Cement's future could be a combination of carbon capture and electrification

https://industrydecarbonization.com/news/cements-future-could-be-a-combination-of-carbon-capture-and-electrification.html

by hannob • 3 years ago

111 90 3 years ago

industrydecarbonization.com

cschmidt• 3 years ago

Here's an interesting Economist article on the same subject:

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/06/07/...

JumpCrisscross• 3 years ago

I was just sent a Vox video on the topic. Someone is running a campaign.

samwillis2• 3 years ago

The best way to reduce carbon emission from cement would be to use less of it.

Here in the UK, 30% of the cost of a new house build is the foundations, the excavation, and then filling of a hole in the ground with many tons of concrete. I find it baffling how little innovation in construction has been adopted by the house building industry here. Light weight timber frame construction on pile foundations would massively reduce both the carbon footprint of the build and the cost.

When I have made these arguments before, people often respond that our heavy weight brick construction is better as it withstands the weather more, and will last longer. But with modern materials (or good old traditional maintenance) thats just not true, a timber frame house can last hundreds of years.

Finally, it's not just the carbon emissions from cement manufacturing that worries me. I live about 3 miles from a cement factory, and the amount of dust that it puts out is staggering. If I clean my car, within two days it's covered in a thin layer of dust thats locally attributed to the factory. I can't imagine thats good for our health!

pjc50• 3 years ago

How is the relative cost? Timber is historically much more expensive in the UK than in the US, the major user of timber construction.

samwillis2• 3 years ago

Correct, timber is expensive here - particularly over the last 3 years - but I believe a timber frame construction is still a little lower than a brick contraction in cost. SIPs (structurally insulated panels) are more expensive than brick, but I suspect that more to do with available expertise and the need for expensive cranes. (As an aside its fascinating visiting France where every house building site has a crane, none do here)

But many timber frame houses here are still build on massive concrete slabs, and that is still pouring money into the ground. We need to adopt innovations like screw piles that are completely concrete free.

was_a_dev• 3 years ago

I know we have wet and cold climate in the UK, but it is also pretty mild.

We could have timber framed housing, as we don't get hit by natural disasters with the exception of flooding

theluketaylor8• 3 years ago

For regions that don't have to worry about a frost line helical screw piles and mass timber are game-changing building capabilities to construct concrete free. It's even possible to build carbon negative thanks to the timber locked in the building. And it's way faster since you don't spend months preparing a site and building forms.

Even frost line regions could dramatically cut their concrete usage if they just focused on protecting the water lines. You would lose a basement, but those are expensive per sq ft anyway. Just go up another floor for less total costs.

Local building codes will get in the way since building inspectors tend to reject things they haven't seen before (like mass timber frame) and way too many places have incredibly strict height restrictions.

It is incredible to watch helical screw piles go in. A friend needed 60+ posts installed for a big fence. Would have been days of digging or augering post holes down 4 ft for the frost line and then mixing hundreds of bags of cement and filling the holes with concrete. Instead a contractor with a small tracked machine that fit through a standard gate drove every pile in under an hour.

rafamvc• 3 years ago

You can use helical screw piles in places with a frost line. As long as the blades are below the frost line.

dylan6043• 3 years ago

And it's way faster since you don't spend months preparing a site and building forms.

What size house are you building that it takes months preparing a site to build foundations? Sub 2000sqft houses are built to completion in 90-120 days if weather doesn't delay things. It only takes a couple of weeks from clearing the site, digging the trenches, lining the moisture barrier, laying the rebar and forms, then pouring the cement. The formulas today cure very quickly. From the day of the pour to the start of framing is practically the blink of an eye

nofeelings• 3 years ago

Why aren’t they already doing that? If what you’re saying is true they would since the implication is that it’s cheaper.

replygirl• 3 years ago

Same reason most people don't write Rust: The talent, best practices, and vendor ecosystem are less accessible. Similar to Rust it's much more accessible than people _think_ though

dubcanada• 3 years ago

Light weight timber frame construction on pile foundations
But with modern materials (or good old traditional maintenance) thats just not true, a timber frame house can last hundreds of years.

