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% 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.
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.
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.
Gee, I drive there every day and all I can think of is how shitty the city is and how I want to get back to Fort Worth.
I highly doubt any city is going to pay 30% more though. The cities and counties out here bid to the cheapest contractor and the cheapest contractor is probably going to get the cheapest concrete.
I highly doubt any city is going to pay 30% more though. The cities and counties out here bid to the cheapest contractor and the cheapest contractor is probably going to get the cheapest concrete.
How much a solution is going to cost versus another one isn't (or shouldn't be) calculated only on the basis of the concrete's cost, but also on the other costs or savings that a certain solution is going to induce.
In the case of this special concrete, the city would probably see a net saving by not having to
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.
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.
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?"
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?"
Heh. Sorry, I just can't see it happening like that. (Except maybe if their PR department says that that claim would improve the corporate image or something.)
Most of the corporations don't really give a fuck about the environment or social responsibility or even ethics. Their _only_ legal responsibility is to make more money for the shareholder. And they'll do just that. If doing the ecologically sane, socially responsible, or ethical thing would cause 1% less profits, it's their legal _duty_ to _not_ do it.
The industry (as a whole) has a long history of doing anything up to (and including) dumping poisons into rivers or into the atmosphere. It's been perfectly happy to cause health problems all the way to cancer and poisoning in the nearby towns (both mining and manufacturing did that), in its own workers (see the fact that they knew since the end of the 19'th century that asbestos tends to cause lung cancer), or even in its customers (see the tobacco industry.)
The only thing that _ever_ dragged it kicking and screaming into cleaning up its act was the law. At some point society decided, "no, sorry, we're not having _that_ shit dumped into our town's river and ground water. Put a filter on it or we'll make it even more expensive to ignore us." And even then invariably the industry has put up quite a fight, including astroturfing, lobbying, PR lies campaigns, threatening to fire everyone and move somewhere else, etc.
Sadly I just don't see it working any differently this time. Now you're asking them to pay extra (in most cases having an ugly building _is_ paying extra, in an indirect way: less rent, lost customers, public image, whatever) not just to clean their own act, but basically to clean everyone else's pollution too. Expect a heartfelt laugh in the face if you tried convincing someone to volunteer to do that. Either the law forces them to, or it just won't happen.
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.
Most of the corporations don't really give a fuck about the environment or social responsibility or even ethics. Their _only_ legal responsibility is to make more money for the shareholder.
Why do companies have a responsibility to absorb pollution made by other people?
You tirade might have carried some weight if you'd committed yourself to rebuilding your house/garden with this concrete.
I think so too, but let's nitpick at the details anyway;)
I was just pointing out that the entire building would not need to be constructed out of the expensive material - just the outside.
Very true and insightful that, but that outer layer might still be either (A) more expensive than leaving it as it is, or (B) more ugly than you'd want it to be.
They are already cladding buildings with expensive materials - far more expensive than 130% of concrete. [...]Not all corporate
Builders of big objects are big companies, and they don't care, they don't have to.
Not always. Architects as diverse Norman Foster and Bruce Fowle have built their reputations on being green, and their talent doesn't come cheap. Plenty of big companies are willing to pay a premium for the ability to say they're environmentally conscious. Greenroofs are a huge hit in Chicago for this reason. Waterless urinals are the next big thing in New York. Look at the new Hearst building or the Condé Nast headquarters for concrete examples.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "big companies" as pure evil. Sometimes, they do care, because they have to.
try spending some time in large cities. Chicago, San Fransisco, and even Denver are forcing builders and companies to be a great deal more green. In particular, Chicago is starting to push green rooftops and Denver is about to push an initiative for 1,000,000 new trees in Denver. So actually, the 30% may work. Besides, it is just titanium dioxide and 30% is way too much for it.
That's silly. You can find a bigger price fluctuation between offers if you ask for offers in a tender system.
In Hungary motorways suddently cost 2-3x more after 2002 than before. Some sinister people point out that there was a change of government in 2002, but I'm sure there is no connection.;)
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.
