catalyst to convert it to less toxic pollutants, or filter out small particles.
Even better is if we had some sort of On Board Diagnostic system to monitor everything, like make sure there are no leaks between the engine and the filters.
This seems like an expensive air purifier, though one that might help with the existing problem and be very profitable to sell.
My biggest question is why have this in concrete? Other than the manufacturer sells concrete.
The summary is also wrong, it isn't 30% more, they claim $120 for a 5 story building. You must have cheap paint if that's 30% more than plain concrete.
Unfortunately the parent (first post) is probably right. Cathalitic convertors (for instance) are still not required in China due to the slight increase in cost of a vehicle. When I was there our tour guide had never even heard of them and was amazed that something existed that could stop some of the thick black smoke coming out of the vehicles there, having no idea (aside from price) why they were not already mandatory.
Warhammer forums
"Buildings, roads and sidewalks have developed an appetite for air pollution. Researchers in Japan and Hong Kong are testing construction materials coated with titanium dioxide--the stuff of white paint and toothpaste--to see how well they can fight pollution. Better known as a pigment for whiteness, titanium dioxide can clear the air because it is an efficient photocatalyst: it speeds the breakdown of water vapor by ultraviolet light. The results of this reaction are hydroxyl radicals, which attack both inorganic and organic compounds, and turn them into molecules that can be harmlessly washed away with the next rainfall." - Scientific American (Feb 2002 Issue)
Reduce, reuse, cycle
So the long-term cost may be lower because you can spend less on cleaning your prestigious HQ.
Maybe so, but I don't think contractors will suggest the 30% increase because "it makes the air better" or "it stays whiter". I do applaud the innovation, but I think it is reserved for specialized applications, like artistic buildings (where that super white shine really matters) or dense post-industrialized cities with huge budgets and also lots of pollution.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Note: the 30% quote is for pavement with this catalyst. Adding the catalyst to paint would cost much less (TFA says $120 for a five-storey building).
You reduce the polution of the air by absorbing this in Tx active and thus creating another poluated product? How you gonna get rid of that?
If this turns out not to be FUD, it sounds excellend. I bet those 30% extra could easily be subsidised by city gouvernments quite simply due to reduced environmental and health problems.
If anything, it proves better technology is the cure to problems caused by technology (:
The big problem with the current US approach to global warming (beyond its pure bone-headed stupidity) is that once the US is forced into taking it seriously it will be significantly behind the competition from companies elsewhere in the globe, and paticularly in Europe. British Airways are already offering carbon offsets and these Italians are looking to make cash in another way. Given that this is going to be a huge market in the future there is a real risk to US companies (witness Toyota v Ford/GM) that innovation happens elsewhere.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Solution to Pollution
Conjunction junction, what's your function?...
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Actually, I invented a much better air purification system a while back.
It consists of a structure which waves in the air on large beams rising from the ground, on which are placed what are known as Local Environmental Air Filters ("LEAF"s).
The best thing is it uses an innovative self-assembly technique which just requires placing a single capsule in the ground, so installation is pretty simple.
After use, it can be disassembled using hand tools and the parts reused for many other uses, so it's ideal for use in both developed and developing countries.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
are belong to us.
Hell littering is still not really a crime in china. The government there has NO interest in environment, even at their own detrement.
Don't try to resolve the result of the problem... try to resolve the problem itself !
I'd say it's exactly 30% more than most of people are willing to pay. Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to. If you'd make it 1% cheaper to make than just concrete, it'd be a hit. Any percent more, is a no-go.
While they are at it, if they'd manage to increase the thermal isolation benefits of the material so that it'd pay off to buy the more expensive one, they'd stand a chance, but even that chance is not remarkable.
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
A 30% increase in the price of the concrete on the surface will only be a few percent of the price for a lot of structures. Even pavement is thick.
Great - an excuse to pave over more unspoiled areas.
However they are spending more than any other govenment on earth installing wind turbines to generate electricity. They are closing down a lot of those death trap coal mines they have. I think facts may be more complicated than your opinions.
Cathalitic convertors
...Trying to sway pollution from being Protestant?
Given the abysmal thermal inefficiency of concrete, leading to tremendous wastes of fossil fuel for heating/aircon, it is nothing short of irresponsible to portray it as a pollution saviour.
/.
If you do not have the facts in your hands to be able to read critically some corporate PR, at least have the decency to not parrot it on
The only way anyone will use this stuff is if it's required by law or made a requirement for city contracts. It's going to cost an insane amount of money. It would probably be cheaper to just give people tax incentives to buy more efficient (and therefore typically less polluting) cars.
Great! Now we just need someone to get up there and paint over the hole in the ozone layer.
For some reason, I recall hearing/reading this somewhere years ago...
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
Yeah - like I'd really want to live / work in a building that was soaking up crud out of the atmosphere... Great idea, guys, thanks...
That's silly. You can find a bigger price fluctuation between offers if you ask for offers in a tender system.
