cement scientist here, two postdocs in the field for 4 years. while this co2 curing seems interesting some points should be noted: 1) polluting industries gre

cement scientist here, two postdocs in the field for 4 years. while this co2 curing seems interesting some points should be noted: 1) polluting industries greenwash with no shame, further inspection of claims most of the time reveals that either the technology is impossible to scale up, or is simple PR with of scientific value. 2) i had the opportunity to work with some of the best cement scientists on earth. cement is so complex that it's basically not understood at all. we typically know more of a neutron star a billion light years away than a piece of concrete. this is arguably the most complex material known to man. we don't even know how various phases cristallise individually. 3) any effort to understand the fundamentals of the material in a scientific context will result in little to no funding. writing a proposal for "nano-smart-bs-concrete" you'll get millions of funding and make the front page of Nature/Science with your fancy article. 4) co2 isn't the only issue, by far. resources extraction is a massive problem, search "Holcim Eclepens" to see the scares it leaves. sand is even worst since desert sand doesn't work, and many places are running out of it. 5) yet another issue is comminution, namely the process of grinding clinker to dust, it is a process (ball mills) that has less than 1% efficiency. it's estimated that humanity spends 10% of electricity to make powders. there are other techniques but usually it's very hard to get a particle size distribution (PSD) with good properties. 6) it's in the end a cultural thing mostly. you can build most of the building with crude soil + straw + wood. slightly more expensive but materials readily available on site most of the time and have much better thermal properties. 7) why not using material that Life developed during 4 billion years. mushrooms are promising for instance.