7 ms·

I think its worth considering how long that long tail is: https://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-technology/concrete-design-production/con

I think its worth considering how long that long tail is: https://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-technology/concrete-design-production/concrete-as-a-carbon-sink https://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-... Taking at a look at the link above (which is published by pretty much the more pro-cement group you can imagine), we get that carbon resorption is a thing, that certainly there is a potential for many structures to achieve carbon neutrality over their design lifespans, and that in the "best case", we're talking about 100% carbon neutrality over decades. We also get that 100% carbon resorption is not a design goal of many forms of current reinforced concrete applications since the presence CaC03 increases rebar corrosion. Taken at face value then, what you have is that cement currently emits 8% of all human carbon activity, that over the timespan of decades, it may self sequester itself to 4%, but probably somewhere in between. So even if we trivially converted kiln sources to renewables, there's still probably a decent chunk of carbon emitted in cement creation process that may never be self-sequestered. I think understanding what that final number comes out to would be pretty useful thing to understand, and is hardly scare-mongering. I think once we drill into our heads that we need to decarbonize, after "the easy step" of cutting fossil fuel use, litterally every other form of decarbonization consists of chasing down some carbon source that accounts for the 2-5% range. There will be no low hanging fruit left.

BruceM 7y ago
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9 is a pretty nice discussion of concrete carbonation as well. It is also worth pointing out that the GP's comment was showing the chemistry for a lime-based concrete. OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) based concrete is substantially different in terms of the chemistry and the amount of energy involved in the manufacturing process (due to the increased amount of energy involved in producing the clinker).
colechristensen 7y ago
I'm not very worried about the remaining carbon producers once fossil fuels become minority energy sources. I think the ability of the biosphere to sink carbon is underestimated as are the benefits of a higher carbon atmosphere. Most talk about anthropogenic climate change are either denying it exists or exaggerating (usually without much knowledge) its negative side effects. Nobody talks about the benefits of expanding the arable land at higher latitudes or increased plant growths in forest (and forests denser and further north). At one point during a carbon spike the planet was more or less covered by jungle pole to pole, how's that for biodiversity? Change is hard and people are always upset about it, but this is a change we have already made for better or worse. There is much doom and gloom about any change and this one will have big consequences but we need to move past arguing about whether or not it will happen and towards how best to respond to it (and in ways other than only desperate attempts to reverse it completely). That doesn't mean there isn't a great benefit to capping the size of the change or to stop the forcing, but at some point you have to accept it and stop treating it as your doom.
- icegreentea2 7y ago
  Ok, thats a fair position to have. For what its worth, I also wonder about that. I live in Canada, and I'm not aware of what steps are being taken to understand how we would have to respond to growing areas moving north. I've read that the areas where favourable climatic conditions are projected to settle in that we only have sufficient top soil for a few decades of intensive agriculture. I wonder what steps are being taken to deal with that. I also would point out that people are upset that change is happening because they look at the form the change is projected to take, and most of the forms of change involve a lot of people either dying, or just having shitty shitty lives.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Agriculture has learned a lot about topsoil. Farmers are actually growing topsoil now. Most history books stop covering farming with the 1930s dust bowl. Thus few people are aware of what universities have discovered since.
- zahma 7y ago
  Trying to control nature will never work out in humanity's favor. That is precisely the same hubris that has landed us in this mess. Once we surrender to the notion that we will capitalize on nature's response to our unwieldly use of technology, then we are only going to make matters worse. We simply do not understand the complexity of nature and should be skeptical of perceived benefits -- such as increased amounts of arable land -- as if that won't have consequences.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Humanity has controlled nature for thousands of years. We have achieved unthinkable progress in almost any thinkable area. I mean, I get your point: It's hard to control complex systems, and unintended consequences can and do happen. But we have a rather spectacular track record of powering through and figuring things out.
  - colechristensen 7y ago
hinkley 7y ago
Very reminiscent of many conversations at work. “And then the hard work begins...” Optimizing the long tail is a slog. But when it’s most of the remainder it has to be done.
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  That's also why it's so important to get the easy 80% of the work done as quickly as possible. The longer we get to sort out the long tail the better. The more time we have the higher the chance of creating efficient CO2 scrubbers, then we can cut a lot of the tail off..
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
14 7y ago
Very interesting this reminds me of motorcycle riding in the cold and I think you are right. It is very hard to keep warm so you wear warm pants and a jacket and that helps but it can still be cold. It is all about percentages. Add nice boots and you may be 1% warmer. So add a scarf tbat gets you anothe %. Gloves another 2%. All the little things alone don't do much. But once you start adding them up the little pieces add up fast and make the final and most important contribution to the problem. Like you mentioned it will be all the little areas of carbon emissions we will be tackling which will ultimately need to be the hardest and most important step.

