How to fix the world's concrete problem
Concrete is simple, cheap, strong and lasts long. But the wonder material that's all around us is responsible for 8% of global CO2 emissions - and it's not easy to change that. So how can we build cities without killing the planet?
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #GreenConcrete #CementPollution
Reporter: Ajit Niranjan
Video Editor: Nils Reinecke
Supervising Editor: Joanna Gottschalk
Read More:
Roman concrete: www.pnas.org/content/early/20...
Why concrete needs to lose its colossal carbon footprint: www.nature.com/articles/d4158...
Decarbonizing cement production: drive.google.com/file/d/1pjwm...
Cement industry scorecard from the International Energy Agency: www.iea.org/reports/cement
Cement industry's decarbonization roadmap gccassociation.org/concretefu...
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
00:47 What's so great about concrete?
02:20 Why concrete is so hard to green
04:20 Concrete solutions
Have you ever thought about how we can design buildings more efficiently?
Everything can be done better with a zero emmision electricty grid. Until that sorted ever step thats taken to reduce carbon emmisions will be made using an co2 emmiting grid and so will emit carbon.
Yes
Yes
@@nutzeeer belo
@@anon6056 Chris Kyle died in the
“Concrete is a climate problem that nobody is talking about” As a civil engineer, actually it’s always been talked about. But maybe just in our industry, not outside it.
well, there is recycled aggregates and low cement concrete and etc to reduce the total carbon emission. but as engineers, what you can do the best is to use the green materials and green design that are approved by standards and policies and it must be within the budget, nothing more you can do.
@@kevinw9806 very true
Also have to prove carbon emissions are detrimental to the planet
Yeah you guys just have to use what is available to you. Concrete is just the most efficient material to use for the required strength and budget. Most of Civil engineering involves concrete. Imagine trying to make a waste water treatment plant with out it? Or just thinking of something more extreme, A hydroelectric dam lol. Those would be near impossible without concrete.
I dare say it is being talked about outside of the industry too, for like the past 10 years at least. People in the video saying that nobody is talking about it doesnt make it true. It is like the 10th video ive seen on the subject. Maybe they just want to make the video seem novel.
This statement is partly inaccurate: "Another 22% of planned savings come from designing more efficient buildings, and extending their lifetimes. This is not entirely in the hands of the cement industry. It's also about how architects and engineers design our cities. They could retrofit old buildings instead of knocking them down and design new ones to last longer." As an architect and climate organizer, I can testify the decisions making power regarding the efficiency and lifespan of buildings are not in the hands of architects and engineers but rather in the hands of real estate developers and zoning regulators. Architects and engineer like to engage with these types of challenges; however, developer remain focused on their bottom line and refrain from investing in what's right (this is part of why there's a housing shortage). Zoning regulations are complex processes and developers often lobby for their economic interests.
Yeah but to them that's too complicated it's easier to say cement industry bad natural good.
wouldn't retrofitting cost more time, money and effort rather than starting all over in most cases. It could beneficial in cases where the building is still stable and strong but can be a health hazard and just be difficult to do in others?
100% right and true
Wrong
@@DurzoBlunts it's false
I'm really surprised that you did a video on concrete without a single mention of issues that come with the use of sand
agreed --- i kept waiting for that part too. tho, in fairness, i'm pretty sure other DW entities have produced videos dedicated entirely to the sand mining industry...
Hi there, you can view our video on sand here: kzhead.info/sun/g7GflKedjauPpnk/bejne.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section.
@@DWPlanetA It's important to talk about the sand, when you talk about concrete. Maybe you could have mentioned the video about the sand problem in this video.
@@EhrenRunde_ yeah, not in separate videos like DW did here...
The issue is that It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere.
As a Californian, concrete is also incredibly important to ensure that every earthquake doesn’t completely level our cities. So being able to scale up green concrete and green steel production will ensure that our sustainable infrastructures don’t get wrecked once a year and need rebuilt. Thanks for such an educational video on such an important topic! Edit: The reason I mentioned green steel in my comment is because reinforced concrete is what you need for earthquakes. The concrete provides the compression strength while the rebar provides the tensile strength.
