Cement's future could be a combination of carbon capture and electrification
industrydecarbonization.com
industrydecarbonization.com
https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/direct-air-capture-to...
There is also lots of work already underway on electrified calcination. Plenty of industries, such as carbon fiber production, already take advantage of electrified kilns in their production process. This tech just needs to be scaled up. As the article mentioned, cement manufacturing isn't exactly on the cutting edge of technology.
(If I can dig up some solid links after dinner I’ll edit the post. But Chris Magwood at The Endeavor Center has some fantastic reference material for lifecycle carbon intensiveness)
How can that work? The calcium oxide (or hydroxide) reacts with silica to make silicates, which bind things together. That CaO which reacted is not available to soak up CO2.
Here in the UK, 30% of the cost of a new house build is the foundations, the excavation, and then filling of a hole in the ground with many tons of concrete. I find it baffling how little innovation in construction has been adopted by the house building industry here. Light weight timber frame construction on pile foundations would massively reduce both the carbon footprint of the build and the cost.
When I have made these arguments before, people often respond that our heavy weight brick construction is better as it withstands the weather more, and will last longer. But with modern materials (or good old traditional maintenance) thats just not true, a timber frame house can last hundreds of years.
Finally, it's not just the carbon emissions from cement manufacturing that worries me. I live about 3 miles from a cement factory, and the amount of dust that it puts out is staggering. If I clean my car, within two days it's covered in a thin layer of dust thats locally attributed to the factory. I can't imagine thats good for our health!
But many timber frame houses here are still build on massive concrete slabs, and that is still pouring money into the ground. We need to adopt innovations like screw piles that are completely concrete free.
We could have timber framed housing, as we don't get hit by natural disasters with the exception of flooding
Even frost line regions could dramatically cut their concrete usage if they just focused on protecting the water lines. You would lose a basement, but those are expensive per sq ft anyway. Just go up another floor for less total costs.
Local building codes will get in the way since building inspectors tend to reject things they haven't seen before (like mass timber frame) and way too many places have incredibly strict height restrictions.
It is incredible to watch helical screw piles go in. A friend needed 60+ posts installed for a big fence. Would have been days of digging or augering post holes down 4 ft for the frost line and then mixing hundreds of bags of cement and filling the holes with concrete. Instead a contractor with a small tracked machine that fit through a standard gate drove every pile in under an hour.
What size house are you building that it takes months preparing a site to build foundations? Sub 2000sqft houses are built to completion in 90-120 days if weather doesn't delay things. It only takes a couple of weeks from clearing the site, digging the trenches, lining the moisture barrier, laying the rebar and forms, then pouring the cement. The formulas today cure very quickly. From the day of the pour to the start of framing is practically the blink of an eye
Individual houses can be done in a much shorter time, but digging a basement, setting all the forms, pouring the concrete, waterproofing the walls, underpinning the water management, and then back filling back to grade is not a quick process.
> But with modern materials (or good old traditional maintenance) thats just not true, a timber frame house can last hundreds of years.
I am not sure were you are reading that "timber frame house can last hundreds of years" but I don't believe that is correct, most timber frame houses have an estimated 30 year life span. A stone/brick house can last thousands of years.
I do agree that a stick frame/light weight timber house is way less concrete then a brick/stone house. But UK doesn't have a ton of trees, so the majority of those trees are imported from EU places like Belarus or Canada. Which is a bunch of gas in itself.
Pile foundations also have tons of problems, and have a very high fail rate. They don't do well with salt water, so costal areas in UK will have problems, they don't do well with stone/bedrock. Which UK has a ton of.
I believe there is tons of work to do, but I disagree that the solution is stick framing and pile foundations. I think the actual solution is innovation and reduction of some building standards to allow innovation. It's very very difficult to even experiment with building materials as every building code requires X insulation and any building official will complain if you have Y. So everyone just uses X.
ICF for example is absolute garbage, its marketed as a eco friendly, green building material that's made from oil and filled with a truck load of cement. How that got classified as a "eco-friendly green building material" is beyond me.
Meanwhile things that are actually eco-friendly like hemp, straw, etc all require a ton of engineering and have zero standards, so everything has to be engineered. And you'll get crazy looks from building officials when you ask for a review of your straw timber frame house.
