Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Graphene Makes Concrete Twice As Strong While Reducing Carbon Emissions (inhabitat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the game-changing dept.

Paige.Bennett writes: In a recent study, University of Exeter's Center for Graphene Science used nanoengineering technology to add graphene to concrete production. The resulting graphene concrete is two times stronger than traditional concrete and four times as water resistant, but with a much smaller carbon footprint compared to the conventional process of making concrete. According to the research, the addition of graphene cuts back on the amount of materials needed in concrete production by nearly 50 percent and reduces carbon emissions by 446 kg per ton.

90 comments

  1. Ha! by h4x0t · · Score: 0

    Bold claim considering CVD is the only viable way produce graphene.

    1. Re: Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong!

    2. Re:Ha! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bold claim considering CVD is the only viable way produce graphene.

      CVD is not the only way to make graphene.

      Graphene is currently way too expensive for a bulk product like concrete, but if a big market is available more research will go into mass production techniques. More research should go into reinforcing concrete with other substances as well. I have seen concrete reinforced with peat moss, coconut fibers, and shredded bamboo. These increase tensile strength, and shock absorption, but reduce compressive strength.

    3. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true: there is also HPTC. High Pressure Tardchris Chair. You simply put a lump of charcoal on Tardchris's office chair , wait a few seconds, then put some Cliff bars and Starbucks coffee in the kitchen.

      When Tardchris is safe in the kitchen boring the crap out of his unlucky coworkers, you simply peel off the sheet of graphene like an ACME Portable Hole.

    4. Re:Ha! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Bold claim considering CVD is the only viable way produce graphene.

      CVD is not the only way to make graphene.

      Graphene is currently way too expensive for a bulk product like concrete, but if a big market is available more research will go into mass production techniques. More research should go into reinforcing concrete with other substances as well. I have seen concrete reinforced with peat moss, coconut fibers, and shredded bamboo. These increase tensile strength, and shock absorption, but reduce compressive strength.

      Rebar; also, too, and either.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard that hemp works well.

    6. Re:Ha! by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      You know, there are literally hundreds of highly effective commercialized concrete additives, many of which achieve as good results.

      I also note their claim of carbon emission reductions seems to hinge on both finding a pile of graphene sitting pre-made and free next to their production line (they dont allow for the huge energy requirement of production), and in them counting that carbon itself as now sequestered (which it is, at massive energy and financial cost).

      Basically this is a rather stupid academic exercise. Concrete is almost literally the LAST thing you would bother adding this to.

    7. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that's true? I've heard many times that producing concrete is a huge generator of CO2. A process that reduces the CO2 output and sequesters carbon in the concrete sounds reasonable to me. What's your take?

    8. Re:Ha! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I've heard many times that producing concrete is a huge generator of CO2.

      It is. But graphene costs $100 per gram, while concrete costs $100 per tonne. So the price of graphene needs to decline a million-fold before it is in the price range of concrete. For now, using graphene in concrete is a fantasy.

      If you want to spend a limited amount of money reducing atmospheric CO2, buying graphene to add to concrete would be one of the stupidest things you could do.

    9. Re:Ha! by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, but the other additives don't ring the buzzword alarms, so they don't make it into the press.

    10. Re:Ha! by jeremyp · · Score: 2

      Your assumption is that they need equal quantities of graphene and concrete. I'd be pretty certain that is a false assumption.

      Since this process halves the amount of concrete needed, the graphene needs to be less than $50 per . Not only that but the graphene improves the water resistance of the concrete which means that buildings made of it will last longer which is another cost saving.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    11. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. But graphene costs $100 per gram, while concrete costs $100 per tonne. So the price of graphene needs to decline a million-fold before it is in the price range of concrete.

      Why would it need to be in the price range of concrete? How much graphene costs is irrelevant without knowing how much needs to be added to concrete to get these benefits, something fairly important that the linked article does not bother to mention. It reads more like an overly long tweet. The actual study itself is too technical for me to be able to quickly decipher - although I am sure it would be a lot more than a gram per tonne, assuming it is near a 1-1 ratio seems incorrect as well.

    12. Re:Ha! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The article is crap and makes no sense what so ever. Concrete is two, three, four, five times stronger than concrete and even more. Typical regular mix is 20MPa compressive strength but you can do 60 or even 80 dependent upon the aggregate you use, coarse and fine, curing time and additives as well as the quality of the cement itself, how fine or coarse. So either their super graphite concrete is only 20 Mpa or 120 MPa, quite the difference. The big problem with concrete is it's tensile strength which is crap, and hence requires reinforcement. You can do fibre mixes which are strong but the fibres tend to appear on the surface creating problems of their own.

      The real future development of concrete will be in additives that can alter the structure of cement and go for stronger crystalline structures upon setting to create tensile and compressive strength, without reinforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., spend enough time on building sites and you learn to hate the smell of fresh concrete, construction, organised chaos.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How well does fly ash do as an additive?

    14. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fibreglass strands have been used for yonks.
      yet nobody is using paper mache to make concrete because shrinkage is a factor.

    15. Re: Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From the article (I know, I know): ...The production of 1m3 of concrete requires ~ 360kg of cement (assuming 1:1.5:3 materials ratio, 0.45 w/c). Therefore the addition of 125g of graphene ($0.45 per gram [4]) can decrease the total volume of cement down to 148kg per 1m3. ...

      OK, so now we know the actual ratio required for the stated benefit. One gram of graphene replaces about 1.7 kilograms of cement. [(360 - 148)kg / 125g]

      At $0.45 per gram it is not yet cost competitive (here in the states anyway) but it is only about an order of magnitude off, which for an initial attempt in a new material is not that bad.

      i have been a practicing structural engineer for well over thirty years. So we all understand, the bulk of concrete design is typically not controlled by the concrete design strength; because concrete failures are brittle (sudden) they are avoided. There are other admixtures/components currently in use that provide the other stated benefits. Consequently, cost will be, as usual, the determining factor in graphenes adoption.

      -SET

    16. Re: Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the states it is typically permitted as a replacement for 15 to 20% of the cement. It discoloration the concrete so is typically not used for exposed work. It also decreases the rate that the concrete gains strength.

      -SET

    17. Re:Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous. I can make diamonds from the ashes of celebrities too, but you will find that it is so cost ineffective as to be not worth mentioning. Non-epitaxial methods all tout purity and lack of imperfection, not cost or scalability. This is concrete we are talking about.

    18. Re:Ha! by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Concrete is two, three, four, five times stronger than concrete and even more.

      What? What material is stronger than itself?

  2. Continuous Graphene production by Elfich47 · · Score: 1

    Well MIT is moving from batch production to a continuous production method of graphene produciton https://science.slashdot.org/s...

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Continuous Graphene production by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Continuous CVD.

    2. Re:Continuous Graphene production by feranick · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Have you even seen the CVD throughput? Besides, looking at the system level, you will have to process massive amount of metal catalysts into sheets from solution. Again, as stated above, even if technically doable, the capex costs are largely prohibitive. There are much cheaper solutions/processes.

  3. And 100x as expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still cool...

  4. Half the carbon footprint? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    If you use half the concrete sure, for that part of the equation. however that graphene has to be made as well. It's like graphene just grows on trees! Oh wait.

  5. Scaling graphene production for real by feranick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In principle you are correct. In practice, from both a cost and feasibility point of view this makes zero sense in the context of the scale at play. Concrete is (by far) the most abundant synthetic material ever made: therefore, any, I mean any, material that is added would need to be cost competitive at the scale not of a few cm per minute, but tons per hour. None of the current processes actually are cost effective as they claim to be. In other words those folks in the paper show do due diligence before venturing into claims they cannot support.

    1. Re:Scaling graphene production for real by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      ...unless they don't use it in *everything*.

      Maybe they could only use it in important things, like bridges.

      Or maybe they could have more than one machine making it. Multiple machines in parallel would make more.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Scaling graphene production for real by feranick · · Score: 1

      That's not how scalability works. You can sure parallelize the process, but at the end of the day you have to balance it with your capex. It's the opposite of electronics, if you wish, where scaling is done by shrinking. There may be other ways to do it at scale. There are other carbon-based additives that can be added for a fraction of the cost of cement itself.