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.
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.
Usually labor is the major cost of making anything. The cost of concrete as a percentage of the building whole is probably a small amount. I just looked up the average concrete cost per home -around $6500 for an average sized home. An average priced home in the USA is $227,000 (the market can vary widely - here in California the average price is around $450,000) Anyway, the concrete cost is only about 3% of the total cost of building a home - not much, and thus affordable. Yes, I know that modern office buildings probablky have a higher percentage of concrete, but it still is not the major cost of a building - labor is.
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.
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.
Toxic compounds can also cause additional Cardon Dioxide release over the long term as they destroy plant-life (via acid rain and other such mechanisms) which then releases CO2 as they decompose.
Of course this is in addition to the millions of people air pollution kills every year which tends to go unreported.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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]
If this turns out not to be FUD, it sounds excellend. I bet those 30% extra could easily be subsidised by city gouvernments quite simply due to reduced environmental and health problems.
If anything, it proves better technology is the cure to problems caused by technology (:
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.
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.
Although you're absolutely right, I must add to that there's also an up-side to it. Because for example the Kioto agreement was phrased to force each country to reduce it's CO2 emission levels from what they are now to what they were some ti
I could be wrong, but I don't think this has any effect on greenhouse gases; the pollutants that are broken down are those that cause acid precipitation and health problems. In fact, replacing concrete will involve producing a lot of CO2.
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.
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?
For petrol-powered cars, I'd call a 99% decrease in several rather toxic substances rather more than a token gesture. The chief remaining problem is CO2. For diesels, efforts are underway at the moment, with high sulfur content in US diesel being a large stumbling block.
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.
I knew this sounded familiar. This one is from back in July of 2005 so I suppose it may be worth a repost. The CNN article linked in the earlier post no longer exists.
First of all, portland cement already absorbs CO2, so this isn't new. What TFA fails to mention is that the production of portland cement produces a heck of a lot of CO2. So in effect the building materials made from that material do indeed absorb CO2 but only a fraction that it's manufacture launched into the atmosphere. TFA doesn't mention how much CO2 does the manufacture of the miraculous compound produces.
Second, TFA fails to mention that no material is capable of absorbing a constant rate of some compound for as long as anyone cares to measure. In the case of porland cement it does indeed absorb CO2 but only in the surface. The CO2 absorption doesn't penetrate more than a couple of cm beyond the element's surface and as time passes, the rate of absorption decreases until it doesn't absorb anything anymore. So TFA doesn't state what does it mean by 30%. Is it the total amount absorbed? Is it peak absorption rate? Is it the time window where the compound stays unsaturated? What is it? That information is vital to evaluate if it justifies the added cost.
Third. What effect does that compound has on the concrete's mechanical properties? Does it make it more fragile? More permeable? Less resistant?
Fourth, TFA states that it only costs 30% more. Only? How do you justify a 30% increase on building costs just because someone decided to use a useless compound due to some marketing gimmick?
As I see it, this product is useless. It is tailored to ignorant people who are willing to spend lots of money on something just because someone decided to slap a "green" sticker on it. There are far more efficient and proven ways to absorb CO2 and other greenhouse gases than using some "green" product on concrete. For example, invest on green spaces, on passive heating/cooling systems, on energy-efficient lighting solutions, etc... Heck, instead of spending 30% of the building costs on funny concrete why not invest that money on some eco-friendly project? All those suggestions do a whole lot more for the environmnet than some snake oil product to add to the concrete mixture.
Let's keep in mind that in building anything, raw materials are not the highest cost. In fact, labor-related costs are #1, probably. As another poster pointed out, this only has to be used on the exterior, so it's only half or less of the total concrete needed, perhaps, plus concrete may not be the biggest materials cost of building a building, plus materials are not even half the cost of construction, so I'm willing to bet if you use this concrete it increases the cost of an office building by maybe 5% max, if that. I'm definitely guesstimating here, but it's not what it sounds like, keep that in mind. I think it would be reasonable to mandate this stuff if it's good as it costs. Plus, it will probably get cheaper over time, as competition sets in due to more stringent standards.
china. The government there has NO interest in environment,
However they are spending more than any other govenment on earth installing wind turbines to generate electricity. They are closing down a lot of those death trap coal mines they have. I think facts may be more complicated than your opinions.
This is actually a possible scenario. Not for the Amazonian rainforest but for the so called "green lungs" of the cities. These concrete could actually influence decision about smaller tree covered areas inside or next to urban areas and whether they are needed for the micro-climate of the area or not.
As posted by someone above:
Don't try to resolve the result of the problem... try to resolve the problem itself !
An excellent idea, however I suspect that problems may arrise around this point: > "After use, it can be disassembled using hand tools and the parts reused for many other uses"
since when the immediately utility provided by disassembling-and-reusing the structure is perceived to outweigh the longer term utility provided by its air-filering function the structures will be disassembled & reused.
The problem may be exacerbated by the length of time the "innovative self-assembly technique" requires to instl
Sorry, but if you'd read the End User License Agreement (EULA) for my
product you would know that (section 5.2) Benchmarking and Criticism of the Product
are not permitted without prior written agreement from
Timber Research &
Environmental Engineering (T.R.E.E.) Corp. You will be
hearing from my lawyers.
30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmentalist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, I drive there every day and all I can think of is how shitty the city is and how I want to get back to Fort Worth.
I highly doubt any city is going to pay 30% more though. The cities and counties out here bid to the cheapest contractor and the cheapest contractor is probably going to get the cheapest concrete.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much a solution is going to cost versus another one isn't (or shouldn't be) calculated only on the basis of the concrete's cost, but also on the other costs or savings that a certain solution is going to induce.
In the case of this special concrete, the city would probably see a net saving by not having to
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Heh. Can't really see it happening (Score:4, Insightful)
Heh. Sorry, I just can't see it happening like that. (Except maybe if their PR department says that that claim would improve the corporate image or something.)
Most of the corporations don't really give a fuck about the environment or social responsibility or even ethics. Their _only_ legal responsibility is to make more money for the shareholder. And they'll do just that. If doing the ecologically sane, socially responsible, or ethical thing would cause 1% less profits, it's their legal _duty_ to _not_ do it.
The industry (as a whole) has a long history of doing anything up to (and including) dumping poisons into rivers or into the atmosphere. It's been perfectly happy to cause health problems all the way to cancer and poisoning in the nearby towns (both mining and manufacturing did that), in its own workers (see the fact that they knew since the end of the 19'th century that asbestos tends to cause lung cancer), or even in its customers (see the tobacco industry.)
The only thing that _ever_ dragged it kicking and screaming into cleaning up its act was the law. At some point society decided, "no, sorry, we're not having _that_ shit dumped into our town's river and ground water. Put a filter on it or we'll make it even more expensive to ignore us." And even then invariably the industry has put up quite a fight, including astroturfing, lobbying, PR lies campaigns, threatening to fire everyone and move somewhere else, etc.
Sadly I just don't see it working any differently this time. Now you're asking them to pay extra (in most cases having an ugly building _is_ paying extra, in an indirect way: less rent, lost customers, public image, whatever) not just to clean their own act, but basically to clean everyone else's pollution too. Expect a heartfelt laugh in the face if you tried convincing someone to volunteer to do that. Either the law forces them to, or it just won't happen.
Parent
Re:Heh. Can't really see it happening (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do companies have a responsibility to absorb pollution made by other people?
You tirade might have carried some weight if you'd committed yourself to rebuilding your house/garden with this concrete.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think so too, but let's nitpick at the details anyway ;)
Very true and insightful that, but that outer layer might still be either (A) more expensive than leaving it as it is, or (B) more ugly than you'd want it to be.
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "big companies" as pure evil. Sometimes, they do care, because they have to.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:3, Insightful)
In Hungary motorways suddently cost 2-3x more after 2002 than before. Some sinister people point out that there was a change of government in 2002, but I'm sure there is no connection.
