• Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not very familiar with all this but shouldn’t we be hiding the CO2 somehow? I feel like concrete is just going to nudge the can down the road until it breaks down in like 50 years

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      While in 50 years it might not be a great building anymore, it will still be a fantastic pile of rubble. Basically landfill, but it can be reused as gravel for new building projects, too.

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The concrete won’t release the CO2 when it breaks down, since the quicklime in the cement reacts with CO2 to form limestone. The catch is that quicklime is mainly produced by heating limestone to release CO2, so making extra concrete won’t result in net carbon capture. But if the concrete was going to be produced anyway, I suppose it’s better to have it absorb the CO2 sooner rather than later.

      • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hmm, well that’s less exciting than I had hoped but yeah at least it is something and honestly anything to get new tech funded is probably good overall

    • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Roman concrete structures still exist after 2000 years. If you want to “hide” the CO2 somehow, then concrete doesn’t seem like a bad idea.