Isn't concrete bad for earthquakes? I would think that something more flexible, such as timber would be better because it doesn't break when it bends.
World's running out of sand, a key ingredient for concrete. As a former Californian that was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay area, I say let the cities crumble because it's going to be all underwater soon anyway.
@@aegaeon117 the world's not running out of sand, it's running out of cheap sand. Countless companies are proving the viability of desert sand, and once it becomes financially viable (not long as scale increases, and sand price increases) desert sand based alternatives will start to dominate.
@@aegaeon117 that's a myth california isn't going to sink
@@a.chavez5808 oh, I didn't know sea level rise was a myth. Do you have any empirical evidence or does it just not fit with your worldview?
What has been completely overlooked in this video is the fact that CCS or carbon capture & storage as its otherwise known, uses VAST amounts of electricity making the technology to date economically infeasible & in some cases, depending on how that electricity is generated, produces more greenhouse gas emissions than it captures.
At least with this technology there is some room for optimization - renewable energy, nuclear power plants (those small nuclear generators we keep hearing about). If we can't get rid of concrete - it's a step in the right direction, is it not? Of course - if the electricity is going to be generated from coal burning, gas etc., then it makes no sense.
It's the same as people thinking electric cars are better for the environment, until you read what it takes to produce them and what elements go into making the batteries and electronics and how they pollute the environment when they are at the end of their life cycle
@@TowerHunter I’m so glad you brought up nuclear power. So many people see it as a bad guy just like how fossil fuels are, that is nothing but co-opted lies by oil company capitalist pigs and by Greenpeace hippies. Nuclear energy, despite it’s accidents is by far the safest form of power out there. It may be our only hope. As for the other guy who brought up electric cars. I think we should just ban cars all together and instead opt for public transport, trains, or even just straight up healthy walking and biking.
ccs is rich people screwing you again. Agriculture is the only thing big enough to capture enough carbon, and the only thing that doesn't cost anything, but pays(!) e. g. Greg Judy, Gabe Brown, Allen Savory
A UCLA team showed that the carbon dioxide given off during calcination can be captured and recombined with calcium hydroxide to recreate limestone - creating a cycle in which no carbon dioxide is released into the air. In addition, about 50 percent less heat is needed throughout the production cycle, since no additional heat is required to ensure the formation of tricalcium silicate. Sant said the method is analogous to how limestone cementation occurs in nature, where limestone forms the tough exoskeletons of coral, mollusks and seashells, and when microbes form limestone that cements grains of sand together. Thank you and be well.
do you mind posting the title, authors, and or link for this study? I am interested
but where do you get the same amount of Ca(OH) if not by burning limestone in the first place? What's the UCLA study called?
I would just like to say that roman concrete wasn't actually forgotten at all. Its recipe was in 'De Architectura', a roman treatise on architecture. It's just that people didn't make buildings big or complex that they would need concrete to build them.
Great topic to be aware of. I've always seen concrete as something that needs to change or be changed and I'm glad there's some talk about it and the plastic alternatives also being produced.
Hempcrete also seems very promising!
Chris Kyle died in the battle rip Massachusetts
What about cumcrete
Unfortunately hempcrete is very low strength (around 1/20th of concrete) and would not be useful in the vast majority of what we use concrete for today.
Maybe rammed earth
Yes please, way more carbon capture and overall carbon negative footprint instead of these lobbied ideas of concrete. Don't get me wrong, there should be a place for both, but hempcrete is really easy to build with and super sustainable.
Look into the "sand mafia" videos as well if you want to know the horrible truth about how sand to make concrete is sometimes sourced.
I think the solution is to allow for other materials and techniques to be used on smaller buildings. Sometimes old techniques are not allowed because they are not inside building codes. For example... Rammed earth is incredibly strong, and could be used for single family homes or really any building of two or three stories. Yet, I doubt you were allowed to do a building that way. So I think building codes all over the world mus change to allow for these kinds of old or unconventional building techniques. It is just a matter of studying them, and make some guidelines, just like we have now with concrete.
yeah sometimes older is better. fe old furniture was much more durable than what we have these days. and thats not just because we use pressboard etc but also becasue of the way we make them, put together the pieces. we should keep asking why we do certain things the way we do them. if sth works better then we should do that. but having these standartized rules what we are allowed and not allowed to do make it hard for that to happen.
