How we stop cement ruining the climate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ต.ค. 2022
- Cement is the second most consumed commodity on Earth. That's a problem. Learn more about the climate crisis on Nebula (and get 40% off with my code): go.nebula.tv/simonclark
(link updated March 2023)
Our carbon emissions are overwhelmingly from our use and generation of energy, which means that our response to the climate crisis largely needs to be the decarbonisation of energy, specifically ending our dependence on fossil fuels. However, around one quarter of all our emissions come from other processes, one of the largest of which is construction. These emissions are mostly from cement production, due to the nature of making cement.
In this video I shine a light on one company - LEILAC - who are developing what I think is a realistic, scalable solution to this problem. Which, in what may be a surprise to some, involves carbon capture technology. I also ask how a company has made a business model out of preventing carbon emissions, and what this tells us about how capitalism can respond to the climate crisis.
References
(1) ourworldindata.org/emissions-...
(2) • How to make concrete g...
(3) • The rotten core of the...
Disclaimer: I have not been paid by LEILAC or its parent company Calix to make this video. LEILAC reached out and asked if I'd be interested in covering their technology, and I was given total editorial freedom to make this video.
More about LEILAC: www.leilac.com/
You can support the channel by becoming a patron at / simonoxfphys
Check out my website! www.simonoxfphys.com/
--------- II ---------
My twitter - / simonoxfphys
My facebook - / youtubesimon
My insta - / simonoxfphys
My goodreads - / simonoxfphys
--------- II ---------
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
Some stock footage courtesy of Getty.
Edited by Luke Negus.
Video about cement production, cement CO2 emissions, cement carbon emissions, how cement is ruining the climate. In this video I talk about unavoidable carbon emissions, and a fringe case that calls for the use of carbon capture technology, and look at a company providing carbon capture technology called LEILAC. If you like video essays about climate change from Wendover, Real Engineering, Smarter Every Day, It's OK to be Smart, or Veritasium, you'll enjoy this fun science video about carbon capture.
Huge thanks to my supporters on Patreon: Mark Injerd, dryfrog, Justin Warren, Jack Grimm, Angela Flierman, Alipasha Sadri, Calum Storey, Mattophobia, Riz, Jan Krüger, The Confusled, Wessel van der Heijden, Conor Safbom, William Pettersson, Paul H and Linda L, Simon Stelling, Gabriele Siino, Ieuan Williams, Candace H, Tom Malcolm, Marcus Bosshard, Leonard Neamtu, Brady Johnston, Liat Khitman, Kent & Krista Halloran, Rapssack, Kevin O'Connor, Timo Kerremans, Ashley Wilkins, Michael Parmenter, Samuel Baumgartner, Dan Sherman, ST0RMW1NG 1, Adrian Sand, Morten Engsvang, Cio Cio San, Farsight101, K.L, fourthdwarf, Daan Sneep, Felix Freiberger, Chris Field, ChemMentat, Kolbrandr, , Sebastain Graf, Dan Nelson, Shane O'Brien, Alex, Fujia Li, Cody VanZandt, Jesper Koed, Jonathan Craske, Albrecht Striffler, Igor Francetic, Jack Troup, HandsomeCaveman, Sean Richards, Kedar , Omar Miranda, Alastair Fortune, bitreign33 , Mat Allen, Rafaela Corrêa Pereira, Colin J. Brown, Mach_D, Thusto , Andy Hartley, Lachlan Woods, Dan Hanvey, Simon Donkers, Kodzo , James Bridges, Liam , Andrea De Mezzo, Wendover Productions, Kendra Johnson. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
As a civil engineering graduate, the problem too is improper planning by clients eg new deisgns making the building last for 30 years instead of 50 or more.
While designing structures for 30 years uses less resources and affordable initially, the maintenance and renovation required after 30 years could easily wipe out affordability and sustainability.
also designing ugly buildings that can't be retrofitted easily for other uses.
In general the issue is how incentives work in our economy. Construction being this cheap means that people are unlikely to design buildings to be long lasting because whenever someone new takes them over they're likely to just tear them down and build a new one, instead of retrofitting the old one. This is of course a vicious cycle because this also means that new owners have to tear down buildings because they were not designed to stay up for long. It's much more sustainable if we build buildings to stand for a long time and keep upgrading them to match current usage rather than build new every time. Part of this actually comes down to car dependency, it's really hard to retrofit something like a mall for any other uses than as a mall so if for whatever reason that mall can't be used anymore it basically has to be torn down. Denser urban design would instead encourage mixed use development which is far easier to keep using, an apartment complex with shops on the street level can be turned to almost any use. Similarly if a city grows and thus land values rise you basically can't do anything with a suburban home other than tear it down and build apartments in it's place.
