7 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

This would be a good idea environmentally. But politically, it would set off a whine-o-storm. Increasing the cost of manufacturing houses in a down housing market would be like chucking moltov cocktails into a gas station during a fuel crisis.

In this case, I’m thinking a carrot would be better served than a stick. Offer tax breaks on houses that use G-cement and offer subsidies to companies that produce the product. With luck, that should have a reverse effect – making new houses cheaper to build and offering a new industry for entrepreneurs to invest in – which can give us a greener American jobs-friendly business.

Also worth questioning would be the insulation strength of various types of concrete. If Portland concrete offers a higher insulation strength than G-cement then, over a 10-30 year time frame, the energy you use to keep the inside of the building at the right temperature could outweigh the immediate benefits of the CO2 saved from more efficient manufacturing techniques. What’s more, insulation is generally always good, so if the insulation value of G-cement is better than Portland cement, that’s one extra selling point for the product.

ReplyReply
mygif

Construction is not my strong suit by a long shot, but is there anything we could use INSTEAD of concrete, in any of it’s various questionable forms, as a substitute that would be better on all fronts, even marginally?

And to tag onto Zifnab’s comment about insulation characteristics, are the components for g-concrete much different from those of Portland concrete, and would the co2 emissions from the transportation of those materials to current manufacturing facilities have any impact on the total co2 output?

I don’t disagree with your suggestion of regulation, which I honestly think should be applied on a lot of fronts to jumpstart the needed progress which the market just isn’t stimulating. But from the little I’ve read on the subject, I think construction designs need to be re-evaluated on a lot of different levels to truly make a significant long-term difference. We’ve gotten stuck in a “traditional aesthetics” rut and don’t do enough to take advantage of the natural heating, cooling, insulation, stabilization, run-off, etc. opportunities in any given ecosystem.

ReplyReply
mygif

This would be a good idea environmentally. But politically, it would set off a whine-o-storm.

I think the entire idea of these posts is that they’re good ideas environmentally and only not done because of political whine-o-storms.

And like MGK says, tax breaks are a great idea if you want industry to drag its heels for the next 30 years. Solar, anybody?

ReplyReply
mygif
mightybaldking said on September 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm

The first thing you’d need to do would be to duplicate the past 100 years of rigorous engineering tests regarding portland cement based concretes.

Then, you’d need to do a whole bunch more testing as to how it reacts with rebar, aggregate leeching, superplasticizers and other additives.

Now, we need to recalibrate every field testing unit in existence. What is the proper slump for g-concrete?

(Slump test is simply put, fill a warning cone with concrete, make a sand castle, and see how far down it “slumps” when the cone is removed. Except there is actually a standard cone to use.)

What’s the curing time? How much fresh water do we need to use during curing? Is the standard 28 day stress test sufficient to determine strength after pouring?

Then, you’d need to rewrite the entire Concrete Code.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea, but these are the considerations that need to be made before we replace the single most important structural material in the world.

ReplyReply
mygif

Cement produces 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions? Well holy shit. I completely understand where you’re coming from in terms of having your mind blown.

Your idea looks good, it must be said. However, I would use a carrot-and-stick method, and of course mightybaldking’s considerations are very important.

ReplyReply
mygif

Now, do these figures reflect before or after the cement absorbs CO2? From what I understand, cement aborbs a bit over half the CO2 it produced when being made. Takes about ten years.

Also, China makes around a third of the worlds cement, so a big problem would be getting them involved over this.

ReplyReply
mygif

The environmental impact of cement is staggering, with each ton producing an equivalent ton of CO2. Alternatives like Aircrete, high-strength concrete, and geopolymerous cement offer potential solutions, yet face challenges such as higher costs and reliance on problematic materials. The key to mitigating cement’s carbon footprint may lie in regulatory measures. Mandating environmentally friendlier cement production could drive necessary change faster than market forces alone. Immediate action is crucial for reducing global CO2 emissions.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments