What would it take to make civil engineering carbon neutral and environmentally friendly?

To simplify the problem – ignore cost – ignore emissions from transport – assume electricity is all solar-hydro-wind.

Can’t use concrete because it’s a massive carbon dioxide producer in the short term.

Can only use recycled steel.

Timber from forestry is carbon positive but not biosphere friendly.

So, civil engineering without concrete, steel or timber, quite a tall order. (But see below for rare special cases where they can be used).

Can use aluminium. Can use glasses of all sorts. Can use ceramics of all sorts. Can use bricks. Can use plastics (those from coal and oil). Can use gyprock. Can use “composites”. Can use concrete-like materials where plastic replaces cement. Can use metals produced from sulphide ores.

How difficult would it be to update civil engineering technology to use only those materials?

I figure it can be done.

You can use steel and wood.

Steel production can be made carbon neutral, and well run timber plantations are carbon neutral and aren’t terrible for the ecology.

Concrete can also be made carbon neutral though the costs would be prohibitive at present.

Moreover, any activity can be balanced by using appropriate carbon sinks, for instance making enough aerochar out of atmospheric carbon dioxide, powered by renewables.

How about developing some alternative to Portland Cement that is carbon neutral? New kinds of geopolymers, or even developing new methods. Engineering should be about solutions and working around constraints as mush as anything else.

party_pants said:

How about developing some alternative to Portland Cement that is carbon neutral? New kinds of geopolymers, or even developing new methods. Engineering should be about solutions and working around constraints as mush as anything else.

They have a carbon neutral concrete pilot plant in the UK I believe.
Heard something on the wireless about it.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

How about developing some alternative to Portland Cement that is carbon neutral? New kinds of geopolymers, or even developing new methods. Engineering should be about solutions and working around constraints as mush as anything else.

They have a carbon neutral concrete pilot plant in the UK I believe.
Heard something on the wireless about it.

Sounds good. I want one too.

I was reading somewhere a while back about plans to capture fly ash from the exhaust stacks of coal power stations in order to use it as main ingredient for some cement alternative. Not sure if that counts since the power station would still be releasing CO2 even if some of the other exhaust nasties were getting scrubbed.

party_pants said:

Not sure if that counts since the power station would still be releasing CO2 even if some of the other exhaust nasties were getting scrubbed.

Renewable power station

dv said:

You can use steel and wood.

Steel production can be made carbon neutral, and well run timber plantations are carbon neutral and aren’t terrible for the ecology.

Concrete can also be made carbon neutral though the costs would be prohibitive at present.

Moreover, any activity can be balanced by using appropriate carbon sinks, for instance making enough aerochar out of atmospheric carbon dioxide, powered by renewables.

What is aerochar?

I wonder why Aluminium and glass gained exemptions in Mollie’s initial scenario?

Michael V said:

dv said:

You can use steel and wood.

Steel production can be made carbon neutral, and well run timber plantations are carbon neutral and aren’t terrible for the ecology.

Concrete can also be made carbon neutral though the costs would be prohibitive at present.

Moreover, any activity can be balanced by using appropriate carbon sinks, for instance making enough aerochar out of atmospheric carbon dioxide, powered by renewables.

What is aerochar?

Solid carbon (in any form) made from atmospheric CO2. Can be used to make steel etc or ploughed into the soil, or just stacked somewhere…

Google doesn’t seem to know what aerochar is either.

dv said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

You can use steel and wood.

Steel production can be made carbon neutral, and well run timber plantations are carbon neutral and aren’t terrible for the ecology.

Concrete can also be made carbon neutral though the costs would be prohibitive at present.

Moreover, any activity can be balanced by using appropriate carbon sinks, for instance making enough aerochar out of atmospheric carbon dioxide, powered by renewables.

What is aerochar?

Solid carbon (in any form) made from atmospheric CO2. Can be used to make steel etc or ploughed into the soil, or just stacked somewhere…

Thanks. How’s the CO2 reduced to carbon?

(I couldn’t find any mention of it on the ‘net.)

