Slashdot Mirror


Green Cement Absorbs Carbon

Peace Corps Online writes "Concrete accounts for more than 5 percent of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions annually, mostly because cement, the active ingredient in concrete, is made by baking limestone and clay powders under intense heat that is generally produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Now Scientific American reports that British start-up company Novacem has developed a 'carbon-negative' cement that absorbs more carbon dioxide than it emits over its life cycle. The trick is to make cement from magnesium silicates rather than calcium carbonate, or limestone, since this material does not emit CO2 in manufacture and absorbs the greenhouse gas as it ages. 'The building and construction industry knows it has got to do radical things to reduce its carbon footprint and cement companies understand there is not a lot they can do without a technology breakthrough,' says Novacem Chairman Stuart Evans. Novacem estimates that for every ton of Portland cement replaced by its product, around three-quarters of a ton of CO2 is saved, turning the cement industry from a big emitter to a big absorber of carbon. Major cement makers have been working hard to reduce CO2 emissions by investing in modern kilns and using as little carbon-heavy fuel as possible, but reductions to date have been limited. Novacem has raised $1.7M to start a pilot plant that should be up and running in northern England in 2011."

30 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Strength? by plnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No mention in the article of the strength of the new material. How would this compare to regular concrete?

    1. Re:Strength? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strength is important, and so is longevity.

      I don't want to be in the car on that 50 year old bridge that collapses, because they didn't do right trials to detect aging and absorbing CO2 having an adverse effect on the material's strength over time.

      Concrete is a rather proven material that has been proven over hundreds of years; spontaneously replacing it now could be highly dangerous.

      Much like replacing the OS on a computer system that's been chugging a way for 500 years, with a brand new release version.

      Sure, there may be an efficiency improvement. There can also be unexpected bugs.

    2. Re:Strength? by GeigerBC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right in that we want strong and durable concrete. As another poster pointed out we are constantly changing the concrete mix proportions and admixtures. Admixes themselves are relatively new (~50 years) in the grand scheme of making concrete. It gets introduced slowly...and the universities then test it beyond belief for different properties. Maybe you'd like to be a grad student in civil engineering and make hundreds, or perhaps thousands of ever so slightly different mixes to determine the properties of your variable. I'm all for making concrete more "green" and I figure the universities and companies will test it before they use it in important projects.

    3. Re:Strength? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      weight of air, approximately 28 grams per mole
      weight of carbon dioxide, 44 grams per mole
      Being a tard on /., priceless. Also weightless.

    4. Re:Strength? by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The weight may not be the issue, but will the structure and volume change when it absorbs CO2 over time?

      If there is a volume change then there may be problems with warping and cracking. It's not easy to make a cement that can handle all construction requirements.

      Then there is also the concerns about the availability of the magnesium silicates used.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Strength? by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No need to worry about the availability of Magnesium Silicates, they just found the mother-lode in the South American rain forest.

      --
      I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
    6. Re:Strength? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is literally an entry that says "Cement Production" on that link.

    7. Re:Strength? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Informative

      Portland cement based concretes also absorb CO2 over their lifetime.

      The difference here is that Portland cement emits a bunch of CO2 during production, but the new stuff does not.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  2. Less CO2 = $Green$ by Scubaraf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see one of the early tags is 'negligible.'

    Maybe it is in terms of global CO2 levels, but under a cap and trade system, this will turn an industry that might have to buy CO2-emission rights into one that could make money selling them!

    1. Re:Less CO2 = $Green$ by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if it is negligible, "going green" is the trendy thing to do nowadays, so as long as it seems like they're making an effort, that's far more important than if it actually helps.

    2. Re:Less CO2 = $Green$ by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A solution that fixes only 1% of a problem may be considered negligible, but gather together a hundred such "negligible" solutions and see what you get.

    3. Re:Less CO2 = $Green$ by tehSpork · · Score: 4, Funny

      An alarming lack of airborne greenhouse gasses leading to a dangerous trend of global cooling?

    4. Re:Less CO2 = $Green$ by Bemopolis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering the volume of carbon dioxide emitted by the loud-mouthed opponents to the very concept of global warming, I'll take even a palliative corporate effort to ameliorate the problem. For now.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    5. Re:Less CO2 = $Green$ by bitrex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not just you, I've heard it said that the next bubble of the 21st century, after the tech bubble and the housing bubble, will be the carbon credit bubble. There is a new government-created "commodity" in carbon credits, which are government-mandated to decrease in number over time, and are therefore government-mandated to increase in value over time. Sounds like something that's right up Goldman Sachs' alley. I might even guess that the collapse of such a bubble would occur when rampant speculation on carbon credits drives the prices of said credits up high enough that corporations who are able to do so start shifting their industry to nations where the carbon credit regulations are unenforced or unenforceable, nations which would gain enormous financial benefit by being "carbon credit havens." The value of carbon credits could only be propped up for as long as investors felt secure that everyone was playing by the same rules, and we know how often that happens.