Wood as a building material when used properly can be incredibly resilient, especially with modern mass timber solutions rather than raw wood.
Do you mean things like LSL?
I actually wonder what the longevity of LSL is compared to raw wood. Since it's a ton of resin mixed with wood, I wonder about the resin part of it.
It does seem much better to build with as bugs won't eat it and it's perfectly straight.
Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) has become common in North America for beams and joists. CLT uses even larger components and is even more flexible. It’s just starting to be used but you can build everything from a house to 20 storey buildings.
I grew up in a four family timber house built in the 1960's. It's still standing. As are all the houses on that road which were all built at the same time. We moved to a timber house built around 1910. It's still standing - I walked past it just last year. My grandparents lived in a development of all wooden houses built in the 1950's. They're all standing.
Where did you get this notion they have a life span of 30 years? Norway has plenty of wooden houses that have stood for a 100+ years, and a huge bulk of post-war construction from the 50's and 60's in wood.
On the more extreme end, there are a number of stave churches in wood dating back to the 1200's. Of course they're the outlies that survived, and have certainly required maintenance.
EDIT: Here's a list of stave churches in Norway, and construction years. Some of these have been rebuilt during that time, but even those that have typically have a lifetime of each iteration measured in centuries, with a few exceptions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stave_churches_in_Norw...
As a fun curiosity, here's Vang stave church, "moved" from Norway to Poland in 1842, originally built in the 1200's. "Moved" because most of the material ended up being discarded because the builders handling the re-erection didn't quite know how and found it easier to replace most of it. So the current iteration is really "only ~180 years old, and might have been moved and rebuilt once before, but in any case each iteration survived rather a bit longer than 30 years:
Heck, I’ve seen many trailer houses that are in decent shape and >30 years old.
Siding is in a similar state, with many modern sidings have replacement intervals in the decades, and shorter time periods if you don't paint every 5-10 years.
If properly maintained and if parts are replaced in a timely manner a house can last indefintely. My partner and I own a house from 1935 that was last renovated in the 1990s, and I'm starting to have to make minor plumbing repairs. I think in the next 10 years or so we'll have to re-pipe and re-wire. But the framing and sheathing is almost all original, except for the roof deck which was replaced first in the 1990's and then parts were replaced when we re-roofed last year(the original roofer did not know how to frame to support a rake board).
Everything also changes if you factor in repainting and replacement of interior fixtures.
But still, if you maintain it and factor in all these repairs and replacements your house can last for hundreds of years.
I have in fact lived in a timber frame house that was 400 years old and going strong. No idea about its history, but it was rather comfortable and cozy. It wasn't particularly well insulated though.
Hell, you can drive through New England and see barns that are 150 years old that are only starting to fall down after 50 years of deferred maintenance.
If you keep wood dry, it'll last a good long while. Whether you consider 100-200 years a long time, will of course depend on perspective:
"In Europe, they think 100 miles is a long way. In the US, they think 100 years is a long time."
- William the Conqueror
Did you misplace a digit? If you're only getting 30 years from a wood frame house, you're definitely doing something wrong.
Many people here do knock down rebuilds but most would easily last longer than 30 years. Many timber houses get re-stumped after a few decades and concrete piles seem to be a popular choice for replacement.
I see a lot of poorly built homes on slabs as well which seem to have a similar lifespan as the Queenslanders (anecdotally).
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenslander_(architecture)
If you want to abate it, you'd need to look far beyond that particular use-case in the UK. I don't see low-hanging fruit here. Cement is reliable and inexpensive. There is R&D in the works for eco-cement, but this appears to be in early stages.
It's possible to reduce emissions in its production in the first place. Notwithstanding the calcium carbonate, energy inputs (which are very high) could eventually not rely on fossil fuels.
If the goal is to pursue an aggressive timeline for curbing CO2 emissions then probably CC & electrical will appear first.
https://fcarchitects.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/20230206...
> Modernize building standards to favor low-carbon materials and circular use
> Promote low-carbon practices in industry and curricula
> Update building and infrastructure regulations based on required performance, instead of prescriptions on material conten
Buildings a mere 50 years ago probably have very poor insulation (and hence high heating/cooling environmental + monetary costs), have electrics that aren't considered safe today, have plumbing probably containing lots of lead, and are lacking amenities considered standard today (electrical outlet next to the bed for phone charging, mixer taps, etc). Those buildings probably won't resist fire for long, and probably won't be suitable for heat pump heating. Sound insulation probably won't be good, so you probably get woken by your neighbour having sex.
