4 ms·
They aren't comparable. The compression strength is too low to prevent oxidation of iron rebar (though epoxy-basalt rebar could replace), limiting you only to f
by coryrc 8y ago
They aren't comparable. The compression strength is too low to prevent oxidation of iron rebar (though epoxy-basalt rebar could replace), limiting you only to forms of ancient Rome: primarily vaults, domes, and vertical walls one or two stories tall (upon which wooden structures went higher).
You also need much more limestone because the material is weaker, incurring higher environmental impact that way.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoI don't know enough of the details but there were reports about using it for the Swansea lagoon barrier - a £1bn tidal energy project that was to be about 6 miles long. The government blocked the project just last week so we'll never know.
- coryrc 8y agoIt would perform admirably in that usage, though even modern concrete should be fine because you shouldn't need any rebar.
- bainsfather 8y ago"The government blocked the project just last week so we'll never know." To be more accurate - the government decided not to subsidise the project. It was emphatically the right decision - the economics of it were awful compared to wind, solar.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoTo be even more accurate the government decided to ignore the clear advice of the independent cross-party committee of MPs they appointed, and after the announcement chairman of said committee said the government were not even comparing like with like in their economic comparison. Makes it look solely a political not economic or environmental decision.
- scythe 8y agoCompressive strength doesn't passivate steel. Alkalinity does. But pozzolanic cements don't absorb CO2 IIRC. Only cements with no acidic additives (e.g. silica, pozzolan, GGBFS) will absorb CO2, but in this case strength is always lost.