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
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).
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
>> 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.