I am not sure were you are reading that "timber frame house can last hundreds of years" but I don't believe that is correct, most timber frame houses have an estimated 30 year life span. A stone/brick house can last thousands of years.

I do agree that a stick frame/light weight timber house is way less concrete then a brick/stone house. But UK doesn't have a ton of trees, so the majority of those trees are imported from EU places like Belarus or Canada. Which is a bunch of gas in itself.

Pile foundations also have tons of problems, and have a very high fail rate. They don't do well with salt water, so costal areas in UK will have problems, they don't do well with stone/bedrock. Which UK has a ton of.

I believe there is tons of work to do, but I disagree that the solution is stick framing and pile foundations. I think the actual solution is innovation and reduction of some building standards to allow innovation. It's very very difficult to even experiment with building materials as every building code requires X insulation and any building official will complain if you have Y. So everyone just uses X.

ICF for example is absolute garbage, its marketed as a eco friendly, green building material that's made from oil and filled with a truck load of cement. How that got classified as a "eco-friendly green building material" is beyond me.

Meanwhile things that are actually eco-friendly like hemp, straw, etc all require a ton of engineering and have zero standards, so everything has to be engineered. And you'll get crazy looks from building officials when you ask for a review of your straw timber frame house.

theluketaylor8• 3 years ago

I live in a ballon-framed house built in 1926. Coming up on 100 years and with reasonable maintenance there is no reason it won't last another 100. There are some terribly built wooden houses that will just rot away, but it's not that hard to do it right.

Wood as a building material when used properly can be incredibly resilient, especially with modern mass timber solutions rather than raw wood.

vidarh• 3 years ago

I am not sure were you are reading that "timber frame house can last hundreds of years" but I don't believe that is correct, most timber frame houses have an estimated 30 year life span. A stone/brick house can last thousands of years.

I grew up in a four family timber house built in the 1960's. It's still standing. As are all the houses on that road which were all built at the same time. We moved to a timber house built around 1910. It's still standing - I walked past it just last year. My grandparents lived in a development of all wooden houses built in the 1950's. They're all standing.

Where did you get this notion they have a life span of 30 years? Norway has plenty of wooden houses that have stood for a 100+ years, and a huge bulk of post-war construction from the 50's and 60's in wood.

On the more extreme end, there are a number of stave churches in wood dating back to the 1200's. Of course they're the outlies that survived, and have certainly required maintenance.

EDIT: Here's a list of stave churches in Norway, and construction years. Some of these have been rebuilt during that time, but even those that have typically have a lifetime of each iteration measured in centuries, with a few exceptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stave_churches_in_Norw...

As a fun curiosity, here's Vang stave church, "moved" from Norway to Poland in 1842, originally built in the 1200's. "Moved" because most of the material ended up being discarded because the builders handling the re-erection didn't quite know how and found it easier to replace most of it. So the current iteration is really "only ~180 years old, and might have been moved and rebuilt once before, but in any case each iteration survived rather a bit longer than 30 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vang_Stave_Church

luplex• 3 years ago

I am not sure were you are reading that "timber frame house can last hundreds of years" but I don't believe that is correct, most timber frame houses have an estimated 30 year life span. A stone/brick house can last thousands of years.

I have in fact lived in a timber frame house that was 400 years old and going strong. No idea about its history, but it was rather comfortable and cozy. It wasn't particularly well insulated though.

mauvehaus• 3 years ago

Timber frames can definitely last hundreds of years. I have multiple family members on my wife's side who live in houses with parts dating back 100-200 years. They've been kept up and more or less continuously occupied, but it's not as though that meant continuously conditioned as we would think of it until sometime in the 20th century.

Hell, you can drive through New England and see barns that are 150 years old that are only starting to fall down after 50 years of deferred maintenance.

If you keep wood dry, it'll last a good long while. Whether you consider 100-200 years a long time, will of course depend on perspective:

"In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long way. In the US, they think 100 years is a long time."

- William the Conqueror

rootusrootus2• 3 years ago

estimated 30 year life span

Did you misplace a digit? If you're only getting 30 years from a wood frame house, you're definitely doing something wrong.

linuxandrew• 3 years ago

Different climate but I lived in two poorly maintained Queenslanders[1] which were a popular style of timber on piles here, both 50 years old and would easily last longer. One even had minor termite damage which was later treated.

