Absolute Zero or Absolute Bo llo ck$?

[tony1851]

Has anyone read the recent report 'Absolute Zero', produced by the group UKFires and sponsored by the government? It details how we need to change our economy and lifestyles to achieve a zero-carbon economy by 2050.
Of particular interest to those of us in the building industry is the banning of cement. Because OP cement cannot be made without the production of GH gases, its manufacture in this country will be phased out.
But cement is of course perhaps the most versatile and extensively-used material in construction. It is used in concrete for foundations, mortar for brickwork, blockwork, floor slabs, concrete lintels, roof tiles, large-diameter drainage pipes, block paving etc, as well as extensive use in infrastructure projects.
And we won't be allowed to import cement as the Report makes clear that there is no point in just shifting carbon emissions overseas, and then producing more carbon emissions by shipping it here.
So what does the report suggest we use instead, which is emission-free? Asolutely nothing; so we must go back to building with wattle and daub and thatch; the Report even suggests the old technique of rammed earth for building.
We are being ruled by morons.

 

[Notch7]

The the solution for reducing carbons emissions are very difficult.

Cement production is one - there is no alternative material

Take wind turbines: the foundation uses around 45,000kg of steel and 400 cubic metres of concrete.
That takes a long time to recover in carbon reduction when in use.

 

[IT Minion]

It's not an easy one. It's a big chunk of the carbon budget so just keeping on in the same way means we'll need to find another way to suck CO2 out of the air to compensate. That's possible but not cheap.

Some bits are easy to reduce the CO2, there's been proof of concept solar furnaces and green hydrogen furnaces to heat the base materials. Reducing it to zero is more tricky.

Steven Davis, an earth system scientist at the University of California, Irvine—one of the authors of the Nature Geoscience paper, as well as last week's Science commentary—noted that concrete's absorption potential implies that there may be ways to make cement production carbon negative.

If cement production facilities were all outfitted with carbon capture and storage technology, for instance, then a substantial amount of the emissions produced on-site could be stopped from entering the atmosphere. Later, the concrete produced would soak up even more carbon dioxide, which could eventually amount to a "net drawdown from the atmosphere," he told E&E News

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...re-developing-a-plan-to-reduce-co2-emissions/

 

[bernardgreen]

The the solution for reducing carbons emissions are very difficult.

A benefit from Corona virus is THIS

 

[Brigadier]

Rather than use big slabs of concrete for foundations, use steel piles instead.

Build on ground where foundation requirements are minimal; IIRC, lots of old properties in areas of Wales have no more foundation that a shallow trench dug to solid rock beneath, then slate "soldiered" to form the foundations.

 

[IT Minion]

The the solution for reducing carbons emissions are very difficult.

Cement production is one - there is no alternative material

Take wind turbines: the foundation uses around 45,000kg of steel and 400 cubic metres of concrete.
That takes a long time to recover in carbon reduction when in use.

Apparently for onshore turbines, around 6-12 months.

The carbon payback period is the time for the carbon emissions displaced by wind power to equal the life cycle
carbon footprint of the wind farm. In order to achieve a net reduction in GHG emissions, this should be
significantly shorter than the intended lifetime of the wind farm. At current marginal displacement rates carbon
payback is typically around 6 months to a year, although this can be several years for onshore farms built on
peatlands where no effort has been made to mitigate the effects of wind farm construction.

https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/media/1459/life_cycle_wind_-_executive_summary_.pdf

It's a five year old study (technically it's a meta review, so based on even older studies), so it'll be based on the older, smaller and less efficient turbines available then.

 

[Notch7]

It's a five year old study (technically it's a meta review, so based on even older studies), so it'll be based on the older, smaller and less efficient turbines available then

Thats interesting.

There is so much misinformation around, some anti wind turbine sites say they will never recoup there carbon footprint. Ive read others that say 2 to 3 years or less.

The Neodymium from Baotou China is an issue

 

[IT Minion]

Thats interesting.

There is so much misinformation around, some anti wind turbine sites say they will never recoup there carbon footprint. Ive read others that say 2 to 3 years or less.

The Neodymium from Baotou China is an issue

My initial thought on that is that it is an overblown concern. If Neodymium is cheap enough to use to attach business cards to my fridge then it's clearly not that precious.

 

[wobs]

Of particular interest to those of us in the building industry is the banning of cement. Because OP cement cannot be made without the production of GH gases, its manufacture in this country will be phased out.

Or make the process carbon neutral?
Cement works consume huge amounts of energy of course, but it doesn't have to be carbon positive. They currently use a percentage of biomass waste. Part of the issue is re-designing the economy (and regs) so more appropriate material can go into such processes.

We will probably have to use less of it as well, but the building trade isn't usually up for innovations. Obviously, we can't build large numbers of houses with wattle & daub etc, but we may see alternatives to regular house designs.

And of course planting a load of trees could help.

 

[Notch7]

And of course planting a load of trees could help.

Trees help reduce flooding too

 

[tony1851]

Rather than use big slabs of concrete for foundations, use steel piles instead.

Build on ground where foundation requirements are minimal; IIRC, lots of old properties in areas of Wales have no more foundation that a shallow trench dug to solid rock beneath, then slate "soldiered" to form the foundations.

How many sites have solid rock so near to the surface that foundations only need to be shallow?
And if using steel piles, you still need ground beams to span them, and the ground beams are either reinforced concrete, or steel encased in .................concrete.

 

[bernardgreen]

but we may see alternatives to regular house designs

such as THIS

 

[Brigadier]

How many sites have solid rock so near to the surface that foundations only need to be shallow?
And if using steel piles, you still need ground beams to span them, and the ground beams are either reinforced concrete, or steel encased in .................concrete.

May help rebalance the economy, instead of keep stuffing infrastructure into the same overcrowded and unsuitable places.

I didn't say it would completely replace concrete, just reduce the amount used.

 

[martin hill]

The Zero carbon talk is a pipe dream unless we go back to living in caves. The main problem is that the planet is a certain size split between land and sea. Each area has it's own eco system which we have disrupted. Each area can sustain life upto a certain degree.

OVER POPULATION. A land mass with trees wildlife rivers etc can handle only so much disturbance. Some boffin out there must have a calculation written down.

Sort of 1 man to 100sgm of fertile soil with 5 trees burning 3 tons of fossil fuel a year and using 1000 litres of fresh water if you get my drift.

 

[^woody^]

I'll start helping by throwing a few bricks and bottles into the next lot of foundations, and using 1:10 in the walls. And changing my phone number more frequently.