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmental (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
30%concrete price is not 30%increase of bldg price (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, the concrete cost is only about 3% of the total cost of building a home - not much, and thus affordable.
Yes, I know that modern office buildings probablky have a higher percentage of concrete, but it still is not the major cost of a building - labor is.
Parent
Global Warming? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Global Warming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this is in addition to the millions of people air pollution kills every year which tends to go unreported.
Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta (Score:4, Interesting)
So the long-term cost may be lower because you can spend less on cleaning your prestigious HQ.
Limecrete (Score:4, Informative)
Limecrete [anu.net]
Re:Limecrete (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Reduce at the source (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Paving Out Pollution (2002) (Score:5, Informative)
Re: 30% is still a fair amount for nonenvironmenta (Score:5, Informative)
30% should be subsidised (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, it proves better technology is the cure to problems caused by technology (:
Europe out to make the cash... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Although you're absolutely right, I must add to that there's also an up-side to it. Because for example the Kioto agreement was phrased to force each country to reduce it's CO2 emission levels from what they are now to what they were some ti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and do nothing in return (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: Reduce at the source (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
NO they haven't. They've been a token gesture. There's still way too much air pollution from vehicles. We need to do more.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Reduce at the source (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
wrong way around (Score:3, Interesting)
Mega-Dupe (Score:3, Informative)
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/
Too much marketing, not enough facts (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, TFA fails to mention that no material is capable of absorbing a constant rate of some compound for as long as anyone cares to measure. In the case of porland cement it does indeed absorb CO2 but only in the surface. The CO2 absorption doesn't penetrate more than a couple of cm beyond the element's surface and as time passes, the rate of absorption decreases until it doesn't absorb anything anymore. So TFA doesn't state what does it mean by 30%. Is it the total amount absorbed? Is it peak absorption rate? Is it the time window where the compound stays unsaturated? What is it? That information is vital to evaluate if it justifies the added cost.
Third. What effect does that compound has on the concrete's mechanical properties? Does it make it more fragile? More permeable? Less resistant?
Fourth, TFA states that it only costs 30% more. Only? How do you justify a 30% increase on building costs just because someone decided to use a useless compound due to some marketing gimmick?
As I see it, this product is useless. It is tailored to ignorant people who are willing to spend lots of money on something just because someone decided to slap a "green" sticker on it. There are far more efficient and proven ways to absorb CO2 and other greenhouse gases than using some "green" product on concrete. For example, invest on green spaces, on passive heating/cooling systems, on energy-efficient lighting solutions, etc... Heck, instead of spending 30% of the building costs on funny concrete why not invest that money on some eco-friendly project? All those suggestions do a whole lot more for the environmnet than some snake oil product to add to the concrete mixture.
Sounds plausible (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds plausible. Wasn't it the Italians who created a concrete which absorbs and contains competing mobsters?
It doesn't make the BUILDING 30% more expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However they are spending more than any other govenment on earth installing wind turbines to generate electricity. They are closing down a lot of those death trap coal mines they have. I think facts may be more complicated than your opinions.
No Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent is not a troll!
This is actually a possible scenario. Not for the Amazonian rainforest but for the so called "green lungs" of the cities. These concrete could actually influence decision about smaller tree covered areas inside or next to urban areas and whether they are needed for the micro-climate of the area or not.
As posted by someone above:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> "After use, it can be disassembled using hand tools and the parts reused for many other uses"
since when the immediately utility provided by disassembling-and-reusing the structure is perceived to outweigh the longer term utility provided by its air-filering function the structures will be disassembled & reused.
The problem may be exacerbated by the length of time the "innovative self-assembly technique" requires to instl
Re:New invention (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, but if you'd read the End User License Agreement (EULA) for my product you would know that (section 5.2) Benchmarking and Criticism of the Product are not permitted without prior written agreement from Timber Research & Environmental Engineering (T.R.E.E.) Corp. You will be hearing from my lawyers.
Rich.
Parent