All those things are fixable for a cost, or livable with a hit to quality of life, the environment, the house owners health, etc.
If we assume that the requirements for a home continue to evolve, then we can see that something built today would be unlikely well suited for use in 50 years. Considering that, perhaps it's best to build something easy to disassemble and rebuild 50 years from now.
The problem lies in a homeowner who doesn't have much spare cash - so they rewire one year... and then a few years later they replumb... and then a few years later they replace the roof... etc.
Overall, they spent more, but in small increments so it didn't feel like more.
Typically regulations allow things to be 'grandfathered' - so renovating a house allows you to avoid getting permission to rebuild, which may be denied.
Sure, the [carbon] accounting looks a little different if you're having to pull out most of the load-bearing walls to accommodate a change of use and underpin to build on top or considering replacing old masonry with something built to maximise energy efficiency. But rebuilding entire houses to keep up with the latest fads in mobile charge ports and mixer taps is about as good for the environment as "fast fashion"!
This must be regional. In the PNW we'd never knock something down for that. Stripping the drywall out and redoing the plumbing/electrical/insulation is quite a lot less expensive than putting up a whole new structure.
This has never been my experience. I've done a lot of this kind of work, in several different cities (all US though).
A full rip & replace of plumbing, electrical, and roofing should cost about 20%, and require about 10% of the time, compared to building new.
Plumbing should last 50 years (rough plumbing -- fixtures are decorative and usually change with taste before failure). Electrical should last longer, but systems older than 1970s probably need updating. Roof should last 25-30 years depending on style/material.
The opposing argument for much of their down-sides is the up-front cost of building a new home has it's own environmental and financial costs. Much of the down-sides to older homes can be retrofitted for substantially less cost and impact than a new home.
We could get the best of both worlds by designing homes for upgrades with large conduits for wirings, easier access to walls and attics, etc.
Why isn’t this more common? I’ve watched a few spray foam installations on youtube where they just spray directly over romex / wiring / cables .
Compare that with newer buildings I lived in, where I would be woken up at 3AM by my upstairs neighbor's cat running around.
The funny thing is that the houses here are pure shite so it's not like this approach has been working for them. Utter, abominable, crap. Ugly, too.
I was able to get a timber frame and wood ceilings but still have a concrete foundation. The builders were so proud of it being an insulated foundation (KORE) but you wouldn't even _need_ that if the house were lifted off the ground, like it should be.
I asked one forward-minded engineer about it and he said it was down to people being brainwashed by "concrete built is better built" ads from the 80's and centuries of complete deforestation.
Disagree.
I think we need to return to the future through rediscovering Roman Concrete [1] and making structures that can last thousands of years.
Concrete also, can be recycled and used again.
Because we are in a deglaciation period currently, in general I am skeptical about moving to a low CO2 environment which is not normal for the earth. However, I am sensitive to the fact that we must be stewards and caretakers of the earth and make the best use of resources, while polluting less, and moving to a more sustainable future through a grand conversion process eventually.
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2023/roman-concrete-durability-lime-cas...
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/06/07/...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00153-6
"Seawater desalination concentrate—a new frontier for sustainable mining of valuable minerals" (2022)
> "The metallic elements found in the highest concentration are sodium, magnesium, calcium and potassium, which have been commercially extracted as the chlorides, sulfates, and carbonates while magnesium has been extracted as the hydroxide."
If you are going with electrical energy -> heat, you can get energy storage for free. It's much cheaper to store a kWh of high grade heat as sensible heat than it is to store a kWh of electrical energy in a battery. So electrification of cement production will be able to act as a large amount of dispatchable demand, simply by tacking on a heat store.
Can't link the sources because mobile, but if you're interested look it up, it's really interesting. It's being certified in France right now.
In my country there are 2 houses for each family, and we in a housing crisis.
Maybe the solution can be less speculation, a social solution instead of a technological one.
- Fewer families now then before
- Significant net movement of people (e.g. the UK took in 0.6m immigrants in 2022, pushing up housing requirements) resulting in more houses being needed in some locations even if the world had zero extra people
- Cement isn't reusable, so once it's set it's only useful in that place
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/contractors_consultants...