  6. lung cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But won't it make it 2x more likely you'll get lung cancer or mesothelioma? graphene is the new abestos!

  7. Twice as strong? by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Funny

    In tension, compression, or both? If tension this could be a big deal. Compression, meh, incremental improvement.

    Of course, I'm not a structural engineer. But I did read a book called Structures; Why Things Don't Fall Down so I think I'm qualified.

    1. Re:Twice as strong? by complete+loony · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the paper's introduction;

      increase of up to 146% in the compressive strength, up to 79.5% in the flexural one, and a decrease in the maximum displacement due to compressive loading by 78% ... 88% increase in heat capacity ... decrease in water permeability by nearly 400% ... reduction by 50% of the required concrete material while still fulfilling the specifications for the loading of buildings.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    2. Re:Twice as strong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How can it decrease permeability by more than 100%?
      Would that mean it actively expels water at three times the rate concrete absorbs it normally?

    3. Re:Twice as strong? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      depends how water permeable it was in the first place.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Twice as strong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Think of it the other way. The new material is only 25% as permeable as the original concrete.

    5. Re:Twice as strong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, I'm not a structural engineer. But I did read a book called Structures; Why Things Don't Fall Down so I think I'm qualified.

      So you read a book on the subject. But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, smarty pants?

  8. Asbestos 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and they *never* learn.

    As fast as humanity's extinction is approaching, it never feels quite fast enough.

    1. Re:Asbestos 2.0 by Megol · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't understand the problems with asbestos. And you'd have to show the (for me) new data that shows graphene as having damaging effects when inhaled greater than the standard "embeds in lungs" materials. Because the problem with asbestos and beryllium particles aren't that they just embed in lungs.

  9. Re:Cereal... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Will someone make graphene cereal already? I mean everything is better with graphene. Where are the Graphene Puffs? I know they'll stay crunchier in milk than regular cereal. They probably won't go stale as fast either.

    I know it'll be better for the environment. Graphene Puffs won't need as much protective packaging to avoid being crushed, so less waste and weight to transport. Plus they'll be lighter per box than regular cereal.

    I'm sure that they'll be the perfect weight loss food as well. One bowl of Graphene Puffs should take about 4000 years to digest.

    As long as you don't use Aaamond Milk; since I understand the irrigation water in the primary harvest region is a costly environmental consideration.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  10. Re:Cereal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that just Grapenuts?

  11. how does this compare to pumice? by nanoflower · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember hearing long ago how adding pumice to concrete made it better able to resist water damage. Supposedly that was the reason that aqueducts and other Roman structures exposed to water survived for centuries. I don't suppose pumice has the CO2 benefits but it's also something just needs to be mined and not made.

    Though I doubt either one is available in the quantities needed to be really useful. Also wasn't there some report on us running out of the sand needed for concrete at our current rate of use?

    1. Re:how does this compare to pumice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that sand issue as well. I wonder if the four times as water resistant will finally allow the homeowners to reduce spiking their water damaged bathroom and kitchen floors to only one out of four times from before. Another question is how would that water resistance effect on the setting of the concrete during construction.

  12. Roman Concrete by Topwiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They would be better off studying how to reproduce Roman Concrete. There are Mediterranean docks that are over a 1,000 years old that are in better condition than when they were new.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

    1. Re:Roman Concrete by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Informative

      As articles like that point out, they do know how.

      It isn't used because it is more expensive. Simple.

      This is even more expensive, and even better. So, even less useful.

    2. Re:Roman Concrete by bonedonut · · Score: 1

      yeah except the line in that article "Nobody knows exactly how the concrete was made."

    3. Re:Roman Concrete by hey! · · Score: 1

      The Romans came up with the idea of building stuff out of brick faced, marble veneered concrete rather than solid blocks of dressed marble. The result looked the same as the solid blocks of dressed marble the Greeks used, but cost only a fraction of the price. They then took the savings and plowed it into building on a monumental scale.