;)
In Hungary motorways suddently cost 2-3x more after 2002 than before. Some sinister people point out that there was a change of government in 2002, but I'm sure there is no connection.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Catalytic converters will not prevent black smoke if your engine is spent. Cats work mainly on NOx, Hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, none of these are black smoke. Black smoke is generally soot, and would write off a catalytic converter in all likelihood.
Frankly I'm tired and bored of listening to the constant doom mongering.
Look. We can take a bitty view at all this, then run about like headless chickens screaming about this issue this week, then that issue next week... Or... we can take an overview and recognise that some pollution is inevitable so, allow people to pollute as much as they like, as long as they pay for it. Make them buy a license to pollute.
The idea is called cap and trade. You say, these and these are sources of this and that pollution, you go ahead and pollute but the total number of licenses to pollute are N tonnes and you and your competitors have to buy (or else) enough licenses to cover the number of tonnes you produce. As the total amount of pollution allowed to be produced is reduced, the price of the licenses on the free market increases, the people who are least efficient, have to buy more and end up more expensive than their more efficient competitors. Then you leave it up to the companies to find their own way of reducing their pollution costs. Whether they use this technology, or that technology is irrelevant as long as they pay.
Deleted
30% increase in price may not convince those that don't consider the environment that important
30% more for the *painting*; when you're dealing with city buildings, this part is next to negligible compared to the rest. If that product is as efficient as TFA says, I don't see it as a problem at all, and personally would like to see it either made non-optional, or tax assisted. The fact it also helps to keep surfaces clean would by itself be enough to motivate buyers.
Oh no! The TX active ate my baby!
Offsets are crap.
Anyone who sponsors the idea of using "carbon offsets" is doing nothing but transfering wealth from one entity to another. It has nothing to do with protecting the environment and should be laughed at when mentioned.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'd say it's exactly 30% more than most of people are willing to pay. Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to. If you'd make it 1% cheaper to make than just concrete, it'd be a hit. Any percent more, is a no-go.
Whenever I visit Dallas, I wish I had a penny for every ton of concrete in that city.
However, I think the idea might be that the use of this material could be mandated. It probably would not be mandated in most cities, but certain cities whose climate makes them vulnerable to pollution problems might consdider it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As with hybrid cars and low-e windows, this is one area where tax credits could make the difference. Presumably the manufacturers and distributors of this stuff were generous in the last round of political campaign fundraising.
While the parent is absolutely correct, the comment doesn't account for the fact that the EU and the Italian legislators push anything that goes toward limiting pollution with a great effort. That is, maybe the builders may receive a sort of compensation for using this kind of material, as the house owners who build photovoltaic panels are receiving since a couple of years ago.
Apple iProduct. Non importa cosa sia, lo comprerete!
Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of a building, from the acquisition of natural resources to product delivery." and as you can see from the graph, Concrete has far and away the highest of any material. It also has far and away the lowest value when it comes to recycling at the end of its life.
The fact that this absorbs pollution ofsets this but does it actually become a green material for construction?Contractors might not suggest it but Joe CEO writing the checks for a new corporate HQ might request it if he knew about it.
Collector's Edition
Parent is not a troll!
This is actually a possible scenario. Not for the Amazonian rainforest but for the so called "green lungs" of the cities. These concrete could actually influence decision about smaller tree covered areas inside or next to urban areas and whether they are needed for the micro-climate of the area or not.
As posted by someone above:
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
From the italcementi site.
TX Active® is a photocatalytic principle for cement products which can reduce organic and inorganic pollutants that are present in the air. Its effectiveness has been thoroughly tested and thus certified by important independent research centers (CNR, ARPA, IspraResearchCenter). Its formulation is the result of 10 years of research, tests and applications carried out by CTG (Centro Tecnico di Gruppo, a company in the Italcementi Group) which has led to the final formulation of the active principle.
Apple iProduct. Non importa cosa sia, lo comprerete!
I totally agree with you... those stupid fuckers who hate the environment so much that they purchase cars that don't run only on electricty, when the cost of those cars is only 30 to 50% more than normal cars... AGGGHH.... I just don't understand why those people hate trees and birds and lungs so much. They're probably rolling around in their filthy money laughing at the rest of us as we choke on the noxious gases from their Honda Civics and Ford Foci.
On the other hand, it only needs to be on the exposed surface of the building. Even at a 30% premium, it is cheaper than marble, granite, glass, etc. It might give a builder an excuse to have a bare concrete exterior without being accused of making an ugly building. "It fights pollution! Isn't that more important than being pretty?"
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Is anyone up for a 30% increase in their housing costs? Maybe a 30% increase in their taxes? 30% is a lot of money when you're talking about construction. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done... only tossing out 30% like it's not big thing is absolutely idiotic.