However it's not the entire problem and we also need regulation to try to encourage more sustainable usage of construction. The issue of course is that there's a lot of money in construction so that'll be difficult, but that is part of the general issue with incentives.
The craziest thing is that there are complete factories and companies dedicated to produce CO2 for our usage in other industries, like food for carbonated beverages or construction for welding. How it is not economical to recover really pure CO2 from processes like these and sell them as a by-product is mind boggling to me.
Idk about CO2 in the air, but CO2 in fossil fuels sure should be economical to do
F E E L T H E E L E P H A N T F R O M _every angle_ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
_(ง ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)ง_
Do chemistry and physics to understand the "dangers" of CO2!
Not sure about the economy but I know they do it, known as BECCS.
pretty sure economics and food safety play a role
Listening to these guys talk about the ETS makes me very mad that Australia's carbon tax got steamrolled by politics. The reality in my country, and so many others, is that large corporations have politicians and the public by the nuts, and refuse to let go. Any form of environmental reform comes with a superstorm of right wing 'unbiased analysis' that's funded by the richest people and companies on the planet. I seriously hope that Australia can find a method of using a carbon tax/ETS to properly encourage a switch to sustainability, that won't become a political suicide.
I lost my job retrofitting low income houses with energy saving technologies when Tony Abbott removed the carbox tax.
In Oz Fitting Pink Batts eg insulation in house rooofs is still a good idea, but due to politics it is toxic and Labour will never do it again.
If done right, as well as good house design are all tools to reduce energy usage
@@robertvesetas8751 never is a long time to not have ceiling insulation. This isn't rocket science, if we can't insulate our houses in Australia, time to completely give up, Rob. All that's needed is a layer of separation from a direct government program. A grants scheme, for example, where WHS requirements are a part of the grant. Not hard!
@@carlbennett2417 totally agree,, WHS issues can be resolved if devolved from govn and a more methodical approach is taken. I had my AU house roof and a new studio wall/roof insulated at my cost as it was the right thing to do to save energy and make it more liveable. Cheers
What's funny is this video is showing the creation of a new industry working very closely with government, and they will (eventually) work jointly against the public interest. The corporations that people complain about having undue influence over government were typically uninterested in government until regulators began threatening. The end result is these corporations become a source of revenue for politicians/bureaucrats, and legislation quickly becomes a means to sustain that revenue (and the corporations it flows from).
Yeah, to solve this we need all the help we can get. But a doubt in me remained, what are they going to do with the CO2 they capture in this plant? how are they going to permanently store it?
A very good question! This is a video in itself probably, but as with many of these capture technologies you can effectively pump the CO2 into a rock formation and chemically lock it into the rock structure. There are other solutions, but I think this is the most common one.
@@SimonClark I'm no scientist but that sounds difficult and risky, so I look forward to this video if you do end up making it!!
I was always fascinated by the "Cement laboratory" in our unis engineering department. Really wanted to find out what was going on in there but never had the courage to pry.
what uni?
In a way I'm glad I'm so socially inept. Whenever I see someone doing something interesting, I would just go up to them and start asking them what they were doing and shit. The majority of the time, people were happy to talk about their shit unless they were super busy.
I've learned to back off some though, but I still can't help myself sometimes.
Cement Engineers tend to be malleable if you catch them early, but firm and unyielding later in the day.
Concrete boots and a visit to the local deepwater body is the price - so be careful. : )))))))
Cement is one of the most tested and experimented upon materials in the world so they were probably doing a ton of tests. I think the only material we know as much about might be steel but that's also partly due to it's use in reinforced concrete which of course brings us back to cement.
When you click on it so fast that an HD version hasn't even finished rendering in youtube so you have to watch it in dirty 480p.
Better for the environment, I guess so there's that.
Also, first.
@@PigletCNC Also you were not first. I opened the video before you wrote this and only saw it after accidentally reloading :P
I just finished an internship at the US's National Renewable Energy Laboratory- idk if you're interested in it, but the use of supplementary-cementing materials (SCM) sourced from waste-lignin, is also something that's really cool and interesting to look into! These use less energy, and sequester carbon in the form of the biomass used.
I'm glad you made the distinction between different applications of carbon capture. It is one I hadn't learned much about.
This video's great, thanks for doing an in-depth video on a specific issue, and what is being done to alleviate it, it really does mean that there's something to look forward to.
I like the angle presented, that there are building codes and standards. Something that needs a lot of explenation in unis for enthusiastic students. I am a trained civil engineer, and I love that Austria is building many public housing projects from wood these days. But bridges from wood often can't carry the load of large trucks, so concrete with cement is neccessary. Thanks for shedding light on this!
Really enjoyed the more in depth look at climate solutions, more of this please!
I just wanted to thank you sir for taking your time to make these educational and informative videos.
This format reminds me of a Tom Scott video, which I sincerely hope you’ll take as a compliment! I’d love to see more of this!