Many people here do knock down rebuilds but most would easily last longer than 30 years. Many timber houses get re-stumped after a few decades and concrete piles seem to be a popular choice for replacement.

I see a lot of poorly built homes on slabs as well which seem to have a similar lifespan as the Queenslanders (anecdotally).

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)

slothtrop5• 3 years ago

Cement is used in most city infrastructure, for industrial builds, etc. The demand for it in the U.S. probably dwarfs the UK several times over despite lumber use for houses, and poured concrete no longer popularly used for foundations.

If you want to abate it, you'd need to look far beyond that particular use-case in the UK. I don't see low-hanging fruit here. Cement is reliable and inexpensive. There is R&D in the works for eco-cement, but this appears to be in early stages.

It's possible to reduce emissions in its production in the first place. Notwithstanding the calcium carbonate, energy inputs (which are very high) could eventually not rely on fossil fuels.

If the goal is to pursue an aggressive timeline for curbing CO2 emissions then probably CC & electrical will appear first.

ZeroGravitas• 3 years ago

Reduction is also item number 1 in their linked factsheet:

https://fcarchitects.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230206...

Modernize building standards to favor low-carbon materials and circular use
Promote low-carbon practices in industry and curricula
Update building and infrastructure regulations based on required performance, instead of prescriptions on material conten

londons_explore4• 3 years ago

There is a good argument that buildings shouldn't last so long.

Buildings a mere 50 years ago probably have very poor insulation (and hence high heating/cooling environmental + monetary costs), have electrics that aren't considered safe today, have plumbing probably containing lots of lead, and are lacking amenities considered standard today (electrical outlet next to the bed for phone charging, mixer taps, etc). Those buildings probably won't resist fire for long, and probably won't be suitable for heat pump heating. Sound insulation probably won't be good, so you probably get woken by your neighbour having sex.

All those things are fixable for a cost, or livable with a hit to quality of life, the environment, the house owners health, etc.

If we assume that the requirements for a home continue to evolve, then we can see that something built today would be unlikely well suited for use in 50 years. Considering that, perhaps it's best to build something easy to disassemble and rebuild 50 years from now.

HPsquared2• 3 years ago

It's surely cheaper to rewire and refit, than to knock the whole thing down to the foundations and start again.

mortify• 3 years ago

Sound insulation in older homes is much better than in new. Thicker and heavier materials are much better at absorbing or reflecting sound, especially low frequency. Fire resistance seems to be a wash. I've seen the aftermath of new and old construction. We don't seem to have made improvements in this regard, but we have made the likelihood of them starting lower in all kinds of construction.

The opposing argument for much of their down-sides is the up-front cost of building a new home has it's own environmental and financial costs. Much of the down-sides to older homes can be retrofitted for substantially less cost and impact than a new home.

We could get the best of both worlds by designing homes for upgrades with large conduits for wirings, easier access to walls and attics, etc.

skullone• 3 years ago

My house was built in 1885, timber framed. There's no rot, it's been maintained, re-plumbed and re-wired a few times, and new owners only need to keep with basic maintenance. It's been insulated as well, utility bills are in the $90-150 range depending on how extreme the seasons get. The structure has another century left in it, easy.

CalRobert2• 3 years ago

I had a house built in Ireland and the architect was a huge pain in the ass. She wanted concrete _ceilings_ ffs. In a single story dwelling. She also thought it was ludicrous I wasn't using concrete blocks, and anything like a pier or post and beam foundation was completely out of the question.

The funny thing is that the houses here are pure shite so it's not like this approach has been working for them. Utter, abominable, crap. Ugly, too.

I was able to get a timber frame and wood ceilings but still have a concrete foundation. The builders were so proud of it being an insulated foundation (KORE) but you wouldn't even _need_ that if the house were lifted off the ground, like it should be.

I asked one forward-minded engineer about it and he said it was down to people being brainwashed by "concrete built is better built" ads from the 80's and centuries of complete deforestation.

