• BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Carbon-negative is a long stretch, it’s just using waste material that is usually used as fuel. It’s at best low-carbon compared to concrete, which honestly is already a good thing.

    At around the same time, Meyer learned about the large amount of waste lignin that is produced every year, primarily from pulp and paper processes, which is also expected to be produced from biorefineries in the future.

    […] During the production of pulp and paper products, roughly 100 million tons of lignin are produced annually as a waste byproduct and subsequently burned as low-value fuel.

    Meyer saw lignin as a polymer that could be used as a material instead of a fuel and sought to crosslink it like an epoxy resin. Using lignin allowed Meyer to sequester CO2 captured from the air in the form of biomass that would otherwise be burned.

    (Emphasis mine)

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    Cement contributes to ~8% of the Earth’s CO2 emissions. Almost 4x aviation, and not too far off all of the Earth’s combined agriculture.

    If concrete was a country, it’d be the 3rd highest polluting country on Earth, after China and the US.

    Even if this headline is overly ambitious, any improvement is a good one.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Roman concrete would cure by reacting with the carbon dioxide in the air, fixing it into the concrete. It doesn’t sound like that’s how this concrete works, but I wonder if a methodology like that would be carbon negative.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      For obvious reasons, I imagine that would only react on the surface level, and I’m willing to bet the CO2 generated in mining the materials, creating the concrete, and transporting the concrete outweigh some surface-level reactions with CO2.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah you need to pour it differently, in thin layers. I’m guessing that extra time might make it too expensive?

    • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Roman methods are not how modern concrete is produced. As the article mentions, concrete production involves heating massive amounts, spewing loads of carbon dioxide & other toxins into the atmosphere.

        • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I dig it!

          Get back to the start with the stuff. Continue to study other ways utilize it in recycling/upcycling, but start with the carbon negative old ways at the core.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Isn’t the formula for Roman concrete unknown? I’m wondering how they can tell it is carbon negative

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The real problem is that we’re still paving over the planet for the sake of car dependency. We don’t need more concrete. We should be tearing it up and banning cars.