You made an optical illusion 😍
From 1:00, I keep seeing the circles (that are not there) in between the squares.
We were wondering how long it would take for someone to notice! Completely unintentional but very cool
One of the huge obstacles to alternatives to cement is the shear volume of cement that is used (as mentioned at 10:20). The current alkali-activated materials that are comparable to cement in performance (GGBS, PFA and Calcined Clays) simply don't exist in large enough quantities to replace all the cement we use. As they mentioned as well (10:40), the construction industry is very slow to change, which is necessary when building things that are meant to last 100 years or more. Which contractor would take on the risk of using a material that has only existed for 15 years to build a structure meant to last 50? That contractor would be liable for any failure during the design life of that structure.
There is a similar problem with roads. Currently we make roads using bitumen and crushed stone (tarmac and bitmac refer to coal tar and stone macadam and the later bitumen and stone macadam). Bitumen is a by-product of the petroleum industry, and we currently don't have a product as cheap or available in such quantities that has the same properties of the bitumen (it needs to be solid enough to support the weight of vehicles but flexible enough to absorb impacts without cracking. Just look at the issues solar roadways ran into when they tried to use a brittle material like glass for a road surface). If we want to reduce production of petroleum, we need to find an alternative for building roads as well.
One plus side to cement is that it absorbs carbon dioxide over the life-time of a structure (see Carbonation of Concrete). This increases the strength of the cement, but it also leads to corrosion of any steel reinforcement in the concrete. There are ways to manage this for the design life of the structure, but it is interesting to think that cement made using CCS could actually be a net carbon sink over the life-time of the material.
11:22 "This Century we have to balance idealism and realism" -Simon Clark, 2022.
👏👏👏👏👏
This was so well done, and helpful. Thanks!
The fun bit about cement is that once it begins setting it actively absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere (about 50% of what is released in the calcination reaction). Using CCS on it is one of the few relatively efficient ways of doing direct air capture (as it is a byproduct of other necessary actions).
Why only 50%? Do you mean there is free calcium oxide even in fully cured concrete? Or do you mean half of the CO2 comes from the fuel burning and half comes from converting calcium carbonate to calcium oxide?
@@gregorymalchuk272 The concrete isn't perfect in completing the absorption. It will reverse entirely if you ground it down and expose it to the air for long enough, but that rarely happens.
Thank you Simon... You are very generous with your wisdom and insights on our demise as a species...
Thank you for making this video looking at the subject. A great little starter for those curious for more.
We could use hydrogen generated by electrolysis using electricity from renewables or nuclear, and combine it with CO2 from making cement to make jet fuel. That doesn't completely solve the issue of CO2 given off when making cement, but it does mean we can eliminate the CO2 given off by airplanes burning fossil fuels
3 birds one limestone, I like your thinking x)
or we can simply ignore all of this energy expenditure to feel better and virtue signal and grow plants to recapture the carbon in a natural process that costs almost nothing and works on its own ....
@@KT-pv3kl growing plants is not a magical solution. It's not even a solution.
However, stopping deforestation is indeed part of the solution
@@YounesLayachi nobody claims it's magical other than you. it is however millions of times more energy efficient than using chemical reactions to capture the carbon.
@@KT-pv3kl It's not millions of times more efficient. Chemical capture is actually vastly more efficient than plants.
This video is so important I'm leaving a comment to help algorithm to notice it. Keep such great and important work! 😊
Good thing that there are technologies that can capture pure CO2 at the source of the emission. I just hope Simon Clark can in the future post one video where he goes one step further and tell us what they do (or will do ) with that CO2 they pretend to capture.
You are a literal hero, Simon
Thank you, Simon! I'm feeling more optimistic than I anticipated after watching this.
I like how you focused on a specific facet of climate change prevention in this video.
Really important subject, and good recognition that there's some unavoidable emissions. We just need to make sure we don't lump "hard to decarbonise" in with "impossible to decarbonise"!
Vox just made a video on wood sky scrapers which was good, I think I watched one from the b1m aswell. They seem like a pretty good solution
That will be a slow change. Trust needs to be built, which can only really happen decades after a few projects are built that last the test of time. New training also needs to be done which adds complexity to projects.
I would really like a video on the topic of what everyone could do to actually make a diffrence to the climate, especially in big numbers of us
Great video! I just wanted to say that I bought a Henson razor from the cloud video and really like it!
cool to see this company getting attention :) they've been doing good things
Great video, thanks!
Really great video! Love the idea of different case studies. Where does the captured carbon go though? How and where is it stored?
@SimonClark Someone's illegitimately using your name.🙄
Could you explain why all the CO2 emitted by the calcination reaction isn't absorbed again when the cement hardens? Because cement *does* absorb CO2 as it hardens. It's the same reaction, just in reverse. Is there some principle that makes it only absorb, say, 80% of the emitted CO2. (Picking a number completely at random.)