      It's pretty clear: without their awesome concrete, Ancient Rome wouldn't be Rome. Each of its million inhabitants received over a cubic meter of water a day, supplied by concrete aqueducts. Most of them were housed in high rise apartment blocks typically five or in some cases eight stories in height -- which if made from brick would have required walls two meters thick at the base. They were entertained in "baths" -- what we'd call today a health club -- up to 100,000 m^2 in area and large enough to serve three thousand guests at a time. Marble veneered concrete construction allowed those huge gymnasium complexes to be built in just a few years. The Baths of Diocletian took just eight years to build, and 1700 years later house part of the National Roman Museum.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Roman Concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adding the blood of an ox to the concrete makes it more alveolar when the blood dries.
      Some guy even patented this in 1976: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4203674A/en

      The Romans thought the concrete was stronger because oxen are strong. Another example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

    5. Re:Roman Concrete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. The old trick where they reduce the amount of expensive cement and add too much sand. No amount of expensive concrete will help when the builder is corrupt.

    6. Re:Roman Concrete by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, but that's only a reading comprehension issue.

      They don't know exactly how the Roman's made it, they do know what it was made of, and we have modern techniques for mixing the materials and making the forms. You're mistaking not knowing the details of their technique for not knowing the details of the result.

      Just like if you dig up an old shoe from 10k years ago, we don't know the details of their construction technique; what sort of needle or punch was used to make the holes, what sort of frame did they use to make the bindings, etc. It is easy to know what materials they used, and where they put the holes, so a modern cobbler could easily make an almost-identical shoe, but we still wouldn't know what the techniques used in the old shoe were; if were went through a time machine to the past, we wouldn't know how to make the shoe, because we wouldn't know what tools were used and how to make them, and how to make the tool to make that tool, etc.

  13. Re:horseshit by Topwiz · · Score: 1

    If you can figure out how to combine graphene and bitcoin, you'd be rich!

  14. So what does it do for hempcrete? by bonedonut · · Score: 1

    Does it make it twice as strong as well?

  15. 2 articles by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is graphene safe?

    "We do not yet know whether graphene flakes can become airborne and inhaled in a form that is dangerous during use."

    Are carbon nanotubes the next asbestos?

    "The difference with asbestos was that the hazards were not known or ignored; large-scale use meant large-scale production, resulting in emissions that weren't properly controlled, which in turn caused exposure at unsafe levels and then widespread disease. This should never have happened and should never again happen."

    1. Re:2 articles by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      "The difference with asbestos was that the hazards were not known or ignored; large-scale use meant large-scale production, resulting in emissions that weren't properly controlled, which in turn caused exposure at unsafe levels and then widespread disease. This should never have happened and should never again happen."

      This is so wrong and short-sighted it boggles the mind. A Trump tweet couldn't be more wrong. While your base assertions are correct in that we do not yet know if graphene can have unintended effects, the assumption that an asbestos/tobacco/oxycontin/BPA/micro-plastics etc situation won't happen again is completely incorrect. Never underestimate the ignorance and greed of people combined with the possibility of wealth and the unknown. The latter is the absolute fallback point - if you literally don't know, you can't protect yourself from it. Take water for instance - it's good, healthy, and necessary for survival. However, too much of it without minerals will kill you. Too many minerals, you die. We didn't learn those facts for millennia. Now take saline IV solutions, it's apparent that they're not the be all and end all of base IV treatments despite having been the standard for decades. Balanced fluids may be better. But we just don't know what if any side effects may happen down the road. The list goes on and on.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:2 articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should reread the parent again. You might be misunderstanding what the parent is stating.

    3. Re:2 articles by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I read the post and the quotes it highlights as the problems with asbestos should not have happened nor should happen again. I'm saying that's impossible to ascertain when the detrimental mechanisms are present when we may not even suspect they exist. What was implied but not explicitly stated is that you cannot test for all these potential detrimental effects, especially as some are unknown. e.g., who knew that DDT could endanger our entire avian population or that plastics could harm us biologically by interfering with our development as we grow into adults when those products first appeared? There's many other examples of unknowns that harmed us in new ways: X-rays, carbon dust, tobacco, LSD, BPA, sunlight, radium/uranium, micro-particulates and lead, just to name a few from the past.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re: 2 articles by Arunex · · Score: 1

      asbestos' dangers were FULLY known by 1910 in ALL places of the world. they just didn't give a shit about the workers or the homeowners.

