A Concrete Solution To Pollution

PreacherTom writes "With concerns over global warming and pollution control reaching an all-time high, an Italian company has developed an interesting solution. It is called TX Active: a concrete that literally breaks down pollutants in the air. The effects are significant: 'In large cities with persistent pollution problems caused by car emissions, smoke from heating systems, and industrial activities, both the company and outside experts estimate that covering 15% of all visible urban surfaces (painting the walls, repaving the roads) with products containing TX Active could abate pollution by up to 50%.' Even more significant is that the cost is only 30% over that of normal concrete. Remarkable."

30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmentalist

[ookabooka (731013)]

30% increase in price may not convince those that don't consider the environment that important. Maybe in some places like California or parts of Europe this will take off, but I don't see it becoming commonplace for industrialized or developing cities.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[moro_666 (414422)]

I'd say it's exactly 30% more than most of people are willing to pay. Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to. If you'd make it 1% cheaper to make than just concrete, it'd be a hit. Any percent more, is a no-go.

  While they are at it, if they'd manage to increase the thermal isolation benefits of the material so that it'd pay off to buy the more expensive one, they'd stand a chance, but even that chance is not remarkable.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[hey! (33014)]

I'd say it's exactly 30% more than most of people are willing to pay. Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to. If you'd make it 1% cheaper to make than just concrete, it'd be a hit. Any percent more, is a no-go.

Whenever I visit Dallas, I wish I had a penny for every ton of concrete in that city.

However, I think the idea might be that the use of this material could be mandated. It probably would not be mandated in most cities, but certain cities whose climate makes them vulnerable to pollution problems might consdider it.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[C0deJunkie (309293)]

While the parent is absolutely correct, the comment doesn't account for the fact that the EU and the Italian legislators push anything that goes toward limiting pollution with a great effort. That is, maybe the builders may receive a sort of compensation for using this kind of material, as the house owners who build photovoltaic panels are receiving since a couple of years ago.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[C0deJunkie (309293)]

From the italcementi site [italcementigroup.com].
TX Active® is a photocatalytic principle for cement products which can reduce organic and inorganic pollutants that are present in the air. Its effectiveness has been thoroughly tested and thus certified by important independent research centers (CNR, ARPA, IspraResearchCenter). Its formulation is the result of 10 years of research, tests and applications carried out by CTG (Centro Tecnico di Gruppo, a company in the Italcementi Group) which has led to the final formulation of the active principle.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[MightyYar (622222)]

On the other hand, it only needs to be on the exposed surface of the building. Even at a 30% premium, it is cheaper than marble, granite, glass, etc. It might give a builder an excuse to have a bare concrete exterior without being accused of making an ugly building. "It fights pollution! Isn't that more important than being pretty?"

Re:Heh. Can't really see it happening

[FirienFirien (857374)]

cause 1% less profits, it's their legal _duty_ to _not_ do it

Not quite. There are grey elements there too - if you can improve your public image by being sane, responsible, ethical, then more people will buy your product. My pension advisor asked me whether I wanted to invest into strictly ethical companies, it seemed to be a standard question; the implication then is that companies with ethical policies get some more investment. Sure, the companies with unethical policies can make more money by those actions, but the companies still have a choice; Google could make more money by being evil! But they somehow still manage to be one of the most lucrative companies.

It's never black and white.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[herve_masson (104332)]

30% increase in price may not convince those that don't consider the environment that important

30% more for the *painting*; when you're dealing with city buildings, this part is next to negligible compared to the rest. If that product is as efficient as TFA says, I don't see it as a problem at all, and personally would like to see it either made non-optional, or tax assisted. The fact it also helps to keep surfaces clean would by itself be enough to motivate buyers.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[Ingolfke (515826)]

I totally agree with you... those stupid fuckers who hate the environment so much that they purchase cars that don't run only on electricty, when the cost of those cars is only 30 to 50% more than normal cars... AGGGHH.... I just don't understand why those people hate trees and birds and lungs so much. They're probably rolling around in their filthy money laughing at the rest of us as we choke on the noxious gases from their Honda Civics and Ford Foci.

Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental

[Charcharodon (611187)]

You are quite wrong. The polution eating qualities of this material is a secondary bonus to what this material is really good for, which is to keep crud from building up on buildings. Corporations, even the greedy, mean, puppy kicking kinds like their icons to be bold and most of all clean and shinny. They also like keeping all that money they get from kicking puppies, so paying people to clean their giant icons costs lots of money even if you use illegals to do it. A 30% boost in price is a small amount to be paid for something that only needs to be cleaned every great once in a while.

The concrete will be quite common, because of a simple fact corporations don't build roads, governments do, and they are about as hyper anal about the environment as they come, reguardless of what the media says. Lot's of money coming from the federal government has alot of strings attached to it. Cities get alot of flack over polution and loose alot of funding over it. Getting people out of their cars has been a non-starter to reduce polution, but getting the numbers to drop with a special concrete or paint is simplicity in itself, when compared to light rail and other polution fighting schemes.

There is another large group in the US that is willing to pay quite a bit of money for this technology, and that is parents. Ask any parent with an asthmatic child if they would be willing to do something as simple as repaint their home inside and out to better the life of their suffering child and you'll most likely see them jumping in their car and hurrying off to the hardware store before you can even get an answer. Most of the polution in the US, as in greater than 50%, comes not from industry but people. It is the average person whose mind has to be changed, not the corporations. Most people are more than willing to make simple changes in their lives or part with a reasonable amount of money to do so, especially if it will have a real impact on the life of their child.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this paint become mandatory to use at schools and public buildings with just a few years. Even if it didn't or ever get used by corporations, there are 300,000,000 in the US that live in a lot of houses. It wouldn't take very many to start making a noticeable impact on the polution.

Global Warming?

[SomethingOrOther (521702)]

global warming and pollution control

So WTF does this have to do with global warming? Or does the concrete break down CO2 also?
Too many buzzwords man

Re:Global Warming?

[halvin (883516)]

FTA:

In the presence of natural or artificial light (this applies also indoors) the photocatalyzer significantly speeds up the natural oxidation processes that cause the decomposition of pollutants, transforming them into less harmful compounds such as water, nitrates, or carbon dioxide.

So, er, no. It increases CO2.

Re:Global Warming?

[archen (447353)]

I think with the current scare over CO2 everyone is forgetting the fact that we're still dumping much more hazardous crap into the air. We need to reduce CO2 of course, but would you rather have much more toxic crap floating around in the atmosphere or just CO2 - and I guess that will be the big question. I'm hoping that people will realize that many of these chemicals that break down into CO2 are probably harmful to plants (contributing to acid rain) which reduces the vegetation's ability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta

[hcdejong (561314)]

FTA: TX Active not only hastens the decomposition of organic and inorganic pollutants, it also prevents their build-up on surfaces, helping to preserve a building's pristine appearance over time.

So the long-term cost may be lower because you can spend less on cleaning your prestigious HQ.

Limecrete

[by Anonymous Coward]

And if you use limecrete rather than concrete then you can reduce CO2 emmisions by 40% as well.

Limecrete [anu.net]

Re:Limecrete

[onx (956508)]

Actually limecrete only reduces the emissions involved in creating it by 40% by way of using less energy to fire it, and absorbing some CO2 while curing (hardening on your sidewalk). After that, the limecrete does nothing...overall producing and using limecrete still produces prollution.

Reduce at the source

[nuggz (69912)]

I have an idea, perhaps we can control pollution forming toxins at the source.
For example in cars we could promote less intial generation (perhaps even regulate fuel consumption),
Then before it even leaves the car we run it through some type of catalyst to convert it to less toxic pollutants, or filter out small particles.

Even better is if we had some sort of On Board Diagnostic system to monitor everything, like make sure there are no leaks between the engine and the filters.

This seems like an expensive air purifier, though one that might help with the existing problem and be very profitable to sell.

My biggest question is why have this in concrete? Other than the manufacturer sells concrete.

The summary is also wrong, it isn't 30% more, they claim $120 for a 5 story building. You must have cheap paint if that's 30% more than plain concrete.

Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta

[legoburner (702695)]

Unfortunately the parent (first post) is probably right. Cathalitic convertors (for instance) are still not required in China due to the slight increase in cost of a vehicle. When I was there our tour guide had never even heard of them and was amazed that something existed that could stop some of the thick black smoke coming out of the vehicles there, having no idea (aside from price) why they were not already mandatory.

Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta

[userlame (885195)]

Cathalitic convertors

...Trying to sway pollution from being Protestant?

Paving Out Pollution (2002)

[giafly (926567)]

"Buildings, roads and sidewalks have developed an appetite for air pollution. Researchers in Japan and Hong Kong are testing construction materials coated with titanium dioxide--the stuff of white paint and toothpaste--to see how well they can fight pollution. Better known as a pigment for whiteness, titanium dioxide can clear the air because it is an efficient photocatalyst: it speeds the breakdown of water vapor by ultraviolet light. The results of this reaction are hydroxyl radicals, which attack both inorganic and organic compounds, and turn them into molecules that can be harmlessly washed away with the next rainfall." - Scientific American (Feb 2002 Issue) [sciam.com]

Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta

[hcdejong (561314)]

Note: the 30% quote is for pavement with this catalyst. Adding the catalyst to paint would cost much less (TFA says $120 for a five-storey building).

Europe out to make the cash...

[MosesJones (55544)]

The big problem with the current US approach to global warming (beyond its pure bone-headed stupidity) is that once the US is forced into taking it seriously it will be significantly behind the competition from companies elsewhere in the globe, and paticularly in Europe. British Airways are already offering carbon offsets and these Italians are looking to make cash in another way. Given that this is going to be a huge market in the future there is a real risk to US companies (witness Toyota v Ford/GM) that innovation happens elsewhere.

and do nothing in return

[Shivetya (243324)]

Offsets are crap.

Anyone who sponsors the idea of using "carbon offsets" is doing nothing but transfering wealth from one entity to another. It has nothing to do with protecting the environment and should be laughed at when mentioned.

Re: Reduce at the source

[hcdejong (561314)]

My biggest question is why have this in concrete? Other than the manufacturer sells concrete.

Controlling pollution at the source is nice, but may not be enough. Emission laws for cars have been hugely successful, but there are still plenty of smog sources out there, not all of which can be cleaned up economically.
We used to have huge forests that act as pollution sinks. If we can use our urban jungle to do the same, why not?

Re: Reduce at the source

[ThosLives (686517)]

Any suggestions? "Solutions" like "stop driving" or "use mass transit" are not acceptable to the public in most places. You can't even say "use centralized power generation and electric cars" because that has several downsides as well: limited range, vast increase in the use of heavy-metal batteries (unless those little ultracapacitor things come online any time soon), centralized generation is a single point of failure, and other side effects.

Remember, none of the pollution "problem" is technical; we have the technology that would fix all the problems. The difficulty is in the politics, not the technology.