Thanks for the video Simon.
It would be nice to know what they actually do with the CO2 the capture, it wasn't made clear by the company.
That is a very good and pragmatic way of dealing with such issues. I have the same opinion on those issue. I would say the same about Hydrogene (H2) production: there are good way of using it and bad way. For example: put H2 in a car is not a good way forward. It should be used for remaining tractors, specific trucks that are needed and ambulances as there are too heavy for battery for the moment and it should be used for Decarbonization of other industries similar to this one.
Anyway, this is a Systemic issue. There is no simple solution and the whole system should be thought of.
cement and concrete also release co2 during it's lifespan due to the fact that cement/concrete continualy dries during the lifespan of the structure, when cracks begin to appear we know that the moisture content has finally left the structurre and it no longer emmits co2 however this also means we are reaching the end of the engineered life span of the structure and may need replacemnt. However there are alternatives to concrete and cement products such as hemp bricks which require little to no energy to produce and continually suck co2 out of the atmosphere even once formed into bricks and then used in the construction of dwellings, hemp bricks in fact suck so much co2 out of the atmosphere the final product is somewhat fire proof due to the amount of co2 trapped within each brick
I wasn't aware that CCS had such a bad rep. If someone says "we can continue to burn fossil fuel, if we build CCS to recapture the CO2" then the problem is in the first part of that sentence, not the second.
On the contrary, isn't the only way to achieve significant net negative emissions to burn biofuel for energy and combine it with CCS?
i've got a question for you mister Clark, what do you call that sounds that soft rain makes while falling on a large mass of water (lake, sea), and its kinda like a background white noise as if electrostatic.
There are also other potential alternatives such as biological concrete but those are very expensive. Also steel faces a very similar issues but ideas for negative carbon steel have actually been proposed, however they rely on the idea of a hydrogen based economy which is not that safe a bet.
The smallish PassivHaus dwellings I've been working on desperately need a clean, or cleaner, concrete!
The thermal mass & resistance of ICF to moisture/pest/natural disaster/etc damage are so far beyond the capabilities of any other building system, & they are pretty DIY-friendly/fast in labor. Could sustain habitince for hundreds of years with minimal energy or maintenance...
...but the initial carbon cost is impossible to ignore, & kinda makes all the other "sustainability" aspects less impressive to people who only consider the few years they might live in a home.
Then again, we use loads of cement for things that absolutely do not need to be constructed with it. Could at least start there.
Well done, Simon.
Capital Power Corp using Carbon corp (nee C2CNT) made a pilot plant that takes 5t of CO2 from flue gas a day and produces carbon nanotubes (cnt) out it. with expandable other than CO2 and electricity. They basically turn CO2 back into solid carbon in high-value form. They are currently working on a plant to produce 2,500 t a year of cnt ( x2.33 for CO2 =5,825 t ) from a cement plants flue gas and then the cnt are sold back to the cement manufacturer to mix with cement (1kg cnt to 1t cement) to increase its strength. I am not sure on the current schedule, before covid the plan was for it to be in operation earlier this year. This is still small scale but it is a commercial plant.
Where does it get stored? How? Is there any way to split the co2
"Climate buckshot" astutely describes how we should approach matters with climate change, great video Simon
It would be a fine idea to at least consider thousands of approaches, but most of them will not turn out to be worth the money. In the end, we will have a relatively small number of great solutions and those can be replicated all over the world.
I don't think it's fair to say ccs is inherently good or bad. In this case CCS is the only available way to build concrete infrastructure and we decided we can't do without it, but CCS is also used in context of businesses where CCS should not be the answers (e.g. fossil fuel power plants), so i think regulations should be strict and constantly updated with state-of-the-art knowlege and technology.
What criterion should be estabilished to differentiate different kinds of CCS?
Not necessarily true that CCS is the only way to build concrete infrastructure. Geopolymers, alkali-activated cements, can be entirely fossil free and up to 70% more affordable, as plentiful, and with superior physical characteristics. Non-cement concrete structural solutions, like gabion walls, 'concrete cloth' contained berms, engineered wood instead of concrete, gravel-and-matrix pavement, and on and on are also great options depending on application.
Carbon cure is under 2% of the mass of CO2 emitted in conventional OPC. The best direct carbon capture reduces overall emissions in making an OPC concrete at most 12%, and diverts resources that could have been applied to direct air capture just so OPC gets a leg up on alternatives.
@@bartroberts1514 thank you for your insight, the video didn't take into account those alternatives. I feel tho that i had a point right: wherever there's no alternative, regulations must be strict in order to avoid ccs leaking into sectors where there are alternatives
This has been on my mind recently. And oil derivatives used in everything everywhere. All lubrication for instance.
