Slashdot Mirror
Graphene Makes Concrete Twice As Strong While Reducing Carbon Emissions (inhabitat.com)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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