Isn't this the same old trick as the titanium-based paint they developed over there to break down the pollution into harmless dust or something?
meta-dupe?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's actually fairly common practice in LEED-certified buildings to use concrete walls as thermal stores, where the sheer mass of the concrete makes it effective at storing heat to be radiated back out later.
... because this products, "attack both inorganic and organic compounds, and turn them into molecules that can be harmlessly washed away with the next rainfall", a couple nights sleeping on the sidewalk will take care of the homeless people too.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
This seems like something that down the line people will go, "OMG?! What were we thinking?!", like they do with asbestos and lead paint.
Hopefully I am wrong, but man has a terrible track record at creating things that kill us in the long term.
The concrete will be quite common, because of a simple fact corporations don't build roads, governments do, and they are about as hyper anal about the environment as they come, reguardless of what the media says. Lot's of money coming from the federal government has alot of strings attached to it. Cities get alot of flack over polution and loose alot of funding over it. Getting people out of their cars has been a non-starter to reduce polution, but getting the numbers to drop with a special concrete or paint is simplicity in itself, when compared to light rail and other polution fighting schemes.
There is another large group in the US that is willing to pay quite a bit of money for this technology, and that is parents. Ask any parent with an asthmatic child if they would be willing to do something as simple as repaint their home inside and out to better the life of their suffering child and you'll most likely see them jumping in their car and hurrying off to the hardware store before you can even get an answer. Most of the polution in the US, as in greater than 50%, comes not from industry but people. It is the average person whose mind has to be changed, not the corporations. Most people are more than willing to make simple changes in their lives or part with a reasonable amount of money to do so, especially if it will have a real impact on the life of their child.
I wouldn't be surprised to see this paint become mandatory to use at schools and public buildings with just a few years. Even if it didn't or ever get used by corporations, there are 300,000,000 in the US that live in a lot of houses. It wouldn't take very many to start making a noticeable impact on the polution.
Buildings that use it - and similar technologies - could get tax reductions or other compensation for doing somthing for the public good.
If done this way, it could work.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I knew this sounded familiar. This one is from back in July of 2005 so I suppose it may be worth a repost. The CNN article linked in the earlier post no longer exists.
2 4/064246
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/
But why is the rum gone?
Short term effects: The city's economy is bankrupted because it probably costs $10,000 per cubic yard of this stuff
Long term effects: It probably causes cancer, sterility, senility, lucidity, frugality, and a bunch of other -ity's that I can't think of right now.
__OR__
Five to ten years after it's reached its absorption limit, we get people who walk to work on a daily basis falling down dead from inhaling all of the pollutants that this material is spewing back into the air. What's that you say? Replace it every 5 years to prevent this? I can't say 'CHA-CHING' loud enough.
And they said zombies weren't real!
You're assuming a "as much as a 50% drop in airborne pollution" actually produces economic incentives that offset the loss in tax revenue... of course this would only be for new buildings... so the total reduction in pollutants is not really known from a city-wide perspective. Of course 30% increase in cost is pretty fixed... you'll pay, but you probably will not see practical benefit for years and I doubt politicians are going to be able to sell 30% higher building material costs for some reduction in airborne pollutants at some future point in time.
Be way for two unrelated percentages placed next to each other... it's a deception tactic.
While it's an interesting story, this came out years ago. Or at least something similar. I also believe they invented paint that does the same thing.
The Italian researchers fail to understand a key point: The Religion. It's not sufficient that Man may resolve his struggles with Gaia via our intellect and our technology. We must first SUFFER, and then know Redemption. We must SACRIFICE, deprive ourselves of our modern conveniences, and the most ARROGANT among our tribes must know economic UPHEAVAL before we may enter the PROMISED LAND.
What, they thought this was about Science?
heh.
First of all, portland cement already absorbs CO2, so this isn't new. What TFA fails to mention is that the production of portland cement produces a heck of a lot of CO2. So in effect the building materials made from that material do indeed absorb CO2 but only a fraction that it's manufacture launched into the atmosphere. TFA doesn't mention how much CO2 does the manufacture of the miraculous compound produces.
Second, TFA fails to mention that no material is capable of absorbing a constant rate of some compound for as long as anyone cares to measure. In the case of porland cement it does indeed absorb CO2 but only in the surface. The CO2 absorption doesn't penetrate more than a couple of cm beyond the element's surface and as time passes, the rate of absorption decreases until it doesn't absorb anything anymore. So TFA doesn't state what does it mean by 30%. Is it the total amount absorbed? Is it peak absorption rate? Is it the time window where the compound stays unsaturated? What is it? That information is vital to evaluate if it justifies the added cost.
Third. What effect does that compound has on the concrete's mechanical properties? Does it make it more fragile? More permeable? Less resistant?
Fourth, TFA states that it only costs 30% more. Only? How do you justify a 30% increase on building costs just because someone decided to use a useless compound due to some marketing gimmick?