Lubrication will stay when we go green, we need it and its' contribution is small.
Correct me if I'm wrong but once cement is turned to concrete it resequesters the carbon chemically created during its production from the air. So do we have to worry about the part that isn't emitted from the fuels creating the heat?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but does not cement absorb CO2 in the setting of concrete? If so capturing at the cement stage is a real bonus.
As far as carbon capture is concerned, I don't believe it is sustainable unless we find a way of either reducing it to C and O2 or sythesising it into a higher order compound which is both solid and stable. NO2 forms by disosiation at high pressure and temperature, so with the right process and/or catalist it should be possible to reverse it (to N2 and O2). Pass steam over roasting coke and C + H2O becomes CO + H2. Perhaps this is a reaction we can reverse. H2O can be made into H2 and O2 with electricity as well as recombined (as in a fuel cell). So CO2 can be broken up, we just need the right recipe.
At the same time, nature sythesises CO2 into more complex compounds with light. Can we not find an industrial scale process to do the same?
I entirely agree that policy is necessary to shape business and life style to save the planet.
I hope the election result in Brazil is a ray of hope for the Amazon and planet Earth.
Good video Simon.
What happens after the carbon is captured? Is there a use/reliable storage?
Yes, the S part of CCS is not being addressed adequately - the reality is that the availability of secure CO2 storage is pretty limited and geographically constrained - and the cost of the transport and compression to pump it to the storage site is an important part of the economics and in many cases will need collaboration amongst industrial clusters and significant government support.
Im not sure if the channel has covered modern wood structures, it is a really cool topic in itself. They can and are building safe and increasingly large structures from the stuff.
The guys in the video probably arnt strictly wrong: There isnt enough of the right type of wood at the right costs for it replace cement on the time scales we need it to.
Though they are direct competitors so I certainly wouldnt trust Leilac on the issue, no their arnt all the codes in place for wood structures, but they are already being put in place, and the cement industry has grossly downplayed the positive results of wood under strain and in fires. Even the cost, though itd prohibit a broad roll out of wood, can be made up for as wood is much lighter and faster to put together.
Again, I dont think wood is going to overtake cement in the next century at least and we still need people like Leilac, but wood could be a big contributor to reducing CO2 even in the fairly short term, and it probably deserves its own video with a less biased and more complete analysis.
Correction to your comment:
*It'll need another video with a wood-favoring biased look that acknowledges said bias.
Could you take a look into geoengineering and potential of spraying sulfur dioxide into atmosphere as a possible way to give us more time to reduce carbon emissions?
I know this isn't mainly an engineering or construction channel, but a video on mass timber as a potential replacement for concrete in tall buildings would be real interesting :)
As a Structural engineer, Timber is a weird material for the modern world. It doesnt meet fire regulations, its not particularly carbon Friendly (despite what seems logical sense) it hasnt got particularly great commercial lifespan, it degrades non uniformally and to UV, its often treated with epoxy and other plasitcs/resins. the growth of high quality structural timber is also more tricky to source as trees are growing faster than before (more Co2 in the atmosphere) so the use of low grade timber is required or very wasteful Glulam systems (laminated timbers) meaning you use between to 2-3 trees worth of timber for a higher grade beam vs a single high grade tree. not to mention the trees only lock in the CO2 for the construction lifespan (50 years typically) and recertifying timber products doesnt meet the stringent legislation that we have.
stupid safety laws have made concrete the best material commercially for anything taller than 3 stories... loosen the legislation, allow for more fire risk and we could use things other than concrete
@@anthonylulham3473 I was on the verge of giving you a thumbs up, but, "allow for more fire risk"? Really?
@@anthonylulham3473 i think the best use of trees in construction would be to build treehouses.
Has anybody around here heard of a ‘lab-grown’ mushroom mycelium material being used as a building material? I read something about this in the last few years but idk where to point as the source.
Although this story has a good thing to say about concretes future as a building material I think there’s a huge downside associated with the burden of concrete on the environment when buildings are demolished, because the material is virtually unrecyclable ( tell me if I’m wrong), decomposes very slowly, and as it does, the leaching of the constituent parts plays havoc on the water table, and soil quality, and air quality when very small bits get circulating- highly toxic to anything that breathes or cleans its own fur or feathers without a loofah.
Think of all the buildings destroyed in the Ukraine that now have to be cleaned up, and the costs energy wise of moving this huge amount of incredibly heavy material to landfills.
Just in case you were running out of ideas for future podcasts!
Posted by not-mardon from Canada, day 18/23
@@Laurencemardon I think that the mycelium bricks are closer in properties to wood rather than stone, and then more like ply or MDF because of the amorphous growth unlike the timber that has strength in one direction (along the grain)
Thank you very nice video
what actually happens to the C02 captured using this method?