  3. Severe doubts by sofar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds like a concrete nightmare:

    If a material absorbs so much CO2 over it's lifespan, it significantly alters the chemical composition and therefore strength.

    I doubt any builder will use this material unless it's been proven that the new material is sufficiently stable.

    Example: as a geology student, I ran into an area in central spain with lots of Gypsum sediments (Ca|MG.SO4). Putting limestone and concrete buildings on this sediment wasn't done until the 20th century, but all the buildings built in that area are long gone, even though in nearby towns they still stand tall. Reason? The Gypsym in the soil chemically eats the mortar and limestone (CaCO3) out of the structure on top of it, making it crumble within a few decades. The Gypsum areas are largely a wasteland where only very few buildings remain.

    Now, Mg.Ca-CO3 (dolomite limestone) is largely as stable or more stable than pure limestone, and certainly harder, but any new formula for the glue in concrete will have to pass the test of time before it will be widely adopted, especially in e.g. bridges and skyscrapers...

    Perhaps we can start with the interstates, nobody would notice if they started to crumble early ;)

    1. Re:Severe doubts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interstates, roads, curbs, sidewalks, etc...
      Structure and load bearing however, strength is where it is at. Also most concrete is however very brittle. It is good at load distribution not in actual strength.

      Also many times these structures are torn up and tossed into large piles. They could continue to soak up carbon.

      The idea is sound, but in practice probably wouldnt be so good as you pointed out. In some applications it is a decent idea.

  4. Seriously... by redmond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The building and construction industry knows it has got to do radical things to reduce its carbon footprint and cement companies"

    Seriously? At least here in the Midwest (USA), construction bids still go to the lowest bidder and there are huge piles of construction waste that go straight to the landfill. They won't change until someone makes them change.

    --
    :wq
  5. I have a similiar green question about concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Fly ash, which is the ash waste from burning coal is also being used in concrete to lessen the amount of C02 concrete creates as well as improve strength. My question is since this fly ash has a high amount of toxins(heavy metals) in it, would the toxins be locked in the concrete or would they seep out if exposed to water or other stresses over time.
          I am curious to know this because apparently fly ash can make concrete easier to work with in insulated concrete form construction and because other types of materials that compete with concrete seem to be using it. Gigacrete.com ( supposedly 10,000 psi strength) though not for structural use is an example. I can't tell if they are using weasel words though because they claim there binder is nontoxic, I can't tell if they are purposely talking about the binder being non toxic and not the fly ash.
        I hope someday to build a house out of ICF's (insulated concrete forms), I guess I must have taken to heart that story of the three little pigs when I was young.

    1. Re:I have a similiar green question about concrete by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fly ash is actually widely used as a supplementary cementitious material. It has all sorts of excellent properties, it reduces porosity, increases durability mitigates ASR. It is a so-called pouzzolane, which means it reacts with the carbon hydroxide produced by the reaction of the cement and transforms it into calcium-silicate hydrate which is the main responsible for the strength of cement (C-S-H is the main product of the reaction of cement with water)

      In fact, we are running out of sources of fly ash to put in cement. So basically, no, there is no risk, or we would have known by now. Also, you have to realise that FA is essentially pure amorphous silica, and that heavy elements would only be there as traces and stay trapped as the FA reacts.

  6. Re:Isn't magnesium silicate... by reverseengineer · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's the composition of quite a few minerals, including asbestos, but also talc and soapstone. The issue with asbestos isn't the chemical composition per se, but rather its inclination to break into micron-sized fibers that can be deposited in the lungs. Compare fine silica, which is nearly chemically inert, but poses a serious danger if inhaled.

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  7. That's a big goal ... by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of my dorm friends, Jakob Husum, wrote his dissertation on ways of optimizing cement productions.

    One of the rather impressive/scary things about that, is that it is responsible for about 2% of the world's energy consumption. That's an insane amount of energy for something that isn't even an end product.