As I see it, this product is useless. It is tailored to ignorant people who are willing to spend lots of money on something just because someone decided to slap a "green" sticker on it. There are far more efficient and proven ways to absorb CO2 and other greenhouse gases than using some "green" product on concrete. For example, invest on green spaces, on passive heating/cooling systems, on energy-efficient lighting solutions, etc... Heck, instead of spending 30% of the building costs on funny concrete why not invest that money on some eco-friendly project? All those suggestions do a whole lot more for the environmnet than some snake oil product to add to the concrete mixture.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
I'd be curious to know what the net benefit is, seeing as concrete production is itself one of the largest contributors to air pollution in the first place.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
NObody expects the Spanish Iquisition!!
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Instead of making the building entirely from concrete, how about using some different material for the interior walls, and maybe but some kind of insulation-stuff between the interior and exterior-walls?
Just a thought....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Hmm... from TFA:
In the presence of natural or artificial light (this applies also indoors) the photocatalyzer significantly speeds up the natural oxidation processes that cause the decomposition of pollutants, transforming them into less harmful compounds such as water, nitrates, or carbon dioxide.
Doesn't look like it's going to reduce global warming effects to me... (H20 vapor is also a contributor to global warming, fyi.)
Where do the pollutants go, or what are they transformed into? If they're just transferred to groundwater, or transformed into some other potentially-toxic form, then this might help air quality but it wouldn't address the global pollution problem (as suggested in some of the posts here). The article refers to the pollutants being "broken down" more rapidly than normal, but it's not clear what that means.
/b
Bandannarama
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "big companies" as pure evil. Sometimes, they do care, because they have to.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
e.g. at the new Bank of America tower. So no, I'm not referring to the subway platform.
And now, a PSA from David Lynch.
Usually labor is the major cost of making anything. The cost of concrete as a percentage of the building whole is probably a small amount. I just looked up the average concrete cost per home -around $6500 for an average sized home. An average priced home in the USA is $227,000 (the market can vary widely - here in California the average price is around $450,000)
Anyway, the concrete cost is only about 3% of the total cost of building a home - not much, and thus affordable.
Yes, I know that modern office buildings probablky have a higher percentage of concrete, but it still is not the major cost of a building - labor is.
..........FULL STOP.
That is largely untrue. Only the blind corporations are ignoring the writing on the wall: this stuff *will* be regulated in the future.
Big corporations are spending big bucks right now to meet what they perceive as future regulations, at their leisure. The thinking is that if they prepare now, when they have opportunities, they will be able to avoid having to shut down their processing while upgrades are done later. It's happening all over. IAAEC. (I Am An Engineering Consultant)
The biggest polluters get POORER! The smallest polluters get RICHER!
Which part of that don't you understand?
Deleted
That's the real question. Pollution causes all sorts of health problems, so if the reduction in pollution results in a healthier, happier populace, and a significant corresponding savings in health care, then the government would tax regular concrete or provide sufficient incentives for the new concrete, to balance out the additional cost. Kinda sucks for the construction company if they have to pay a bit more, but as a society, we're well used to spreading out costs of advancements that improve all of our living standards.
Of course, this matters most in countries that provide some significant level of health care, like Canada.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If this were carbon sequestration technology, this would be an unbelievable breakthrough.
From TFA, this product will actually convert pollutants into, among other things, CO2. I don't know enough about the whole system to know if widespread use of this compound would actually be useful or not. (Or even detrimental in the long run?)
>> an Italian company has developed... a concrete that literally breaks down pollutants in the air...
Sounds plausible. Wasn't it the Italians who created a concrete which absorbs and contains competing mobsters?
Heh. Sorry, I just can't see it happening like that. (Except maybe if their PR department says that that claim would improve the corporate image or something.)
Most of the corporations don't really give a fuck about the environment or social responsibility or even ethics. Their _only_ legal responsibility is to make more money for the shareholder. And they'll do just that. If doing the ecologically sane, socially responsible, or ethical thing would cause 1% less profits, it's their legal _duty_ to _not_ do it.
The industry (as a whole) has a long history of doing anything up to (and including) dumping poisons into rivers or into the atmosphere. It's been perfectly happy to cause health problems all the way to cancer and poisoning in the nearby towns (both mining and manufacturing did that), in its own workers (see the fact that they knew since the end of the 19'th century that asbestos tends to cause lung cancer), or even in its customers (see the tobacco industry.)
The only thing that _ever_ dragged it kicking and screaming into cleaning up its act was the law. At some point society decided, "no, sorry, we're not having _that_ shit dumped into our town's river and ground water. Put a filter on it or we'll make it even more expensive to ignore us." And even then invariably the industry has put up quite a fight, including astroturfing, lobbying, PR lies campaigns, threatening to fire everyone and move somewhere else, etc.