But, due to the very low cost of cement and other related products, it is rarely economical to transport end of life concrete far to be reused.
However, if there are effective taxes on disposing of concrete (as there are throughout the EU+UK), then concrete does tend to get reused.
> a social solution
Such as what, coercing multiple families to share detached homes? Would you volunteer for that? And how far do we expect to push that when the demand for housing will keep growing?
We have more than enough homes. There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person. It's not just an issue of building more. Shelter is being treated as a speculative asset and the only meaningful vehicle for building weath in the middle class. Hence the need for a social solution.
You must be familiar with the monumental amount of concrete these require, yes? They are more dense, but not "low-carbon" by any stretch.
> We don't need every single family living in an isolated home with the white picket fence.
Families can decide for themselves what suits them. It's not your place to tell someone they don't "need" something. You don't "need" most of your possessions. Hell you don't even "need" a roof over your head, as it pertains to survival.
And we sure don't "need" to race to the bottom and demand lower qualify of life from everyone. Not for homelessness, and not for building efficiency. It does not solve anything. It's purpose is in-group virtue signaling.
> We have more than enough homes.
If that were true, more people could afford them. Affordability scales with the rate of new builds.
> There are over two dozen empty homes per homeless person.
Notwithstanding that this is unsourced, lodgment =/= home ownership and homelessness is its own special problem that includes factors beyond cost.
> Hence the need for a social solution.
We have those, and they're only being expanded.
But they only can choose from what gets built, and what gets built is ultimately a function of what builders consider profitable and what legislation allows. And what legislation allows is based, to a significant extent, on what infrastructure can be provided to support particular types of residences. If a government decides it can't be bothered (or afford) upgrading or building the necessary infrastructure to support more apartment dwellings then families aren't going to get to choose living in them. Similarly, what's profitable depends on how taxes and other fees are levied from profits made by property developers and owners etc. Families don't get much choice over that either.
Change legislation (qua zoning, qua regs) and you increase the rate of builds, which should adequately meet current demand. Of course, the laws of physics are in play - if the immigration rate is high, thereby perpetually increasing demand, you still won't build fast enough.
This is what YIMBYs have to remember about Japan, which they frequently cite. The population doesn't grow much. Can't have it both ways: build, or reduce immigration.
There is a environmental cost that we are not paying when we build houses, and having a tax it's a fair way to incorporate this externalities. I don't trust the state with the money from this taxes so lets share them equally with the population.
We can do the same with aviation that would also reduce speculation of the house prices.
> I don't trust the state with the money from this taxes so lets share them equally with the population.
This doesn't make any sense. You want the State to tax you, presumably trusting them to do that, but you don't want the State to manage tax revenue? The point of tax revenue isn't just redistribution (you seem to be gesturing towards UBI), no one should have to explain that.
No one wants to admit they are happy to just ruin everything. So we all need to pretend we want action. But in order to prevent any action happening we need to pick different things.
The Nuclear people won't vote for solar expansion, the solar people will deny windmills work, the windmill people will refuse to condone nuclear. That way EVERYONE can claim the moral high ground AND use nice cheap, reliable coal. The same applies for everything (electric cars? No! Hydrogen!. Hydrogen? No, public transport! Public transport? No, electric cars!).
I have only ever seen the last of these outside of people selling something.
The point being that no solution is perfect and by refusing any imperfect solution we get what we really want: no action.
> electric cars? No!
The Model Y was the best selling car[0] in the world in Q1! Isn't that a positive fact :)
Six Flags in California now has solar installed at 2 of its theme parks, offsetting 3000 homes worth of electricity! Isn't that a positive fact :)
There are many other stories like this, you just have to look :)
> So we will never have to actually do any of them.
I agree we can do more, but focus on these positive outcomes! Stuff IS happening and it is for the better!
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-model-y-was-the-best-se...
[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/25/six-flags-announces-s...
Between 1990 and 2021 the behemoth known as global civilisation only reduced its fossil-fuel diet from 87% to 83% of total energy consumed worldwide. Let me spell that out. We shaved off 4% in the last 30 years. In the next 30 we need to shave off 83%.At a minimum that means it is feasible for us to hit 83% over the next 30 years - if not the next 15.