    The first paragraph of the paper actually grabs you by the balls and twists firmly:

    Production of cement is one of the most energy
    intensive industrial processes, consuming up to 2 % of the worlds electricity due to several low eciency processes. The grinding of cement clinker from the kiln is the most inefficient process in the manufacturing, with an efficiency of 1 % (Benzer et al., 2001).

    Can't quite remember how much of the energy if spent on the last bit, but I think it was something like 25%. That's 0.5% of the world's energy usage spent on a 1% efficient process. Now imagine you could up the efficiency to 10% or even 5%. That'd be a reduction of the world's energy usage of 0.45 or 0.4% respectively, simply by improving a single process.

    Now, there are a lot of arguments for saving energy. Saving the environment, less pollution etc., but it's hard to overlook the economic incentive of cutting back energy costs of a production, where a large part of the process is 1% efficient.

  8. Green is the new Black by tengeta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and by that phrase, I mean its popular bullshit. Most of the "green" things that have been devised over the past few years do NOTHING other than hold the carbon and make it the next generations problem instead. I thought the entire idea here was to NOT do that, but then again we live in an excessively hypocritical society that makes things up so they can make money, and this may just have been the latest and greatest. I'm not saying environmentalism is bad, but the majority of it so far isn't actually doing any good for the environment, its just helping the stock holders behind the products involved.

    --
    "They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
  9. Not exactly a first by fru1tcake · · Score: 3, Informative

    A similar product was presented on Australian TV) in 2005.

    --
    It's not a bug, it's a lepidopter!
  10. Re:Global Cooling On Its Way by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On top of that, Farmer's Almanac, long a very trusted and reliable predictor of future events, has predicted a cooling ...

    It's good to see the Slashdot audience moving back to reliance on such scholarly peer-reviewed journals. That's science, that is, science by the quart.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  11. Re:Oh brother... by thelandp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frankly, the mention of the term "carbon footprint" puts this squarely in the "hype" category.

    Why did that get modded 5 insightful? Carbon Footprint is a valid and useful term.

    The only reason I can see why some might like the above comment is if they are so conservative on climate change, they reject even the terms used in discussing it.

    It would almost qualify as an example of the logical fallacy known as the "Appeal to Ridicule" but it wasn't quite intelligent enough.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

    --

    -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
  12. Most of the CO2 comes from calcination by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The summary doesn't explain things very well. Just to set things straight, most of the CO2 emissions from portland cement production is not from the fuel burned in the kilns but from the gas released by the limestone itself during the calcination process. The only real incentive for the use of energy efficient kilns is to reduce fuel costs and not to reduce emissions. The upside is that cement will reabsorb much of the released CO2 as it cures over the course of time.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  13. Try harder next time. by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Global warming may or may not be happening.

    That's a tautology much like "water may or may not be wet," so by definition it's logically true. "Global warming is happening." That's a statement of scientific fact, it's empirically true.

    ... we don't exactly know what is causing it ...

    We don't know exactly, however it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity is a major contributor.

    ... and we definitely can't stop it

    Up to that point this was such a beautiful example of agnatology relying on nothing but formally True statements. Why did you have to ruin it? How very disappointing!

    --
    Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
  14. Re:Could cement plant be colocated with power plan by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not impossible but remember that (IIRC) theoretical optimum thermal efficiency is (THigh-Tlow)/THigh.

    In practice that means that waste heat is generally too cold for this process. If it were hot enough to make cement it would be hot enough to extract power from.

    Waste heat from Combustion Turbines (CTs) is already being used to generate steam in cogen plants.

    'Pure' CTs are typically super-peaker plants. Lousy efficiency but they start and ramp fast. Which in practice means their heat is too unpredictable to run that kind of process in any case.

    Typical applications of CoLo heating are greenhouses, malls and other large buildings. Market forces are making this (space heating) happen quite nicely where ever economically practical.

    My university was/is entirely heated by the waste heat of the coal fired plant on campus (50+ year old setup). Good fun in the steam tunnels. Access to boiler rooms.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. CO2 Absorbsion by matria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just plant more trees around buildings made of concrete? That seems to me to be a more useful, long-term "incentive" program than some we've seen lately.

  16. Bath Stone already does this by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I live in the Bath area of the UK. The main building material is Bath stone, considered very desirable because as dug out of the ground it is reasonably soft and easy to form, but over its life it absorbs carbon dioxide and becomes harder.

    The house I live in is a mere 150 years old, but most of the street it is in was built between 1690 and 1695. In fact, our foundations go back to then. The composition and structure of Bath stone has been extensively studied, and I would imagine the results are just a small part of the data the technologists will take into account.

    And your point was, again?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."