BruceM 7y ago

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9 is a pretty nice discussion of concrete carbonation as well. It is also worth pointing out that the GP's comment was showing the chemistry for a lime-based concrete. OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) based concrete is substantially different in terms of the chemistry and the amount of energy involved in the manufacturing process (due to the increased amount of energy involved in producing the clinker).

colechristensen 7y ago

I'm not very worried about the remaining carbon producers once fossil fuels become minority energy sources. I think the ability of the biosphere to sink carbon is underestimated as are the benefits of a higher carbon atmosphere. Most talk about anthropogenic climate change are either denying it exists or exaggerating (usually without much knowledge) its negative side effects. Nobody talks about the benefits of expanding the arable land at higher latitudes or increased plant growths in forest (and forests denser and further north). At one point during a carbon spike the planet was more or less covered by jungle pole to pole, how's that for biodiversity? Change is hard and people are always upset about it, but this is a change we have already made for better or worse. There is much doom and gloom about any change and this one will have big consequences but we need to move past arguing about whether or not it will happen and towards how best to respond to it (and in ways other than only desperate attempts to reverse it completely). That doesn't mean there isn't a great benefit to capping the size of the change or to stop the forcing, but at some point you have to accept it and stop treating it as your doom.

icegreentea2 7y ago
Ok, thats a fair position to have. For what its worth, I also wonder about that. I live in Canada, and I'm not aware of what steps are being taken to understand how we would have to respond to growing areas moving north. I've read that the areas where favourable climatic conditions are projected to settle in that we only have sufficient top soil for a few decades of intensive agriculture. I wonder what steps are being taken to deal with that. I also would point out that people are upset that change is happening because they look at the form the change is projected to take, and most of the forms of change involve a lot of people either dying, or just having shitty shitty lives.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Agriculture has learned a lot about topsoil. Farmers are actually growing topsoil now. Most history books stop covering farming with the 1930s dust bowl. Thus few people are aware of what universities have discovered since.
zahma 7y ago
Trying to control nature will never work out in humanity's favor. That is precisely the same hubris that has landed us in this mess. Once we surrender to the notion that we will capitalize on nature's response to our unwieldly use of technology, then we are only going to make matters worse. We simply do not understand the complexity of nature and should be skeptical of perceived benefits -- such as increased amounts of arable land -- as if that won't have consequences.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Humanity has controlled nature for thousands of years. We have achieved unthinkable progress in almost any thinkable area. I mean, I get your point: It's hard to control complex systems, and unintended consequences can and do happen. But we have a rather spectacular track record of powering through and figuring things out.
- colechristensen 7y ago

hinkley 7y ago

Very reminiscent of many conversations at work. “And then the hard work begins...” Optimizing the long tail is a slog. But when it’s most of the remainder it has to be done.

radicalbyte 7y ago
That's also why it's so important to get the easy 80% of the work done as quickly as possible. The longer we get to sort out the long tail the better. The more time we have the higher the chance of creating efficient CO2 scrubbers, then we can cut a lot of the tail off..

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

14 7y ago

Very interesting this reminds me of motorcycle riding in the cold and I think you are right. It is very hard to keep warm so you wear warm pants and a jacket and that helps but it can still be cold. It is all about percentages. Add nice boots and you may be 1% warmer. So add a scarf tbat gets you anothe %. Gloves another 2%. All the little things alone don't do much. But once you start adding them up the little pieces add up fast and make the final and most important contribution to the problem. Like you mentioned it will be all the little areas of carbon emissions we will be tackling which will ultimately need to be the hardest and most important step.