  16. Almost there, with the graphenecrete by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    As soon as they can work out the self-driving AI agile blockchain concrete we'll be all set.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Almost there, with the graphenecrete by someoneOtherThanMe · · Score: 1

      Does it have to be 3D-printable as well?

  17. Re: Heil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for showing the world how retarded and lazy nazis are. But we know that already.

  18. Real world version by Robert Murray Smith by technosaurus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Rob and the guys at FWG have been doing tons of research on graphene and graphene oxide. The big difference is they have an open lab and have published many videos for the kitchen chemist to be able to produce graphene with common tools. Though most of their recent work is with all carbon battery-supercap hybrid, they did post a video on graphetized concrete here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
    If you think graphene is a unicorn, try one of Rob's experiments.

  19. Re:horseshit by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 1

    Only if Elon came up with it.

  20. Mixed Units by burhop · · Score: 1

    446 kg/ton. Is that a metric ton, an Imperial ton, or US ton? If it is a metric ton, why not just stick to kg for 0.446 kg of carbon per kg of cement?

    I guess I should be glad they didn't give the units as balloons of CO2 per playground or pencil leads per building.

    1. Re:Mixed Units by mentil · · Score: 1

      Anything with graphene has to be measured in space elevators per cargo bay (Earth Federation regulation size, unlubricated).

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Mixed Units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The units don't matter much because metric tonnes and short tons are barely 10% apart. The real issue is that it doesn't say what it's a ton *of*. Are they saying that for every ton (about 1000kg) of concrete you can save 446kg of CO2 emissions? Or are they saying that for every ton of cement you save 446kg of CO2?

      Since cement is maybe 20% of concrete (it's just the glue that holds the rocks and sand together), that's a factor of 4-8x difference!

      dom

  21. How Much? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What will it cost? If it costs 100 times as much per ton they might as well not waste their time. We hear about all these miracles but it seems they are decades, maybe a century, away from being practical. Well, maybe one day.

    1. Re:How Much? by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Even if it costs 100 times as much per ton with current production methods, learning what works and does not work is useful because production methods tend to improve - often tremendously - when scaled.

      In this case, since we want to bind carbon anyway, this could be an excellent - and at the end of the day cost efficient - way to do so compared to doing something less productive with the carbon while manufacturing concrete in the oldfashioned way.

      How will we know? From these people "wasting their time" learning about this method.

  22. How about fire resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about fire resistance? Is the building going to collapse faster or not in case of fire?
    Pure metal frame buildings are considered the most vulnerable to fires.

  23. How much does it cost? by mamba-mamba · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much does it cost? Because lots of things are stronger than concrete. Steel, for example is like 20 times stronger than concrete in compression and basically infinitely stronger in tension.

    --
    By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
    1. Re:How much does it cost? by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

      This. Right now we can use carbon fiber to enhance concrete supports, but it's only done as a remediation due to the expense.

      From the report they found their optimal mix as 0.7g of carbon fiber per liter of finished concrete (~0.3 g/kg). So with some back of the envelope math, an average office building might use 21,400 m^3 concrete. If we cut the concrete used in half, that would still require 7.5 metric tons of graphene. So the question is how much will 7.5 tons of graphene cost you, and is that more or less than 12,000 tons of concrete.

    2. Re:How much does it cost? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Is it worth it?

      I watched a documentary on building skyscrapers. The concept that stuck with me was that building one higher was not like stacking another floor on top. It was like jacking up the entire structure and sliding another floor underneath.

      In Dunn, NC, this wouldn't make any sense, but consider downtown New York. Chicago. Tokyo. Hong Kong. Adding a floor could mean millions more in revenue. If you cut the weight of all the structure in half, it becomes much easier to slide another floor underneath.