OrvalWintermute• 3 years ago

The best way to reduce carbon emission from cement would be to use less of it.

Disagree.

I think we need to return to the future through rediscovering Roman Concrete [1] and making structures that can last thousands of years.

Concrete also, can be recycled and used again.

Because we are in a deglaciation period currently, in general I am skeptical about moving to a low CO2 environment which is not normal for the earth. However, I am sensitive to the fact that we must be stewards and caretakers of the earth and make the best use of resources, while polluting less, and moving to a more sustainable future through a grand conversion process eventually.

[1] https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime-cas...

luis_cho2• 3 years ago

Why do we need more cement?

In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis.

Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social solution instead of a technological one.

robertlagrant• 3 years ago

Three possible, not-mutually exclusive answers:

- Fewer families now then before

- Significant net movement of people (e.g. the UK took in 0.6m immigrants in 2022, pushing up housing requirements) resulting in more houses being needed in some locations even if the world had zero extra people

- Cement isn't reusable, so once it's set it's only useful in that place

Velofellow• 3 years ago

cement ≠ concrete, but concrete is indeed recyclable. I know TxDOT (likely other agencies and municipalities) allows its use, often as aggregate material for HMAC paving. The cured concrete is crushed, sorted by gradation and used accordingly. Concrete rubble can also be used in retaining walls along with some backfill applications.

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants...

londons_explore4• 3 years ago

Most concrete products can be recycled.

But, due to the very low cost of cement and other related products, it is rarely economical to transport end of life concrete far to be reused.

However, if there are effective taxes on disposing of concrete (as there are throughout the EU+UK), then concrete does tend to get reused.

slothtrop5• 3 years ago

Even if you want to increase density, you'd need concrete to achieve it. Cost of housing is inversely correlated to the rate of new builds in cities, and the reason is the growth in demand through immigration. Can't have your cake and eat it too: want more immigration? Build more.

a social solution

Such as what, coercing multiple families to share detached homes? Would you volunteer for that? And how far do we expect to push that when the demand for housing will keep growing?

drekk• 3 years ago

Apartments work fine? In lower density areas simple duplexes or quadplexes work fine. We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence.

We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.

luis_cho2• 3 years ago

We could add taxes for cement that could be redirected to a carbon dividend.

There is a environmental cost that we are not paying when we build houses, and having a tax it's a fair way to incorporate this externalities. I don't trust the state with the money from this taxes so lets share them equally with the population.

We can do the same with aviation that would also reduce speculation of the house prices.

StefanWestfal• 3 years ago

That is true for a lot of western countries but we are expect to produce and consume more concrete until 2050 then we did so far in history in developing countries.

ayemel• 3 years ago

The US is currently on shoring a significant amount of manufacturing, need new builds to support this.

Fyrezerk2• 3 years ago

This article isn't very clear on the fact that CO2 can be re-injected back into the cement later in the production stage. I work with a startup using direct air capture tech to capture ambient CO2, store it, and inject it back into cement production. This has a massive offset in the CO2 produced during the calcination stage.

https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/direct-air-capture-to...

There is also lots of work already underway on electrified calcination. Plenty of industries, such as carbon fiber production, already take advantage of electrified kilns in their production process. This tech just needs to be scaled up. As the article mentioned, cement manufacturing isn't exactly on the cutting edge of technology.

NathanaelRea• 3 years ago

How much compressive stress is lost when you aerate concrete? Would consolidation with a concrete vibrator release the CO2 like shaking a soda?

labster• 3 years ago

How is the carbon bound in the concrete? I doubt CO2 bubbles would last very long, so is it just forming carbonates?

megaman821• 3 years ago

Won't cement slowly reabsorb half of the CO2 it released when making it (excluding the heating part)? What is the big advantage to making it reabsorb it early in its lifetime?

waldothedog• 3 years ago

1. That’s a big half 2. The heating part releases an incredible amount of carbon

(If I can dig up some solid links after dinner I’ll edit the post. But Chris Magwood at The Endeavor Center has some fantastic reference material for lifecycle carbon intensiveness)

pfdietz2• 3 years ago

This article isn't very clear on the fact that CO2 can be re-injected back into the cement later in the production stage.