Sadly I just don't see it working any differently this time. Now you're asking them to pay extra (in most cases having an ugly building _is_ paying extra, in an indirect way: less rent, lost customers, public image, whatever) not just to clean their own act, but basically to clean everyone else's pollution too. Expect a heartfelt laugh in the face if you tried convincing someone to volunteer to do that. Either the law forces them to, or it just won't happen.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Once a few municipalities start mandating the use of this material, it will enjoy the economy of scale and competition between vendors. The price will come down. I'd be surprised if within 10 years it's not closer to 5% more than regular concrete.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
You think that whenever you visit Dallas?
Gee, I drive there every day and all I can think of is how shitty the city is and how I want to get back to Fort Worth.
I highly doubt any city is going to pay 30% more though. The cities and counties out here bid to the cheapest contractor and the cheapest contractor is probably going to get the cheapest concrete.
Can this stuff be added into asphalt? Or sidewalks? That alone could help a LOT.
I am a bit worried though, what happens when they have to knock down a building? Is this stuff carcinogenic? Will it cause problems when it ends up in the air?
While I agree with the rest of your sentiments, you will dismayed to realize how many of the "average person" will just be lazy instead of trying to make things better for their children, or society as a whole.
All you have to do is drive through a residential neighborhood and see how many homes didn't put their recycle bins out... ever. Or the ones that look at their trash container being full, and dump regular trash in with their recycling, saying "What does it hurt?"
The bottom line is that most people are inherently lazy. And unless their house needed repainting, or their sidewalk/driveway needed to be repaved, they won't do it. Even parents with kids that have asthma. Some will, but most won't.
And it sucks.
The contractor has no say in it. The architect specifies the mix of the concrete and they have to follow that. Once you take into account the fact that the mix is the same, concrete has very little variability in quality (as long as it's mixed well).
Hey, can I bum a sig?
Its purly a monetary decision on their part. And yes lucikly money will eventually force them to become more environmental, but as things go they still have little to no restrictions on personal pollution.
The question they forget to discuss is how long it takes for one ounce of this stuff to counter the carbon dioxide created by making one ounce of it. If it takes less than 1 year, then it is worthwhile. If it takes 100 years, most likely the building will be torn down before this is helpfull.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is where Architects and Specifiers come into play. If you consider a large (public or private) project that will be put out to bid, the Architect can specify this as a required system, or as required level of performance.
Add to that the increasing demand for LEED certification in buildings.
Builders may not care, but there are certainly many other people who do care.
The cost of buying a home and the cost of building a home aren't the same thing.
Like many ideas, this one sounds super at the start, not so wonderful after a little reflection.
First of all, it converts the pollutants to less problematic substances, it doesn't absorb them.
Second of all, it does not pose a 30% increase in building costs. It is a 30% increase in concrete costs. That would be a very small portion of the cost of a building.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
...Trying to sway pollution from being Protestant?
By making them feel guilty for being pollution and teaching them to abstain from the environment.
Property is theft.
I have a cement-block house that I am preparing to patch and paint. I would happily pay a premium to add a layer of pollution-eating concrete to the side of my house. Does anyone know if this cement still "works" if covered by paint?
And yes, I care about the enviornment more than I care about a "pretty house". Sadly, I am regulated by a zoning board run by old ladies who love pastel colors- what's a guy to do?
barack to the future?
At some point, whatever agent is responsible for breaking down the pollutants must "run out". Do you then have to spray on another coat, at additional cost?
try spending some time in large cities. Chicago, San Fransisco, and even Denver are forcing builders and companies to be a great deal more green. In particular, Chicago is starting to push green rooftops and Denver is about to push an initiative for 1,000,000 new trees in Denver. So actually, the 30% may work. Besides, it is just titanium dioxide and 30% is way too much for it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Let's keep in mind that in building anything, raw materials are not the highest cost. In fact, labor-related costs are #1, probably. As another poster pointed out, this only has to be used on the exterior, so it's only half or less of the total concrete needed, perhaps, plus concrete may not be the biggest materials cost of building a building, plus materials are not even half the cost of construction, so I'm willing to bet if you use this concrete it increases the cost of an office building by maybe 5% max, if that. I'm definitely guesstimating here, but it's not what it sounds like, keep that in mind. I think it would be reasonable to mandate this stuff if it's good as it costs. Plus, it will probably get cheaper over time, as competition sets in due to more stringent standards.
Currently hooked on AMP
Right... but how long will the catalyst remain effective? As we all know from our cars, the catalytic converters wear out. (Very quickly if something else goes wrong with the engine's timing and it runs "rich" for a little while.)
Seems to me this doctored concrete might have its pollution-converting properties exhausted pretty quickly in a polluted environment.
Shit runs downhill, those "molecules" will end up somewhere. Probably in the fish (and, in turn, the other foods) you eat. And how might these new hydroxil radicals affect animal life? If it breaks down organic compounds, I don't really want it floating around in the air...
Do a little research on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Fact is, LEED works well as a motivation for Owner and Contractor to spend more money on energy efficient and environmentally friendly construction methods.