      This technology *may* have some interesting applications.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  24. Additional Properties by John.Banister · · Score: 2

    Graphene also makes concrete more thermally and electrically conductive. While many articles on electrical conductivity of graphene impregnated concrete focus on the usefulness of the finished product, the conductivity also benefits the possibility of electrical curing.

    It doesn't work to make an entire heated concrete floor feel warm to walk on with bare feet, because that will make the room's air temperature too warm to be comfortable. So, I have looked for ways to make just the pathways where one commonly walks warmer than the rest of a concrete floor, and I ran across mentions of graphene.

    1. Re:Additional Properties by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What is the use case, why not floor coverings, or slippers?

    2. Re:Additional Properties by swb · · Score: 1

      Floors heated to be warm to the touch are often done when the point is to heat the room that way.

      In other cases where the floor is basically a heat sink that makes the room colder (like a basement floor) you can warm it without overheating the room.

    3. Re:Additional Properties by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      Having experienced the pleasure of walking barefoot on stone that was warmed by the sun, the use case is trying to replicate that experience. Certainly it's not necessary for survival, but if one is pouring an hydronically heated concrete floor, the results of decisions made beforehand will actually be set in stone, so it's worth thinking about what might be the nicest in the future.

    4. Re:Additional Properties by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      When heating a house with hydronic tubing through a concrete floor, the air temperature in the room is often about 5 degrees (Fahrenheit) below the temperature of the floor. I like air temperature in the 65 - 75 (F) range, but I like to touch 95 -105. So, if the floor where I put my feet is going to be 30 degrees warmer than the air, then I need other parts of the floor to be colder in order to maintain an average that will give me the air temperature I like.

  25. Diamond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replacing 20% of the granulate by diamonds in the same size mix is even more effective in all mentioned aspects.

  26. Graphene dildo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where to buy?

  27. Re: Heil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I bet they do that on the dark side of the moon

  28. Twice the strength of what? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    It appears they're comparing reinforced concrete to unreinforced concrete. Of course it's much stronger (that's why most concrete is reinforced, duh). The study would be more useful if they compared graphene to traditional (iron or steel).

  29. Interesting combo with this: Graphene from air. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    https://www.nature.com/article...

    Results
    Controlled synthesis of graphene in ambient-air environment

    Currently, graphene synthesis involves several key factors need to be improved: (i) lengthy high-temperature annealing processes to increase the grain size of the metal catalyst used to form graphene; (ii) utilization of purified and compressed gases to offer a homogenous and controlled delivery of carbon source materials; and (iii) the use of lengthy vacuum operation to avoid the presence of any detrimental reactive oxygen species from air2,4. To overcome these problems, we have designed a thermal CVD process to produce graphene in an ambient-air environment that is completely free of compressed or purified gases and requires minimum processing time.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  30. Obligatory by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    "Graphene can do anything, except leave the lab"

    1. Re:Obligatory by CaseyB · · Score: 1

      The best thing about graphene-based products is that we'll be able to power them with cold-fusion.

  31. Sounds good, but.. by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Will they find out in 50 years that it causes cancer or some other disease and have to require it all be ripped out at huge expense--like asbestos?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  32. University of Exeter's Centre, not Center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's in the UK

  33. Roman Concrete by bpetty · · Score: 1

    I was reading about how they rediscovered the recipe to "Roman Concrete"... apparently a chemical reaction with volcanic ash and salt water and some other ingredients. That is what we should be comparing things to. That stuff can sit at the bottom of the sea for over 1000 years and not be turned into sand. This stands in direct opposition to the current crap we are producing. After 5 years at our new office building I was able to rip up a chunk of sidewalk with my bare hand and crumble it.

  34. Crushed recycled glass by maxbuzz · · Score: 1

    How does this compare with using crushed recycled glass?
    https://youtu.be/QCVrC0cutr8?t...

  35. What DOESN'T Get Better With Graphene? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Vanilla pudding, I suppose.

    Oh yeah, and oyster stew.

  36. Is there anything that graphene can't do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. It's like the second coming of Jesus Christ in metamaterials form.