4 ms·
I don’t get this article. There is a “CO2 is bad mm’kay” problem statement, then a recommendation of fly ash, which is already a common additive to mixes, then
by sk2020 5y ago
I don’t get this article. There is a “CO2 is bad mm’kay” problem statement, then a recommendation of fly ash, which is already a common additive to mixes, then a recommendation for mill slag, which is already a common additive where it’s available, then a recommendation to look at geopolymers, which I’ve never seen specified for any job anywhere and which are also useless for cast-in-place applications, and finally a time-will-tell conclusion. Is this content for content’s sake? Anything remotely practical mentioned has been in use for years.
- baybal2 5y agoThe problem with use of flyash in the West is mostly legislative. The problem is that there are no two similar sources of flyash, as there are no chemically identical sources of coal from which it came from. Current code only lets a very narrow selection of flyash to be blended into OPC, despite most of it being suitable, and not influencing the resulting characteristics. For the geopolymers, the issue of natural variability is even worse.
- kwhitefoot 5y agoAnother problem with fly ash in Europe is that a number of countries have no coal fired power stations to produce it or are closing down what they do have. So it is a declining resource anyway.
- baybal2 5y agoAs written in the article, the amount already there will last humanity at least a century.