Live data from Hacker News

Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

bbc.com

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#101

The largest issue with concrete is that we misuse it. As a building material it has great thermal mass ( aiding temperature stability ) and longevity. But all too often buildings are poorly designed for renovation, and hence end up being torn down after a couple of decades. A small fraction of the useful lifetime of the structure. Any building using concrete for a structure should be aiming to last at least 100 years…

I don't think we want 100yr old buildings (except for history like a famous temple etc.). Certainly in my country old buildings are not designed in any environmentally conscious way. They aren't energy saving. They aren't in any way designed to be naturally cooler in the summer or hotter in the winter. They aren't designed for the changing needs of society which went from walking and horses 100 years ago whatever it…

Many old buildings where designed to be cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Often those features have been removed as historically airflow kept things cool where today you want to maintain AC.

It’s something of a design failure of modern buildings where walking outside when it’s 80f is pleasant but inside you need AC at those temperatures.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#102
One question I've had about cement being a major source of CO2 emissions that I haven't seen addressed anywhere is that my understanding is as cement cures it does so by absorbing CO2 which is what turns it into rock.

Does this not cancel out the effect of making the cement in the first place? And if not, why not?

Would love to know if anyone has a good understanding.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And better than that using this at scale is going to require massively scaling up wood production (i.e. forestry). This too will help with capturing a lot of co2 in the soil. A lot of countries would end up restoring farm land to production forests and probably end up using sustainable practices for this. For those unfamiliar with CLT, this is a high tech building material suitable for making e.g. sky scrapers o…

What are the long term health effects of the chemicals used in the production of CLT, on the residents of the houses?

Good question.

There is also CLT without glue. Check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_UjIshzMc where Matt Risinger is visiting a Swiss factory where they use wooden (berch?) nails and dowel pins in stead of glue. And by using more layers they also need no insulation. Gives R=24...

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#104
post #23

The article doesn't mention one alternative: CLT (cross laminated timber) as a building material for houses and flats. See https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190717-climate-change-w... for example. Using CLT (and passive house principles) can reduce the total CO2 emmissions of a house by 90% in its total life span. The wood in CLT stores carbon and the passive house principles reduces energy needs.

While CLT has been certified for 60 years, I don't know how the adhesives they are using are certified for that long. The working life of common industrial adhesives is remarkably short [1]. The key is not just moisture control, but also temperature regulation. With rigorous humidity and temperature regulation, some adhesives have an as-yet undetermined lifespan. I'm still looking for transportable passive designs wi…

There is also CLT without glue, see my other comment. Check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_UjIshzMc.

"passive designs without active mechanical assistance" - do you mean passive (highly insulated, air tight) designs without mechanical ventilation?

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't think we can predict the needs of building even 20 years into the future. City layout could change drastically. Monumental buildings should last a long time, but not every structure. The alternative is to build from wood whenever possible, and capture extra cabon in building material. This increases market need for wood and therefore forestation.

>Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't want a new house. Why? Because I refuse to live in a house with no natural ventilation. Most modern houses need air condition or at least ventilation systems, because they need to be so energy efficient, that there is no other way to get fresh air in. The fact that a house needs to be pressure tested seems insane. Sure you can leave the windows open, but that defeats the pu…

Most new homes today include heat recovery ventilators that continuously cycle the air from outside.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#106
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't think we can predict the needs of building even 20 years into the future. My parents live in a house that was originally built in the 1890s. It first had a fire place and wood stove for eating/cooking (surmised via chimneys), then it had gas lighting (some pipe are still in the walls), then it knob-and-tube lighting, then modern electrical lighting and cooking. Walls were…

> Buildings are just boxes for people which keep the cold/heat/moisture at a comfortable level. So true. With the knowledge we have now about building materials you could create a very versatile, rigid, energy efficient base structure that lasts > 100 years, and adapt/update the internals to the current needs. You could even change the room layout completely. I live in Europe and I can't understand why houses in the…

There's a lot of great youtubers out there who document their work in construction. It seems like a subset of contractors/architects/builders are interested in doing "experimental" things and improving the world's understanding of how to build buildings.

This one is about energy efficiency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBOvflXoWlw

I'm really interested in finding more videos like this because his videos go past "Home Depot said this is energy efficient", he instead tests these concepts and apparently works with different colleges that research these ideas.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't think we can predict the needs of building even 20 years into the future. City layout could change drastically. Monumental buildings should last a long time, but not every structure. The alternative is to build from wood whenever possible, and capture extra cabon in building material. This increases market need for wood and therefore forestation.

>Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't want a new house. Why? Because I refuse to live in a house with no natural ventilation. Most modern houses need air condition or at least ventilation systems, because they need to be so energy efficient, that there is no other way to get fresh air in. The fact that a house needs to be pressure tested seems insane. Sure you can leave the windows open, but that defeats the pu…

> Sure you can leave the windows open, but that defeats the purpose. Modern home needs to be ventilated three times a day, that means opening all the windows in the morning, when you get home in the afternoon and before going to bed. How many people will remember to do that?

I don't really understand your objection. in a leaky old style building without an effective moisture/thermal barrier, you don't get to choose whether ventilation is happening; it always is. with modern sealing, you can open the windows if you prefer fresh air, or you can enjoy much more efficient AC/heat if you don't. why couldn't you live in a modern home and just leave the windows open? it's easy to get a good draft going in any multifloor building with windows.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't think we can predict the needs of building even 20 years into the future. City layout could change drastically. Monumental buildings should last a long time, but not every structure. The alternative is to build from wood whenever possible, and capture extra cabon in building material. This increases market need for wood and therefore forestation.

>Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't want a new house. Why? Because I refuse to live in a house with no natural ventilation. Most modern houses need air condition or at least ventilation systems, because they need to be so energy efficient, that there is no other way to get fresh air in. The fact that a house needs to be pressure tested seems insane. Sure you can leave the windows open, but that defeats the pu…

> The air in a modern home is often so dry that my nose start running the minute I enter. I don't want to live in that sort of climate.

In cold climates, the ability to safely humidify a house depends mainly on having good enough insulation and air sealing that the indoor humidity doesn’t condense on cold surfaces and rot the building. This is especially relevant near windows.

So if you want decent indoor humidity when it’s genuinely cold out, you want double- or triple-paned windows with insulated edges, proper air sealing near the windows, and possibly even an energy recovery ventilator.

(Or you can live in an old house, spend stupid amounts of money to heat it all the way to 63 degrees for a few hours a day, be cold and dry, and wonder what the heck anyone was thinking when they designed their single-pipe steam heating system.)

P.S. It is supposedly possible to properly design a single pipe steam heating system that achieves a comfortable temperature in more than one room. If so, I have never seen such a thing.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#109
post #102

One question I've had about cement being a major source of CO2 emissions that I haven't seen addressed anywhere is that my understanding is as cement cures it does so by absorbing CO2 which is what turns it into rock. Does this not cancel out the effect of making the cement in the first place? And if not, why not? Would love to know if anyone has a good understanding.

While concrete does absorb CO2 there is a large misconception that it can absorb as much as is output during production. In reality any concrete worth its cost can only absorb a very small fraction of the production output.

A largely overlooked issue with the idea of concrete absorbing CO2 is exposed surface area. Imagine a hydro dam, one side is saturated with water, the other side is air. The dam is also usually quite thick, several meters to hundreds of meters. That really limits the available absorption surface especially considering the ratio of surface area to volume. Concrete foundations, epoxy coated parkades, even painted surfaces start to drastically reduce the possibility of CO2 being absorbed.

Think of concrete like a membrane or a sponge. The thicker the membrane you want to pass a fluid through, the higher the pressure you would require. So using our pressure as atmospheric, getting a high depth of CO2 absorption requires a well connected pore structure, and a long time frame.

Add to this membrane metaphor the issue of size. We design concrete structures to prevent fluid transfer, especially hydro dams! H2O is a smaller molecule than CO2, and the static pressure on the ‘wet’ side of a hydro dam increases 1 atmosphere every 10m.

As concrete sets and gains strength, its porosity decreases. This process happens rapidly in the first few days, and only ever stops when the cement runs out of free water to absorb. CO2 absorption depth is a pretty common test when evaluating a structure for rehabilitation purposes (carbonation dept testing) as CO2 will mess with the concrete PH and corrode reinforcing steel which (depending on many factors) can be as shallow as 5cm from the concrete surface. I’ve seen structures with up to 5cm of depth, but that is outside of the norm. 1-2cm of CO2 absorption depth for a structure from the 50’s is pretty common in my area.

Modern concrete, through many different means, has a highly disconnected pore structure (compared to the concrete of the 50’s). New concrete, is designed to reduce any type of fluid transfer especially after the first few days of curing. This will reduce the depth of CO2 absorption further.

So bringing this all back together, consider the absorption depth of 2cm, a structure with minimal exposed surface area, and some sort of coating or cladding… and you very quickly realize that you are not going to be off setting CO2 production outputs by any significant margin, and its not in your best interests either.

Re: Cement is the source of 8% of the world's CO2 emissions (2018)

#110
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do we want 100 year old buildings? I don't want a new house. Why? Because I refuse to live in a house with no natural ventilation. Most modern houses need air condition or at least ventilation systems, because they need to be so energy efficient, that there is no other way to get fresh air in. The fact that a house needs to be pressure tested seems insane. Sure you can leave the windows open, but that defeats the pu…

> The air in a modern home is often so dry that my nose start running the minute I enter. I don't want to live in that sort of climate. In cold climates, the ability to safely humidify a house depends mainly on having good enough insulation and air sealing that the indoor humidity doesn’t condense on cold surfaces and rot the building. This is especially relevant near windows. So if you want decent indoor humidity wh…

> It is supposedly possibly to properly design a single pipe steam heating system that achieves a comfortable temperature in more than one room.

If you are interested in learning more about this "possibility", particularly if you have a steam system that you hate, you'd probably enjoy Dan Holohan's books. His basic thesis is that when designed and installed, they worked well, but the knowledge necessary to keep them functional has been lost over the years. Here's a New Yorker profile of him: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/04/steamed-the-jo...

Post reply on HN