@@philiproler5572 It's called capitalism. Make something mediocre enough that people will buy it and do it as cheap as possible, and you're ahead in the game. Unfortunately there's no good solution.
@@dav356 ofc... what i said doesnt deny that. you can do the best with sth mediocre still. and also dont forget thats it not only about using the least needed for the highest gain. new things or things that work the best for sth will also be bought since for certain things ppl want the best and then are willing to pay more for it. if you want to get really rich you make sth for the masses with the least ressources but if you want to get rich you make sth really good.
@@philiproler5572 I don't know in what financial position you are in, but I would not be able to afford furniture for my home if it were to be "the old furniture" - it's simply too expensive! On top of that - how would you approach moving with such furniture? They get pretty heavy, so moving them is almost impossible. I like my IKEA furniture, and they last for long enough for me. As for the point above - yeah, maybe there are some alternative ways of building a home, but where am I going to find a team that will build it for me? I am sure as heck not going to have time to learn it myself. In a bigger city/suburbs MAYBE, but a small village? No way.
@@TowerHunter you shouldnt just think about your point of view only... just because you and me couldnt afford it or dont own a house where we could get such furniture for doesnt mean that there arent enough ppl who can afford it and/or own a house. there are plenty ppl out there. and since youre offering a luxury item it doesnt matter that there are way less ppl who would choose "old style" furniture over ikea furniture since instead of low price high quantity youre selling high price low quantity. still a way to get rich. and as for who will build it thats what i meant basically. we should adapt more to certain situations. there should be ppl offering such a thing. if sth is better it should be done. you dont own a house and you wont be able to move with "oldstyle" furniture and it would be to expensive for you? best option is ikea furniture. you own a house and dont have to move and you got the money? best option is oldstyle furniture. youre happy with a house made from mud and dont need electricity etc? get yourself a house made out of mud xD youre living somewhere dangerous and need protection? get yourself a fortress. hope you got what i wanted to tell you with that :)
Using Hempcrete for domestic buildings would also decrease emissions. Similar to concrete but not structural it does have a lot of uses. Be interesting if you could put together a video about that, please.
Yes, we will make that for you! Stay tuned.
@@LolwutLol2000 Lots of real estate considered too toxic to plant food plants, mine heaps, splash piles, rubbish tips.
@@LolwutLol2000 a bit hard to find, but you don't have to cut trees, you can use metal stud framing, or there are companies that make structural basically big lego brick construction, so it would be like a concrete block house, but made out of hemp. it's cool stuff.
CO2 split: 8% cement 8% steel, 3% aviation We need to tackle all of them no doubt, but we must not forget the worse by focusing only the smaller evil. No, the consumer alone isnt responsible for all emissions!
If stopping or slowing the global warming is the goal then yes reducing CO2 is important but reducing METHANE is both more urgent and more feasible and therefore even more important. Let's get our priorities straight and be more goal oriented. There is a somewhat recent KZhead video on TED about this. The name of the scientist speaker is Ilissa Ocko. I would encourage you to watch it (I intended to provide the link at first but that kept erasing my entire comment).
The most cost effective way to reduce methane emissions will be to eliminate leaks in natural gas distribution systems and leakage during the extraction of methane from the ground. Capturing methane from landfills (which is already done in many places), food production processes, and from natural decay of foliage would also be useful, but the more spread out the leakage, the harder the capture process would be.
Amazing content as always 👏🏼👌🏽
Thank you for this dipping of the toes into the issue, for people who know nothing about it. Perhaps an advanced step, looking at alkali-activated pozzolans and geopolymers, replacing the CO2-intensive limestone component in cements with kaolin, which requires 10% or less of the energy to process to metakaolin as to reduce limestone to clinker, and is at least as plentiful and cheap? And a look into why these stronger, cheaper, more environmentally resistant cements are so aggressively resisted by the OPC industry?