Shows again we need a fair price on pollution (any form) that actually covers the cost of repairing the damage done by polluting.
With that, there's a great incentive for avoiding your pollution or cleaning it up instead of dumping it.
And if a company still chooses to dump it - at least we can use the collected levy to repair the damage (or mitigate the effects otherwise).
Carbon taxes are a good start - but they are still a long way from the current estimates of social cost of carbon (the damages)
emission trading schemes less of a good start, since they are controlled by artificial scarcity rather than linked to actual impact.
In conclusion, humankind will only take care of the environment if it is profitable to do so.
Very uplifting.
Very mature.
F E E L T H E E L E P H A N T F R O M _every angle_ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
_(ง ͡ʘ ͜ʖ ͡ʘ)ง_
If it saves them money, and the product is as good or better, they will use it. If it costs more money, there is a simple way to ensure its use: mandate it through government action. We'd all prefer the former, but we might have to use a bit of the latter as well.
What do you do with the CO2 that you capture?
I always thought emissions into the atmosphere from cement production were "just unavoidable", something that could not be prevented without the invention of new building materials. It's kinda nice to know that there's at least some angle from which we can attack this (though of course it would also need big growth and improvements in the production of green energy and capture technology).
I also think something important is downsizing our use of cement, as many places are running out of the sand used for it, and could icentivize forms of building that aren't disposable
Do you really believe we are running out of sand. And concrete is not a disposable material. It’s lasts far longer than timber in its working life. During its life it captures co2 in its capillaries and locked in forever. Unlike timber which is a carbon sink which releases its captured carbon back into the cycle when it decays.
@@nicholasmills6489 Yes, we are running out of sand. Strange
Great video
Thanks for this great video Simon. Really interesting. I realise that it is better than burning fossil fuels, but surely biomass is not a 'zero-emissions' fuel as Daniel Rennie says at one point? Isn't biomass wood or have I got this wrong?
Agreed, as far as I know, biomass is just regular fossil fuel like coal.
@@xWood4000 I don't think it's a 'fossil' fuel, as it's current living matter which is just cut down, but burning biomass surely releases CO2, just not as much as coal, gas etc. It has been a big greenwash to call it a 'green', renewable fuel. However, I am ready to be corrected if I have understood what this guy is saying wrongly...
@@debbiet5130 You have it right. I was a bit surprised to hear biomass as one of the options, given how bad of a solution it is.
As far as I know CO² is great fertilizer for plants how about working on a tech to capture it in solid state that can be dissolved in water to fertilize the plants?
Incredibly well made video! I can't help but notice the title isn't grammatically correct though... It should be stop cement*from* ruining
Watching this stuff is always so entertaining.
baller vid mate, really cool! Don't get discrouraged by the weirdos that I have already seen popping up in the comments, you're doing excellent work!
Great job 👌🏼 🌱🖖🏼
Roman Concrete (wikipedia): "Recent scientific breakthroughs examining Roman concrete have been gathering media and industry attention.[21] Because of its unusual durability, longevity and lessened environmental footprint, corporations and municipalities are starting to explore the use of Roman-style concrete in North America, replacing the volcanic ash with coal fly ash that has similar properties. Proponents say that concrete made with fly ash can cost up to 60% less because it requires less cement, and that it has a smaller environmental footprint due to its lower cooking temperature and much longer lifespan.[22] Usable examples of Roman concrete exposed to harsh marine environments have been found to be 2000 years old with little or no wear" Longevity is a big aspect of sustainability.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, I seem to remember an video from Undecided from a good while back about how some types of cement can be "decarbonized" by actually adding pure carbon to the mix, it does *something* to the chemistry
Anyone looking for more hopeful videos about technologies and companies trying to find ways to make the world more eco-friendly, definitely check out that channel!
i really liked this video, it felt somewhat unique
it involved less idealism and a lot more realism. even as a staunch anticapitalist myself, i still understand that we cannot reply on the overthrow of capitalism in order to save the climate in time. which is important cuz usually a lot of policies proposed, while completely rational, seem nearly impossible to be passed under capitalist governments
A carbon tax seems on the more likely side and we must organize and push relentlessly until it is passed, at least in Europe, North America and Australia, as thats where most of your audience is i imagine
Keep up the awesome work!!
I propose will call one DCC (direct carbon capture) and the other ACC (atmospheric carbon capture).
And this tech should good, it can easily be retrofitted, it does reduce emissions by a considerable amount and it is not crazy expensive.
Video's like this one give me hope ❤
Just imagine how cool it would be if humanity succeeds in its 1.5 - 2°C goal by combining all its forces and talents.
Maybe in lala land
@@bobkane432 Not in lalaland but in a world much more inconvenient that actual one. The only solution is to make our lifes much less comfortable, and being accepted by everyone in a good mood. But that' s soo difficult...