How can that work? The calcium oxide (or hydroxide) reacts with silica to make silicates, which bind things together. That CaO which reacted is not available to soak up CO2.

Fyrezerk2• 3 years ago

In this particular case the CO2 mineralization is taking place in a wastewater slurry that comes from washing out cement trucks. The carbonated slurry is then re-used as an additive by cement manufacturers.

rendaw• 3 years ago

Last time this was mentioned someone claimed this drastically reduces the strength and lifetime of the concrete, effectively pre-aging it and is probably a wash in terms of carbon savings.

roywashere• 3 years ago

I think it is interesting to see that hannob who wrote many articles on IT security now seems to have pivoted to covering ‘green and energy’ topics. All submissions to HN in the last year are not about IT!

LatteLazy2• 3 years ago

We need as many ways to theoretically cut emissions as possible. That way, no one way will ever have to be chosen by a majority of people. So we will never have to actually do any of them. And we can keep polluting but pretend "it's not my fault because I supported <insert random niche idea>".

No one wants to admit they are happy to just ruin everything. So we all need to pretend we want action. But in order to prevent any action happening we need to pick different things.

The Nuclear people won't vote for solar expansion, the solar people will deny windmills work, the windmill people will refuse to condone nuclear. That way EVERYONE can claim the moral high ground AND use nice cheap, reliable coal. The same applies for everything (electric cars? No! Hydrogen!. Hydrogen? No, public transport! Public transport? No, electric cars!).

gs17• 3 years ago

The Nuclear people won't vote for solar expansion, the solar people will deny windmills work, the windmill people will refuse to condone nuclear.

I have only ever seen the last of these outside of people selling something.

LatteLazy2• 3 years ago

Go look at any HN article on either and you will find people talking about wind farms being ugly, being intermittent, making noise, killing birds etc.

The point being that no solution is perfect and by refusing any imperfect solution we get what we really want: no action.

yazaddaruvala2• 3 years ago

I understand why you feel demotivated by all of this negative discourse and constant speculation on better technology. That said,

electric cars? No!

The Model Y was the best selling car[0] in the world in Q1! Isn't that a positive fact :)

Six Flags in California now has solar installed at 2 of its theme parks, offsetting 3000 homes worth of electricity! Isn't that a positive fact :)

There are many other stories like this, you just have to look :)

So we will never have to actually do any of them.

I agree we can do more, but focus on these positive outcomes! Stuff IS happening and it is for the better!

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-model-y-was-the-best-se...

[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/25/six-flags-announces-s...

wizofaus3• 3 years ago

Quoting this from an article by Australia's chief scientist Alan Finkel:

   Between 1990 and 2021 the behemoth known as global civilisation only reduced its fossil-fuel diet from 87% to 83% of total energy consumed worldwide. Let me spell that out. We shaved off 4% in the last 30 years. In the next 30 we need to shave off 83%.

Faaak• 3 years ago

Mixing biochar with concrete actually makes it harder (or you can add less cement to it), while storing CO₂ (biochar is a viable CO₂ pit).

Can't link the sources because mobile, but if you're interested look it up, it's really interesting. It's being certified in France right now.

photochemsyn• 3 years ago

Seawater is a source of calcium, and it looks like desalination concentrate is an option for limited scale production:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00153-6

"Seawater desalination concentrate—a new frontier for sustainable mining of valuable minerals" (2022)

"The metallic elements found in the highest concentration are sodium, magnesium, calcium and potassium, which have been commercially extracted as the chlorides, sulfates, and carbonates while magnesium has been extracted as the hydroxide."

pfdietz2• 3 years ago

The most interesting thing I saw in that article was the rotating air heater. Induce turbulence and shock waves in air and heat to very high temperature, without having a resistive heating element that has to be at least that hot.

If you are going with electrical energy -> heat, you can get energy storage for free. It's much cheaper to store a kWh of high grade heat as sensible heat than it is to store a kWh of electrical energy in a battery. So electrification of cement production will be able to act as a large amount of dispatchable demand, simply by tacking on a heat store.

Cement's future could be a combination of carbon capture and electrification

Related Stories