Exactly. It is reducing a public harm (pollution), so having a company pay somewhat less in taxes (as they do now for certain other improvements of this sort, in many places) would make sense.
Also, it simply isn't the case that builders decide all on their own what to build: most big projects require agreements with local governments over zoning, and this is something government could push for--ok, you can build a large project that will cause more traffic, but you have to abate some of that pollution, just as builders are often required to cover some of the cost of extra roads, put in services such as sewers, etc.
.sig withheld by request
how many of the "average person" will just be lazy instead of trying to make things better for their children, or society as a whole.
Nope. Nearly everyone wants to help. The first and foremost thing is, however, is ti really a problem.
Regardless of what the self-appointed prophets of doom think, not everyone believes there is a problem. Whether there is or is not a problem is absolutely irrelevant. The question is, do peope think there is a problem.
There are plenty of reasons people reject the claims of a worse tomorrow. That has to do with communication of the message, religous beliefs, faith in technology, and so on. But it has nearly nothing to do with people being lazy.
All you have to do is drive through a residential neighborhood and see how many homes didn't put their recycle bins out... ever.
How do you know if they do it ever? How about those people who have a simple system they've had for years, and simply use the bin once in a while. Or the people that never buy plastic in the first place.
Or the ones that look at their trash container being full, and dump regular trash in with their recycling, saying "What does it hurt?"
They are entitled to their opinion.
The bottom line is that most people are inherently lazy. And unless their house needed repainting, or their sidewalk/driveway needed to be repaved, they won't do it. Even parents with kids that have asthma. Some will, but most won't.
You are a self-righteous jerk. Why are your beliefs better than everyone else's? Why is it that if people don't do what you think they should do, they are "lazy"? Why did you have to throw in an insult that even parents of kids that have asthma won't help?
Personally, i refuse to recycle because of jerks like you. I don't believe in all the doom and gloom, but if other people want to recycle because that's their thing, i have no problem. And i;m even willing to help. However, as soon as my city made an ordinance that one must recycle, i simply refuse to recycle. I'll walk the extra mile to use a garbage can instead of a recycling bin. Why? Because of jerks like you that force your personal beliefs on others. You even look down on others for not believing what you believe.
You don't have to believe what others believe. You don't even have to respect what they believe. However, you should respect they're inherent right to believe anything, even if it is wrong.
Have you read my journal today?
How much a solution is going to cost versus another one isn't (or shouldn't be) calculated only on the basis of the concrete's cost, but also on the other costs or savings that a certain solution is going to induce.
In the case of this special concrete, the city would probably see a net saving by not having to spend money to counter pollution in other ways and, since there would be a net decrease of health expenses as well, countries where health services are paid by the state (with people's taxes) would greatly benefit too. Add to that that the less money you spend for health issues, the more you have left to spend for other things, the more you drive the economy.
I'd say it's exactly 30% more than most of people are willing to pay. Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to.
If you were the owner of a big company, did care, and did go to build something like this, your customers would go to the big company who didn't. Broadly speaking, it's US, the buying public, who are to blame... not these big companies!
C//
so a 100-story building would cost 2400 or so dollars (2000 euros) not really a huge dent in any corporate fat-cat's pocket. So I really don't see why any huge companys wouldn't want to change over to this new form of concrete when there next round of building maintenance comes up, besides it's good publicity which alone makes it worth more than the initial cost.
sense of security, like pockets jingling...
Yep, but per tensile strenght, concrete is the least energy-consuming building material compared to steel, aluminium and brick. Generation of energy for the manufacture of these materials releases CO2.
No, that would be the Catholitic converter. The Cathalitic converter was developed in souther France, it is used to sway pollution from papal authority.wikipedia: Cathar
A Carthalitic converter, on the other hand, is attached to the exhaust pipe of elephants to assist in crossing the Alps.
And finally, anyone of Greek descent can tell you that the cathalitic converter is really a device used to convert puppies into salt, from the roots "kat-", being the young of animals, and "hali-", meaning salt.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Creating a market for pollution is a good method for there reduction. Accurately pricing pollutants based on their detriment and costs imposed on the public then charging companies for damages accordingly is fair. This method has its complications though for example. Do you charge oil companies or auto manufacturers for CO2 emissions? We already are seeing signs of this with computer disposal fees that are being proposed. Why limit this to solely computer disposal?
The 30% bump in price IS a big deal. Especially since it won't directly improve the structure being built. So instead of trying to get companies to foot the bill, why not have special interest groups (SIG) that raise funding. Then whenever a new project is being built, they can provide the difference in cost. That way people that really care can get involved with the SIG. Also, the companies that do take the SIG up on the offer can use that as publicity...publicity that would be essentially free.
Why do people make problems that can easily be solved so hard?
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
I for one pledge here and now to use this concrete when I build my Evil Headquarters when I take over the world. signed, Your Enviro-friendly Dark Over-Lord.