@@moldrientube Will I have to give up my dog
You could heat the tube by use of geothermal energy for cement production. That way there is no CO2 emissions emissions.
I've seen a few videos talking about CO2 being released in the production of cement, however they all seem to overlook the fact that during the setting process it absorbs CO2 from the air. I'm not sure if that fully cancels out the amount expelled in manufacturing, but I find it odd that it's not mentioned at all.
The timescale at which concrete set is in decades to centuries, not a great idea plan around it.
But that would be a fun plot point for a sci-fi book : "We forgot that the geological amount of concrete we used absorbed CO2, after humanity to to go carbon neutral, centuries later the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere dropped and no plant can grow anymore."
@@VaasrefRight! Thanks for reminding me of that. And wow, yeah, we could end up a snow ball planet again! 😅
I just wish I knew what happens to the Co2 after it's being captured.
Same. That is the part that is severely lacking in this video.
Yepp If is stays in gas form is doesn't seem stable over time, if fixated in some chemical it can't really be the cement production so what reaction would be used? The reaction CO2 => C + O2 would be nice.
@@PennyAfNorberg There are ways of storing it underground so that it doesn't leak out. CO2 can be reacted with certain minerals to form a stable mineral carbonate that will hold the CO2 permanently. CO2 --> C + O2 would require insane amounts of energy.
That's what the video should have been about. We all know already from school-level chemistry that a cement plant is a CO2 factory. The video starts with the mystery that these businesses are throwing their product away instead of selling it, but then tells us nothing whatsoever about why, except 'capitalism'.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I'm sure there are quite a few niches out there that take CO2 as input material for industrial (and other) processes. If I'm not mistaken the price of it as a product to be used has already gone up and supply gone down (probably due to rising energy costs and it no longer being produced as a byproduct while halting production in other sectors?). As more energy gets supplied by renewables in an ideal future the reduction in CO2 as a byproduct would hopefully even make it valuable enough to capture for those not legally required to do so by law, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Here in the Netherlands the government agency responsible has had a shortage of CO2 gas to timely execute their policy to euthanise chickens at farms where avian influenza has been found, or maybe it was the extra nearby "highest risk" area farms that used to be culled as well. Can't remember that specific detail, but I do know that they haven't had enough available for their usual process. Some of that might be not having planned for the avian influenza season from the past seems to turn into a year round neverending problem.
And it's often used as "inert gas" for long lasting food packaging too, still not a fan of the plastic wrapping around it to contain that CO2 so in addition to permanent inert storage I'd consider ideal there are also still other uses for it. Plenty of other actually stupid uses too, like shipping cold goods not in a climate controlled vehicle but those foam insulated box and dry ice to keep it cool just letting it sublimate into the atmosphere.
Also, one of the best ways is just to use less cement.
You can build a big, 5 story multifamily housing unit with 20-30% of the usual concrete if you use laminated timber.
Also saves a fuckton of steel, which is also very carbon intensive ... all while being carbon-negative on the most significant timeframe, which is "right fucking now".
Shifting emissions 100 years into the future is the next best thing after eliminating them, because by then we will have better mitigation and will be carbon negative. Or not be around anymore, which also makes any downside moot.
Hempcrete, carbon crete(mineral carbonisation)?
What's done with the the CO2 after it's captured?
We can eat it
Interesting video.
But what will the executive decisions do about it?
Profit or emissions reduction?
Why did you animate subtle dark spots between the black cubes
"There is no cost to emitting green house gasses, and so no incentive to not do so."
This is really the crux of it. Emissions need to be costly. Carbon taxes and equivilant strategies are the easiest way to do that, but SOMETHING needs to be done. Environmental degredation has real monetary costs to society, on the order of trillions of dollars. We need to financially incetivice companies to reduce their impact and otherwise, when it's not possible to reduce, recoup those costs to society in order to fund all of the environmental and societal repairs that will be needed as a result of our impacts.
It is definitely a hard sell though, especially compared to things like subsidies. People prefer to get free money for doing a good thing rather than be punished for doing a bad thing. It's hard to tell people that your new tax plan is going to make *everything* more expensive across the board, since just about everything relies on carbon emmitting processes. But subsidies are too easy to be politicized and to be targeted at special interests, to have special carve outs for other interests, or to entirely fail to subsidize various lesser known innovations. Putting a price on emissions means that every improvement anyone makes, of any kind, directly lowers their costs; since costs would be passed on to consumers, it would mean that there would be a real competitive advantage to a company which produces the same product with fewer emissions.
Buildings at end of life meet robots. Countless existing structures contain copper, steel, glass, brick etc etc. Currently we smash to bits and bury. We also have almost limitless stone mountains. Innovation+robots needed
There are also methods that prevent CO2 from Cement production being emitted into the atmosphere, and instead plug it back into cement. This allows cement structures to "hold" Carbon similarly as to how trees store Carbon Dioxide. The only downside to that is Carbon dioxide may be released when buildings or structures are demolished.
you do realize that this would severely impede the structural integrity and longevity of the cement right?
Hey RCP 8.5. Just checking in. Your production is doing much better.
How much would it cost me pay a guest to have a live chat w you?
Would it not be better for such companies to continue to use coal instead of natural gas before moving to energy source indifferent? This is of course, assuming they are not located too close to population centers that the health effects of the coal would be a bigger factor.
My basis for this is that coal, while it adds CO2 to the atmosphere, also releases aerosols which depending on the type can have some cooling effect to mitigate their warming. Meanwhile natural gas burns more "cleanly" which from what I've seen just means there are less byproducts so it is mostly greenhouse gases being emitted.
I only know some surface level knowledge of them so just curious how that balances out as far as a direct effect on the climate.
There are two problems. The first is that coal + CCS is so much more expensive than any other power technology that no one will use it. The second is that coal mining has horrible ecological consequences, and the toxic particulates produced by burning coal travel so far that there are very few places we could site the generator without harming people or the environment.
@@incognitotorpedo42 I appreciate the reply but in my question I'm not concerned with CCS.
For that however I would consider a filter for large particulates which gets swapped often. Meanwhile the price of this would be heavily dependent on your proximity to a coal mine and/or freight line that transports it and the maintenance of your furnace system. As for the local impact on the ecology, that is of concern but it's not the primary question here.
I'm mainly wondering for the purposes of direct effect on climate change and the rate of warming of the atmosphere. In the most basic form, would using coal heat the Earth slower than natural gas in part due to aerosols released in the process?
Have you heard of Biomason? The technology at Biomason involves the use of microorganisms to grow cement. Very little energy required and no or little co2 release.
BIOMASON is making a biocement that only produces a small fraction of the co2 emissions from conventional cement production
And with time the CaO takes up CO2 to produce CaCO3 ( that's when it burns), so good capture gives net negative emissions.
why did he not mention the use of sand it is also part of the problem
So are you saying Brimstone Energy's carbon negative concrete is not a realistic alternative to old concrete + CCS? The final product is supposed to be identical which bypasses the need for new building regulations. I think Brimstone Energy's concrete is pretty exciting!
what do you think about carbon capture to make synthetic fuel?
could you do a debunk of Bjørn Lomborg ?
The ideal solution regarding construction is to influence policy until most projects are designed for humans rather than cars. I think the "we're never going to build less or differently" attitude just puts dollar signs in the eyes of anyone who wants to build a new suburb or another lane on a highway. We already have what we need. It's the capitalism you mentioned that gives us things we don't need. We should decide what is unavoidable, not petroleum-dependent industries.
But is the CO2 released in cement production not also bound again by the cement as it binds?
not all of it
You have mentioned some of this. Historic cement production has been done with waste. Waste that is flammable, usually hydrocarbon based, and largely useless for anything. Used oil, used paint thinner, heat producing waste that needs to be incinerated Using that trash in cement production is good. What else are you going to do with it,,, and,, for the related reason,, much of this trash has toxic components that if just incinerated would release to the atmosphere some really nasty stuff Mercury? Tin? PCBs,,, BUT cement is a sponge. It soaks those toxins up and holds them within the cement. Much of the cement that is and has been used carries locked inside some pretty vile things, that are now held harmlessly from fouling the environment. To be considered.
Starting the video, I was thinking "will he talk about the news I read on the belgian website?
He sure did!
One key thing lacking in this video - how the capture process works and what happens with it later?
10:32 Wood wouldn't work with places that experience hurricane/monsoon seasons. It would just cause too much damage too quickly
You might be surprised. Strength is not an issue. It’s how you build them that counts. th-cam.com/video/cSYbwwofCKQ/w-d-xo.html
@@robinhodgkinson Ok I suppose but there's also the issue of how expensive it is to do that as well as circulation for warmer climates would have to worked out locally but I have less doubts now
@@micayahritchie7158 Sure. Like every new tech there’s other issues to sort out. I guess we’ll see how it goes…
As much as I appreciate CCS in the case of cement production, I hope it won't serve as an excuse to not replace cement with more environmentally friendly building materials and maybe rethink the way we build homes, workspaces and cities.
Well, as was said in the video, it'll probably *be* such an excuse for the next couple decades, or at least until other issues are fixed, to only _then_ start researching and developing ways to properly replace concrete with some other set of materials.
If we develop zero carbon concrete, and it's cheap and works well, what's the problem? Why not use it?
We need cheap building materials above all else. 3 billion people living in abject poverty and in need of infrastructure to escape it is the real crisis of the 21st century.