4 ms·

The report exposes quite the paradox: We desperately need these infrastructure projects to transition to a carbon-neutral world, but in doing so we will have to

The report exposes quite the paradox: We desperately need these infrastructure projects to transition to a carbon-neutral world, but in doing so we will have to emit a massive amount of carbon. Massive compared to what? This article highlights that a single wind turbine uses a lot of concrete. But per the latest IPCC assessment, wind power over its life cycle already has the lowest median CO2 emissions of any electricity source. Sure, look for even cleaner ways to make materials, but this rhetoric is terrible. It lets fossil shills bludgeon you with your own words later: "see, environmentalists say coal burning emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide, but they say the same about switching to wind power, so there's no rush to change things." Here's a recent review article about curbing CO2 emissions from cement: Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39977040/1-s2.0-S0959652612006129-main.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1530469511&Signature=iO7NNWFleA6%2F%2F8NF2ta4wIRigTA%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DGlobal_strategies_and_potentials_to_curb.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39977040/1-s... It provides actual numbers and suggestions. Only half of cement's CO2 emissions per ton come from the chemistry inherent in calcining calcium carbonate to produce calcium oxide and carbon dioxide. The rest comes from the fossil sources of energy used to process materials. Like most industrial processes, it can cut emissions significantly just by switching input energy sources. Also, as someone else mentioned, concrete absorbs atmospheric CO2 as it cures. It's mostly the fossil combustion embedded in its production that drives emissions over its full life cycle.

philipkglass 8y ago
As mchannon comments, concrete does not absorb a significant amount of CO2 as it cures. I was mistaken. The calcium in lime forms silicates. However, it remains true that half of the life cycle emissions of concrete come from fossil combustion. Replacing fossil combustion with other energy sources can cut concrete's CO2 footprint in half without any major changes in concrete's composition or use.
pstuart 8y ago
If that CO2 is going up a flue it should be possible to capture (yes, more energy required).
quotemstr 8y ago
Agreed. It's foolishly short-sighted to worry about the one-time construction emissions of a facility that can go on to produce power for decades. It's frustrating to see a segment of climate advocacy motivated not by quantitative concerns regarding radiative forcing, but by an aesthetic opposition to industrial civilization itself no matter what form it might take.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  I find the "deep green" collapsitarians awful. But I don't think that's where most of this counterproductive hand-wringing comes from. I think it's mostly due to crippling innumeracy. People apparently lose the ability to do arithmetic or compare numbers once the numbers get larger than the price of a house. Words like "massive" get overloaded to describe phenomena separated by multiple orders of magnitude. How much carbon dioxide is emitted during a wind farm's construction? Massive. How much carbon dioxide is emitted by fossil-fueled automobiles? Massive. How much carbon dioxide is emitted by unused cell phone chargers that are left plugged in? Massive. The United States stops driving fossil fueled automobiles and unplugs its idle cell phone chargers. How much does it reduce CO2 emissions? Show your work. It saves one massive from the cars and one massive from unplugging chargers. One massive plus one massive equals a total reduction of two massives.
  - SerLava 8y ago
    That's a huge part of it. I do feel that the aforementioned anti-industrial mindset does still motivate the lack of enthusiasm for number crunching. Find me a way to reduce co2 that involves wicker, green leaves, and pure water, even tangentially, and you'll find huge support for it even if it can be beaten by donating three dollars to a wind farm. That notion will affect a lot of people who aren't even consciously anti-industrial. It's just kind of the default frame of mind when discussing environmental protection. Or try talking about fixing global warming instead of preventing it. People who are (rightly) very concerned about impending wholesale death suddenly are not interested at all. It comes as an affront. Our mental image of a global warming solution is already clearly set as some type of industrial shutdown.
- 8y ago

philipkglass 8y ago

As mchannon comments, concrete does not absorb a significant amount of CO2 as it cures. I was mistaken. The calcium in lime forms silicates. However, it remains true that half of the life cycle emissions of concrete come from fossil combustion. Replacing fossil combustion with other energy sources can cut concrete's CO2 footprint in half without any major changes in concrete's composition or use.

pstuart 8y ago

If that CO2 is going up a flue it should be possible to capture (yes, more energy required).

quotemstr 8y ago

Agreed. It's foolishly short-sighted to worry about the one-time construction emissions of a facility that can go on to produce power for decades. It's frustrating to see a segment of climate advocacy motivated not by quantitative concerns regarding radiative forcing, but by an aesthetic opposition to industrial civilization itself no matter what form it might take.

philipkglass 8y ago
I find the "deep green" collapsitarians awful. But I don't think that's where most of this counterproductive hand-wringing comes from. I think it's mostly due to crippling innumeracy. People apparently lose the ability to do arithmetic or compare numbers once the numbers get larger than the price of a house. Words like "massive" get overloaded to describe phenomena separated by multiple orders of magnitude. How much carbon dioxide is emitted during a wind farm's construction? Massive. How much carbon dioxide is emitted by fossil-fueled automobiles? Massive. How much carbon dioxide is emitted by unused cell phone chargers that are left plugged in? Massive. The United States stops driving fossil fueled automobiles and unplugs its idle cell phone chargers. How much does it reduce CO2 emissions? Show your work. It saves one massive from the cars and one massive from unplugging chargers. One massive plus one massive equals a total reduction of two massives.
- SerLava 8y ago
  That's a huge part of it. I do feel that the aforementioned anti-industrial mindset does still motivate the lack of enthusiasm for number crunching. Find me a way to reduce co2 that involves wicker, green leaves, and pure water, even tangentially, and you'll find huge support for it even if it can be beaten by donating three dollars to a wind farm. That notion will affect a lot of people who aren't even consciously anti-industrial. It's just kind of the default frame of mind when discussing environmental protection. Or try talking about fixing global warming instead of preventing it. People who are (rightly) very concerned about impending wholesale death suddenly are not interested at all. It comes as an affront. Our mental image of a global warming solution is already clearly set as some type of industrial shutdown.
8y ago