Great vid. Thanks for raising awareness on this topic.
why on earth would you interview a lobbyist for this? people that regularly lie on behalf of the industry can hardly be considered a trustworthy source.
A man in Africa has already solved this problem by using clay. His process cost 75% less than present concrete and does not release half the carbon of present concrete.
Also plastic could be used
Ooh man, you ruined that frying pan with concrete compcretely.
I wish DW talked more about sustainable building materials like cob- there's quite a few that stand the test of time and mother nature
If the Pantheon was build of cob, it never was in the first place, but it certainly wouldn't be. Nothing against cob, but replacing concrete with cob is not really a thing.
I'd have liked you to include discussions of Hempcrete, Mushroom/Mycellium, Recycled Plastic composites, other waste products, etc. that can be used either in place of, or in addition to cement / concrete to build.
Roman concrete was superior, as it got stronger with exposure to water, unlike Portland. Second, modern concrete starts to degradate very rapidly and cannot last longer than 60-70 years. It's best to use traditional building materials, wood, earth, stone etc...it lasts longer and is far more beautiful.
No.... to jak to się mówi.... 3 lata i cena cementu podzieli cenę gazu. Dziękujemy wam ekolodzy, jesteście cudowni. Cały świat was kocha.
lepszy kontrolowany wzrost cen niż nagły kryzys - myślisz, że celem ekologii jest uprzykrzanie życia?
Here’s the thing about environmental damage: we pay for it one way or the other. Want to keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere for “free”? Well, okay, but don’t come crying when your house burns down in a forest fire or gets flooded in a freak storm or your local reservoir runs dry. That’s your “free” sending you a bill.
Amazing video, with a very concrete presentation!
Interesting video. Good job!
Big miss here not mentioning the insane amount of raw material (sand) needed to make concrete and the ecological impact that has. It’s not just about lowering the carbon emissions on the production of concrete.
It's been covered in another video.
DW Plant A I hope you continue talking about cement, perhaps how about the Fly ash and recycled glass which are been employed these days to partially replace the cement?
Fly ash is on the way out as less coal is burned in power plants.
This brings back what a talk radio presenter in the UK said last year when he interviewed a green activist (this was at the time when protesters were blocking motorways, plus I'm not naming names), and the presenter claimed that you can grow concrete, safe to say he was ridiculed.
Pleasantly surprised to see my hometown, Metro Manila in 0:20
You can heat up kilns using direct sun energy. I saw this guy who is reaching temperatures high enough to make steel out of concentrated solar energy. That should also do for cement.
so you're suggesting to produce cement using fresnel lens?
@Tyson Bryant nah, I don't think so
@Tyson Bryant As much as you want :) Just add mirrors. The setup in the video is only a demo. It is actually designed with scalability in mind. The test plant has 400 mirrors; the real thing will have 40000. All deployed and installed by robots. Designed from the ground up to be dirt cheap and easy to set up. Heck, they store the eat into rocks. You can't get cheaper than that!
Could you put a link for us to see that tech, please?
@@DunnickFayuro Yes let's deforest large areas and cook it dead from the refracted light and heat it produces... Sounds like such a great thing for the environment. Which Fyi is one reason why cities are having so many issues with heat, all the reflective windows they put in so it literally cooks the city raising their temperatures upwards of 30 degrees in the summer.
A few trees can bank large amounts of CO2 into the ground where it's needed. So can regeneratively grazed grasslands, or a blend of both. Purchasing offsets from ranchers who can prove 3rd-party-verified results, such as Gabe Brown in ND or Will Harris, GA, both USA. This is available now and is reversing desertification. Soil that is shaded can be up to 40°F cooler. In parts of Africa's Sahel, it's being done fast enough to increase rainfall, in as little as 3 years.
