4 ms·
We don't have decades to wait for building stocks to re-absorb the expelled CO2. (Setting aside concrete carbonation, there are better materials to use for bui
by zahma 7y ago
We don't have decades to wait for building stocks to re-absorb the expelled CO2.
(Setting aside concrete carbonation, there are better materials to use for building construction. Concrete is a poor insulator, and sourcing other materials will reduce secondary and tertiary energy consumption. Also, buildings can generate energy, but not if they are made of concrete.)
I understand that you want to rationalize concrete use via carbonation, but consider the bigger picture. There is simply not a sustainable future in which we continue to build everything with concrete. Perhaps if decision-makers of yesteryear had considered these scientific properties (along with climate change), this could have been included in a comprehensive strategy to limit GHG emissions, but we are well beyond that point and must eliminate CO2 emissions now.
- eru 7y agoWe already have lots and lots of building stock carbonating right now. But yes, building has accelerated, so we are not in a steady state. As an interesting aside, tossing lime into the oceans might help. Ignoring the energy costs, once inside the ocean the lime apparently binds twice as much carbon as was released when making it. That process also helps against ocean acidification. So in order for the whole thing to make carbon sense, you'd need to use stranded energy that wouldn't be used for anything else and doesn't release more carbon into the atmosphere, like solar power in a remote desert. And the balance gets even better, if you manage to capture the carbon release by the quicklime making process. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_weathering and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization