navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
UK's most popular Renewable Energy Forum May 23, 2012, 04:59:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: UPDATE ON DECC APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT | Yingli Green Energy's PV Module Ranks No.2 in TUV Rheinland Energy Yield Test | Navitron Solar Showers at Glastonbury for Year 5!
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Carbon Negative Concrete fact or fiction ?  (Read 1271 times)
stuartiannaylor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


« on: November 25, 2010, 01:35:50 AM »

"Novacem is a World Economic Forum Technology Pioneer for 2011 and features on MIT Technology Review's list of the ten most important emerging technologies for 2010. It is also on the Global Cleantech 100, is a Wall Street Journal Technology Innovation winner and a Bloomberg New Energy Pioneer for 2010."

After blurb like that anyone have any thoughts to the possibility of "carbon negative concrete" is this just a load of ... or have they managed to crack 10% of the worlds carbon emission.

Stuart

http://novacem.com/
Logged

I just despise hedgehogs! can they not learn to share
Ivan
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1221


« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2010, 03:31:29 AM »

All concrete is carbon-negative when you mix and pour. But the bit where they make it has the opposite effect. I suspect they are twisting the truth
Logged

Navitron Member of Staff
www.epogee.co.uk - Solar PV & Solar Thermal Training / MCS
pdf27
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2010, 08:14:14 AM »

No, they're using a different base - magnesium silicate rather than calcium carbonate. The end product (when set) is magnesium carbonate, so although the process requires some heating (to half the temperature of standard Portland cement) it is entirely possible that over the entire process it will be carbon negative, or at least very low carbon.

Can't tell much more than that as the website is a bit cryptic, but looks plausible.
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11418



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2010, 09:30:56 AM »

Intriguing - it's not immediately plain if it's a genuine "goer", or yet another "let's have another few million in development funds" initiatives, designed to keep the instigators employed for another few years with no useful product at the end of it. A swift Google suggests that the conventional cement companies are "sceptical", but that is to be expected, and I did find the suggestion that the raw materials are fairly rare and expensive to mine....... So it's yet another "watch this space" product, but to be frank, there's an awful lot in that category - ostensibly sensible ideas that eventually turn out to be flawed, or finish up in one of the seemingly endless "development" loops Smiley
Certainly, the whole business of cement use has to be addressed, there's many a time the TV has been in danger when some stupid (usually banker) has announced their "eco home" plans during an edition of "Grand Designs", utilising planet-wrecking quantities of the stuff!
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
mespilus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 946


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2010, 11:12:14 AM »

I think its for real:

the idea/process/use of magnesium based feedstocks
came from an academic from Imperial College,

and,

beyond the initial 'funding' of presumably a PhD
I am not aware of any public funding.

Their biggest problem is getting a concrete supplier
to commit to a completely new process
where there is currently no demand.

Other people may have opinions about concrete producers & cartels
but my mind is blank.
Logged

Now in the HS2 blight zone
djh
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1222


« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2010, 11:33:15 AM »

I thought I posted a longer note but it doesn't sem to have appeared.

Anyway, their patent is at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=GB2009001610&DISPLAY=DESC

Hopefully the chemists can tell us whether it really is carbon negative
Logged

Cheers, Dave
Greenbeast
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2010, 11:40:15 AM »

Certainly, the whole business of cement use has to be addressed, there's many a time the TV has been in danger when some stupid (usually banker) has announced their "eco home" plans during an edition of "Grand Designs", utilising planet-wrecking quantities of the stuff!

i'm astounded when in the same sentence they use the phrases 'eco-home' and 'XXm3 concrete foundations'
Logged

stuartiannaylor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2010, 01:42:58 PM »

I dunno its a perplexing thought the eco build scenario weighing up the carbon of the materials against the carbon usage of the life time of residence.

Whats that roman building, lol. The big dome with the circular aperture in the top of it. I think its the oldest concrete structure to remain intact.
When it comes to concrete what annoys me more are bloody councils as here in burnley we used to have quite a good sports facility called the william thompson centre. A bit of philantropy by the man himself what annoys be is how can they build a structure like that and allow it to only stand for 25 years.

We have a carpark now but the whole waste of resources to me is totally sickening.

I think sometimes you have to bite the bullet and utilise modern building materials which wouldn't be all that bad as long as they where mad to last.

Stuart
Logged

I just despise hedgehogs! can they not learn to share
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11418



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2010, 01:52:22 PM »

But if there are perfectly good low carbon alternatives (which in most cases there already are), we should use them in preference.....
As for "made to last", there are a great many timber-framed properties in Kent that are now several hundred years old, and good for several hundred more, with tiny "footprints", even without spreading the cost to the planet over a long period Smiley
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
stuartiannaylor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2010, 02:12:05 PM »

Just to post some more info about the doubts of material availability, "Vlasopoulos responded that magnesium silicates are abundant worldwide, with 10,000 billion tonnes available, according to some estimates. "In addition, the production process of our cement is of a chemical nature, which means it can also utilise various industrial byproducts containing magnesium in its composition." He is confident the material will be strong enough for use in buildings but acknowledged that getting licenses to use it will take several years of testing."

Its talc isn't it magnesium sillicates? Soap stone ... Main problem is fuel usuage of distribution and the distribution of the deposits.

Timber framed houses being several hundred years old is a question to materials again. The material they used was predominately oak and I have no idea apart from certain doubts that the materials we use now don't come close to those properties.

Stuart
Logged

I just despise hedgehogs! can they not learn to share
Baz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1386


« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2010, 02:44:24 PM »

However there used to be Elizabethan timber buildings all over the place in the 1580's, not that many have survived really.
WRT cement usage how come bricks are laid frog up when it would use less cement the other way?
Logged
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11418



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2010, 02:58:54 PM »

Take a visit to Kent, it's choc-full of 'em! Used to live in one that was several hundred years old! Smiley
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 08:48:31 PM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
rhys
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109



« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2010, 03:57:29 PM »

However there used to be Elizabethan timber buildings all over the place in the 1580's, not that many have survived really.
WRT cement usage how come bricks are laid frog up when it would use less cement the other way?
Cos. you don't want voids for water to build up in, then freeze and blow the face of the brick off.
Other reasons strength and sound are here
http://www.ibstock.com/pdfs/technical-support/TIS-25-Laying-frogged-bricks.pdf
Simples
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!