Everything depends on green energy. If we have enough of that - which we theoretically have -, we can do anything: capture carbon, recycle carbon, split carbon. The priorities for our governments and the industry should be clear then!
go look deeper what green energy really means. solar power plants needing natural gas to start every day, wind turbines lasting 10-20 years, then the material is nonrecyclable and dont even get me started on ''green fosil fuel''... they are literally burning trees to make ''green fuel''
Economics disagrees
@@Bleckyyyy best we have right now is hydro and atomic, but no atomic scary waaa
Uranium is green energy, like literally
@@Bloated_Tony_Danza Uranium isn't even green, it's silver in it's metallic form... silvery gray in it's oxide form and it's fluoresces a yellow when used in glass.
Nice Video and Very informative. It would be even better if you could tune down the music! I seriously think its too much. Sometimes its really hard to concentrate on the voices.
Most of the carbon reuse scenarios still emit that carbon into the atmosphere at some point. There have been large parts of the transportation sector that have committed themselves to use conventional fuel produced from captured carbon and hydrogen. There needs to be a regulatory framework that ensures only carbon captured directly from the atmosphere is being used rather than carbon from sources that have previously stored carbon.
Totally! That is the workaround for the fossil industry. Just as disingenuous as proposing to use trash as fuel. Modern trash burns mainly because of plastic.
I watched a video on CNBC where they were showing a company that make environment friendly cement
Why no mention of Hempecrete? 🤷🏼♂️
High temperature chemistry, done at industrial scale, is probably the greatest hurdle that decarbonization faces. Aluminum foundries, cement plants, steel mills, you name it. How are you going to cheaply provide 2000 degree atmospheres 24/7 without burning fossil fuels?
You can't. No green power source can even provide the electricity effectively for the foundries (And yes they pretty much all run off electricity for their forges now days)
@letsTrySelfImprovement exactly!
im not a cement expert but i wonder what would happen if you mixed ground plastics that are harder to use for one reason or another and mixed it into the concrete slurry? i mean, would you end up with a better concrete or would you just end up with integrity issues then? just a random thought ... it would be one way to get rid of excess plastics.
Plastic bricks, from recycling trash, have already been invented. It just hasn't caught on yet.
Thank you
Would it be possible to chemically recover the useful raw materials in used concrete? Seems it ought to be more energy efficient than crushing it for reuse as filler.
Versarien PLC has the answer to this - Cementene. I am going to their pour of Cementene this Wednesday at their new Head Office.
blaming concrete while enjoying the comfort of buildings, roads, and tunnels, is like criticizing power industry while enjoying air conditioning. while we wait for new technologies, we must use less.
no ones enjoying poor climate and pollution, and its usually the fault of planners and higher ups for what we get stuck with. Spreading awareness and active participation is our last chance I think
Also, aren’t we running out of construction grade sand? Key ingredient for concrete?
0:30 Please for the love of god, stop showing nuclear power plants emitting smoke when talking about excessive carbon emissions. You're cementing the idea that nuclear power plants produce a lot of CO2 when its not. That smoke isn't CO2, it's water vapour. If you really care about the climate and want to bring carbon emissions down, you'd support nuclear power because it emits very little carbon dioxide and far more energy compared to coal and oil power plants. It's completely dishonest.
Lol especially since that smoke isn't even smoke.. It's steam coming from the cooling towers. But have to remember nuclear energy is the big bad scary to the green energy groups because it is actually effective unlike all their products.
Just halfway through, but did this video actually start with the pantheon and is not going to address the problems of reinforced concrete (putting rebar in)??
Very very happy to hear things like this, i am desperately sad because of how next generation will survive. Mother Nature is suffering a lot due to this climate change, still many people are not bother about it Need a strengent rule....
*THE 'NEXT GENERATION' LIKELY WILL NOT SURVIVE THE CURRENT BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISTS-COMMUNISTS!*
@@jaykent1836 because they themselves are like one of them
0.16: the columns are in gray granite from the island of Elba, not in concrete (16 columns, 8 gray granite columns and 8 pink granite columns from the Mons Claudianus quarry in Egypt)
World it be passible to heat kilns with concentrated sunlight? I’m thinking about a power plant with mirrors and a central tower with a liquid that can heat up over 1.500 degrees.
Great topic!