In Europe we've already addressed the problem of polution in cities with strict rules on cars and fuel. My experience from living in and visiting several major cities in Europe is that it works.
I belive in California they are doing the same!??
Maybe addressing the causes of polution is a beter path than trying to cleanup afterwards (the whole "it's beter to prevent than to remedy" credo)
So, yes, basically if you manage to find a situation where being "good" is more profitable than being "evil", then it's your duty to the shareholders to do so.
About "black and white", well, depends on which part you mean. The duty to maximize shareholder value is pretty black-and-white. What's not black-and-white is (A) by what means (so, yes, be non-evil all you want if that produces more value), and (B) how it's enforced. Generally you'll be left with considerable room to maneuver, at least as long as you're turning up a profit. Do expect Wall Street to scream for a change of CEO the moment things go south.
What I do claim, though, is that (in a non-black-and-white way) _usually_ the evil version is more profitable than the good one. Especially more profitable in the short run, and the stock market lives by quarterly reports. There are exceptions, of course, but that's why I said "usually."
Oh yes. The question, though, is how much more. Most people simply just care about bang-per-buck, as illustrated by the fact that they have no qualms with buying sports shoes made in inhuman sweat shop. (At least as long as those sweatshops are in Asia and not here.) So how many would actually prefer your ethically-made product instead of the competing one that's 1 dollar cheaper? Would that offset the extra costs? That's really the whole question. If you can make 1% more money with 5% more investment, then unless you sell the product for 5 times more than it costs to make it, it's a losing proposition. Most companies don't have that kind of margins.
Also there's a fine trick in there, in that what really matters is the public image, not what you actually do. A good PR campaign and a bit of hype and bullshit are a tempting alternative to actually being ethical, sane, responsible, etc, and quite often better bang per buck too. Quite often those "ethical policies" that your advisor mentioned are just PR bullshit.
By now the corporate idea of "ethics" has drifted from the original meaning, to mostly "how to cover your ass, not go on record saying anything that could be used against you, have a good excuse ready, and deny all knowledge if caught". So the fact that they post some ethical policy, can -- and often does -- mean nothing more than that they'll have a good excuse ready when things hit the fan.
That would work that way only if both kinds of companies had the exact same PE numbers and all. Then yes, unethical company A would get only the money of the X% who don't care, while ethical company B would get everyone's money. Obviously, then, company B "wins."
It stops being true when the two don't actually perform the same. When either company posts better results than the other then that X% group who just care about money will put their money there. And that quite often is company A. When company A announces that they've just opened a new sweatshop in China, moved the call centre to India, fired half the personnel and raped the pension fund, while B posts a loss because they've played paladin locally, that X% group will promptly sell their shares in B and buy shares in A.
Effectively now the situation becomes: A is more attractive for X%, B is more attractive for (100-X)%. Of course, there is som
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Enter the Kyoto protocol (Americans may need to look this one up :).
It may cost a company 30% more to use this concrete, but the reduction in emissions that it creates gives them more freedom in the rest of their operation. They can either pollute more in other places, or (more positively) sell their emission surplus to other companies, and make that 30% back in actual cash . Add to that the goodwill that their marketing department can generate by telling people how friendly they are to the environment and I'm sure most companies would be happy to invest in this sort of thing, even if they can't make the full 30% back directly. I would even go so far as to say that when the loss isn't too high, some companies will actually make that sacrifice purely for the environment (but then I'm an optimist).
It all boils down to setting the emission standards strict enough to make it profitable for companies to make the environmentally friendly decision. Companies are remarkably like organisms, change their environment, and they will adapt. And the environment is in the hands of the government (god help us all).
Did I hear a moron completely misunderstand the meaning of "30% tax hike"?
.008/28 *100/1= 0.0285714286 .03%
Let's look at it this way - the article states $120/5 story building. Lets assume a very conservative 5 people per story per building. My salary is $60,000 and I pay about 28% income tax. That's $16,800 in tax.
$120 / building x 1 building / 25 people = $4.80 / person
($16,800+$4.80)/$60,000 x 100/1= 28.008%
So for my (fairly average) numbers the tax rate would go from 28% to 28.008%
Resulting in a tax increase of less than
You estimate a 30% tax increase.
30/.03 = 1000
You were off by a factor of 1000
Stay the hell away from my city and don't vote in any national elections you stupid arrogant asshole.
I suppose that would explain why the Chinese ban them.
Threads! Ahhh, beautiful threads! Replies! Nested comments! Oh, this is good news. Slashdot! Wonderful slashdot! I wonder if CmdrTaco is reading this right now? Wow, it's good not to be digg any more.
Yeah- unless you really like modern architechture, the percentage of concrete in a residential home when compared to a downtown commercial building might as well be zero.
Not only that, but expect 95% of that to be buried below ground level or otherwise covered. I have an unusually large amount of concrete in my house (about 115 yards) and I'd say that the total environmental exposure of it is still less surface area than my sidewalk.
I realize your point is that labor costs are a very large portion of building construction costs, but that does not make building material costs irrelevant. The Empire State building contains 62,000 yards of cement. Even if only a tenth of that were used up at a 30% rate hike, it would increase the cost by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
They're not stable, their half-life is in the order of seconds. They can't bioaccumulate or even persist or long.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
That argument only works for government projects. A private construction project isn't likely to pay the extra out of a sense of philanthropy. No, they'll need rebates and tax incentives to justify the increased cost.
Does the process of manufacturing the compound cause more pollution than it will reduce once incorporated into buildings?
"You can drive out Nature with a pitchfork, but It always comes roaring back again." - Tom Waits
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
The article states that the material acts through photocatalysis. It uses light to break down the pollutants into less harmful compounds and releases them. This is similar to a catalytic converter in a car, but using light instead of heat. No absorption.
Also, people who are citing the 30% increase in price are forgetting the fact that you don't have to use this for the entire structure, just the surface. The article mentions a price of about 120 USD to paint a 5 story building.
You can fix anything with duct tape and sticks.
I'm going to laugh when, in 30 years, they're finding in studies that the primary cause of the 200% increase in birth defects, cancer, and other deformation malodies is the result of this new concrete.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
First of all the technology is not new, Mitsubishi has a comparable product called DeNoxer on the market for a couple of years. Secondly the company does not say anything about the main reason of the catalyst stopping to work: Dust and dirt. This is because the reaction is a contact reaction, the pollutants have to be adsorbed first, before they can be oxidised. If there's dust between the catalyst surface and the pollutants, it means there's no reaction. Now could somebody please show me a surface with a higher probabilty of getting dirty?:-) The third and really hilarious issue with this technology is: Under the new EU-Biocide directive, so called self-cleaning surfaces are not allowed to be marketed anymore since 01. October 2006, as they are intended to oxidise organic matter like algae :-) So much about the EU spending gazillions of Euro on Nano-R&D and on the other hand prohibiting to sell the developed new technology. Oh, by the way: If you produce the stuff outside the EU and comply with local regulations there, you can still import and market it.
Would it not be better to make this substance into a paint?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Okay since you seem to have missed it.
I mentioned 5 main points specific to cars, which are a favourite target of environmentalists.
1. Regulate fuel economy, ie CAFE standards in the US.
2. Catalyst to convert -> we have catalytic converters on cars.
3. Diesels have particulate filters
4. On Board Diagnostics, which we have
5. System leakage, this is why not tightening your fuel cap sets the "Check Engine" light
These systems are why new cars pollute so much less.
They had very serious pollution problems in major cities - I can't recall what steps were taken to deal with it but it is certainly an issue there.
how about building giant heat sink like structures coated with this stuff for the purpose of selling the emission surplus?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Of course I was implying that the government should incentive the usage of this kind of concrete because, in the end, it will have a benefit from it.
That would be akin to re-planting rain forest for the purpose of getting emission rights, which companies are already doing. That is, of course, given that such a structure would work and that it would be cheaper to build than simply buying emission rights.
Is it as simple as that? If it is, when the city asks me to bid to build 10 miles of road, I'll submit a bid to build only 5 miles of road instead. I'll come in at half the price of everyone else and be awarded the contract every time.
I guess the reason that wouldn't work is that there are certain requirements that must be met for your bid to be accepted. If this special concrete is a requirement, everyone who submits a bid will have to build the road will have to bid based on using that type of concrete. So the bidding process isn't really relevant. What's relevant is whether the city (or county or whatever authority is building the road) will be willing to make it a requirement when they know it means the bids will come in higher.
For what it's worth, I would guess the cost of the concrete only makes up something like 25% of the cost of building a road. You have to have a bunch of machinery to pour the concrete, people to run it, not to mention stuff like surveying, lots of site preparation (moving earth and grading things), drainage, signs, traffic signals, stripes and reflectors, and so on. If concrete makes up 25% of the cost of building the road, then that 30% premium on special concrete becomes only a 7.5% premium on the cost of the whole job, which might be easier to swallow.
Finally, a way to help fight pollution that doesn't involve plating trees in the city. I wonder if this material can also filter out airborne viruses.
If man must go to the moon then yes, he will go there....
So my retorical question to you is "what have you done?" Not trying to be mean or cut you down, just think about that when this paint comes on the market, along with all the other things availabe to help the environment. Once you have your own environmental house in order then start thinking about converting your family and firends. It all starts with you.
The second is recycling schemes usually suck. It's not that people are lazy, they make them overly complicated on what they will and will not take, when they will take it, and how they want them seperated. Also people just don't like going dumpster diving to seperate out cans from say yesterdays diner scraps. I have no choice the local council only gives us three little trash cans. That along with the tiny ass appartments that they call houses here in England barely have the space for muliple trash cans inside to seperate things as we go.