Don't forget to hit subscribe! We release a video every Friday :)
The female professor has such a smiley / happy face :) Why can't everyone be like this!
Should have called out the US highway infrastructure that has to be totally rebuilt every few years forever because we can't be bothered to use more expensive stronger/thicker concrete in the first place. So within 2 years a brand new highway looks 20 years old.
You didn't count the emissions from the different materials to make the concrete. The worst thing about concrete is that it is not possible to use ordinary sand, only sand that destroys entire habitats.
By using hemp and other natural sources of stronger material for the construction of things perhaps... Just a random fleeting thought from the peanut gallery
What about cob its weaker but can it be strenthened with part cement maby ? Hempcreet has huge potential but needs wood or metal for strength it won't stand alone sadly
the problem is the same as palm tree oil for the vegetable oils. Palm oil is highly efficient compare to the others, however they still opposed it.
constructing western urban houses with alternatives to concrete is currently only 10-30% more expensive. this is without a co2 price and while sand for concrete is still locally available. omitting economics the concrete age will be over at some point because it simply isn’t a renewable or circular resource. concrete won’t go away but will become what it was in the past a high cost special material only used where absolutely necessary. if we want to continue to build prospering cities that can expand we have to embrace and industrialize/innovate sustainable and circular alternatives!
The FitnessGram™ Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.
I think huge amount of concert in landfill... Can be used at sea or ocean to make new ecosystem fish and marine life... Coral reef ect.....
Car- dependant cities with skyscrapers are the main driver for unsustainable construction - architecture needs to change.
Those ancient concrete building lasted a long time because they do not have rebar. New building are already crumbling. We're going to perpetually need to rebuild everything with new concrete if we keep this up. We also don't properly value our stuff because we have divorced ourselves from where it all comes from.
No it's because most of them are made of huge slabs of solid stone with concrete cementing them together and also not nearly to the scale that we build things. We use rebar to strengthen concrete to make up for it's deficiency since it is great under compression but weak against shearing so we add rebar to give it strength along the shearing plane so instead of just snapping like a dry twig it cracks and the rebar takes up the load.
Possible to use wastewater sludge in cement?
One way of integrating the co2 capture tech that might also increase its effectiveness is directly hooking it up to the parte of the plant that emit co2.
Amazing
What you didnt mention is that roman concrete gets stronger as time passes. Having to constantly replace our infrastructure every couple of years because we use cheap materials is the problem.
The ancient Chinese civilization used variety of material for certain height of building and construction.Mainly heavily legislated by the government then through function of the buildings,society status,and local material. Any building below 2 storeys can only use wood, bricks, bamboo, or stone. For defends, only mixture of heavy stones,gluten rice,straws and earth pound compact together to create a fort. For pagoda, only used bricks, mixture of mud with straws, and also huge columns of precious wood. It was environmentally friendlier and sustainable for thousands of years. Maybe we should study into the logic and science that left by our ancestor,and apply the technology for future generation.
it's funny how we think it's completely energy efficient to transform heat produced in nuclear power plants into electricity but not to use the heat itself in production of such materials that need large quantities of fossile fuel... a Portland Cement factory is usually born far from large cities and close to resource fields to reduce shipping costs on the heavy raw material... seems like the best use of nuclear power to me, way better than the costly nuclear powerplants we do... the only problem is the current system, it works... people don't like changing that, yet when having to address the problem people seem to think they will somehow substitute a material we've been using since 600 BC.
Wow Manila! ❤️
The Roman recipe wasn't lost. A simple web search can find it lots of places.
Now those are some concrete facts!
The higher the temperature, the more the oceans will evaporate, then there will be more humidity and more precipitation, the desert will decrease plants regarding moisture and carbon dioxide will grow faster, the history of the earth is such that if global warming was antiquity, then it was a paradise for the biosphere,. .and when global cooling was then the evaporation of the oceans would decrease and precipitation would decrease, the desert would increase, this would collapse for the biosphere.The largest desert Antarctica, the hottest place the rainforests.
I would love to see a follow-up on this when the cement industry releases committed plans. I hope to god it isn't just greenwashing
Please edit your video. C3S and C2S at 1:54 are not the correct representation of calcium silicates, but rather incorrect representations of carbon disulfide.
I think it should be mandatory or a law for all companies to use old concrete from any building being torn down. In fact I think all materials that can be salvaged from a torn down building should be required to be reused by law.
Nobody is talking about it because no one knows it's actually a problem. I didn't know how it was made until this video. What's being advertised to us in big ways is power plant, coal, and automobile pollution. The more you know...
Something that isn't addressed enough is the fact that we will never get to Zero emissions. It's just not possible. What we will have to do is reduce as much as we can and then actively pull carbon out of the atmosphere to make up the difference.
The beauty of carbon sink principles
I like his voice very nice not annoying voice
The "chemical formula" of C2S and C3S are really bad. If you already use the formula of limestone, just use the formula of calcium silicate. Even though, the quicklime (CaO) reacts with water to form Ca(OH)2 to then form CaCO3 with CO2. The chemical formulas are not too hard but not necessary. If you decide to include them, please use them correctly.
This is such a *concrete* problem. We need *concrete* solution.
Concrete is everywhere. Changing it would take a lot.
Hempcrete is pretty amazing climate wise and has amazing insulating properties and fire resisting abilities.
With how much Concrete is used and produced, 8% is ridiculously low compared to other products in wide use.
Why you did a Video without ahowing better alterntivs to concrete ?
Can someone please fix the chemical formulas at @1:55 Calcium silicate is not Carbon Sulfide.
If it only produces 8% of emissions shouldn't we focus on bigger things like transportation, moving to green energy and focusing on bigger rich nations like USA and China that are producing the most emissions.
Don't forget the Finnish company Betolar's, more environmental friendly substitutive for concreate.
1:52 I think we should all appreciate they just transformed silicon to sulfur. Pb to Au next haha
By far they best thing at capturing carbon is green plants. every commercial method ends up expelling more carbon from extraneous variables, and wasting energy in the process of capturing it. spending more time figuring out ways to reduce carbon output would be far better spent then ways trying to capture it with costly methods.
The pollution from heating can be removed, the ones from its chemical creation - must be offset, not removed. Also, remember that money doesn't grow on trees - but wood for buildings do.
Biorock\seacrete is the answer. Also, filling the concrete mixture with various waste.
Small modular nuclear reactors should be used to create the heat for cement production. Existing cement plants need to be connected to carbon capture systems and the CO2 needs to be reused in industry.
And... there's absolutely no evidence than any of the 3 things you've mentioned are possible in the near or mid future.
What's going on at 1:47? "Calcium carbonate and silciates join to form strong calcium silicates" and the letters are C3S and C2S? Shouldn't that at least be something like Ca2S and Ca3S?
Interesting to see that the cement industry get no attention at all with 8% of the total pollution while all spotlights are on the aviation industry which is responsible for a mere 2% of the total pollution by human beings.
In the US, the biggest problem is to build long term with concrete so that structures like bridges and roads etc. do not have to be rebuilt every 40-60 years. It mostly happens because we use cheap steel rebar which many times is already rusting when the concrete is poured. The rusting metals off gasses, which cracks the concrete, which exposes more metal to moisture, which rusts more metal, until eventually your bridge looks like it has leprosy and falls apart. Roman concrete did not use ferrous metals, which is one major reason why their concrete lasted so much longer. The best way, IMO, to use less concrete is to use it less often and wisely (also saves tax dollars as well) and do it right the first time.
I have heard of something called "hempcrete". I am not sure how durable that is, but maybe there is a way to make a hybrid with it or use it for smaller projects.
This replaces the aggregate with hemp fibers. But the mortar is still the same stuff, Portland cement, so the climate impact is mostly unchanged.
Efficiency is not exactly what every architects have in mind. If it is I wouldn't have such a hard time designing the concrete structure.
Building with Bammboo And Wood And concrete. We need more types of material to make it sustainable
The english spoken by the narrator in the video is very particular, it is perfect, but i cannot pinpoint if it is american, british or australian english.
I love when documentaries show cooking stacks to portray pollution. That’s steam!