Here’s an example of the technology
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/liquid-metal-catalyst-turns-carbon-dioxide-coal

Also, timber is the perfect material if you want to reduce CO2.

I mean you are literally taking CO2 from the atmosphere and storing the C in some solid form.

dv said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

You can use steel and wood.

Steel production can be made carbon neutral, and well run timber plantations are carbon neutral and aren’t terrible for the ecology.

Concrete can also be made carbon neutral though the costs would be prohibitive at present.

Moreover, any activity can be balanced by using appropriate carbon sinks, for instance making enough aerochar out of atmospheric carbon dioxide, powered by renewables.

What is aerochar?

Solid carbon (in any form) made from atmospheric CO2. Can be used to make steel etc or ploughed into the soil, or just stacked somewhere…

Sounds wasteful to me. Why not use CO2 from the air to grow microalgae, then use that biomass to produce oil or synthesis gas?

dv said:

Here’s an example of the technology
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/liquid-metal-catalyst-turns-carbon-dioxide-coal

Hey, thanks.

:)

Interesting.

party_pants said:

dv said:

Michael V said:

What is aerochar?

Solid carbon (in any form) made from atmospheric CO2. Can be used to make steel etc or ploughed into the soil, or just stacked somewhere…

Sounds wasteful to me. Why not use CO2 from the air to grow microalgae, then use that biomass to produce oil or synthesis gas?

Why indeed not?

There is a range of options and I’m not going to pick a winner.

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Solid carbon (in any form) made from atmospheric CO2. Can be used to make steel etc or ploughed into the soil, or just stacked somewhere…

Sounds wasteful to me. Why not use CO2 from the air to grow microalgae, then use that biomass to produce oil or synthesis gas?

Why indeed not?

There is a range of options and I’m not going to pick a winner.

Everyone’s a winner, DV, that’s the truth

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Sounds wasteful to me. Why not use CO2 from the air to grow microalgae, then use that biomass to produce oil or synthesis gas?

Why indeed not?

There is a range of options and I’m not going to pick a winner.

Everyone’s a winner, DV, that’s the truth

Making love to you and Blinky Bill

dv said:

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

Why indeed not?

There is a range of options and I’m not going to pick a winner.

Everyone’s a winner, DV, that’s the truth

Making love to you and Blinky Bill

maybe I should go to the shops for milk at this stage and leave youse to it.

This is why I kind of lose my shit sometimes at people who say “It’s easy to criticise, harder to find solutions”.

There are solutions, all ready to be developed further and implemented. All that is need is a suitable emissions pricing program.

party_pants said:

dv said:

JudgeMental said:

Everyone’s a winner, DV, that’s the truth

Making love to you and Blinky Bill

maybe I should go to the shops for milk at this stage and leave youse to it.

LOL

party_pants said:

dv said:

JudgeMental said:

Everyone’s a winner, DV, that’s the truth

Making love to you and Blinky Bill

maybe I should go to the shops for milk at this stage and leave youse to it.

c’mon, you know you want to watch.

dv said:

This is why I kind of lose my shit sometimes at people who say “It’s easy to criticise, harder to find solutions”.

There are solutions, all ready to be developed further and implemented. All that is need is a suitable emissions pricing program.

Yes.

dv said:

This is why I kind of lose my shit sometimes at people who say “It’s easy to criticise, harder to find solutions”.

There are solutions, all ready to be developed further and implemented. All that is need is a suitable emissions pricing program.

Ahhh, you must be a civil engineer. Maybe you need to be a less-than-civil engineer more often.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

Making love to you and Blinky Bill

maybe I should go to the shops for milk at this stage and leave youse to it.

LOL

I’m back from the shops. Trip was worth it.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

How about developing some alternative to Portland Cement that is carbon neutral? New kinds of geopolymers, or even developing new methods. Engineering should be about solutions and working around constraints as mush as anything else.

They have a carbon neutral concrete pilot plant in the UK I believe.
Heard something on the wireless about it.

A “carbon neutral” concrete airport pavement was constructed (and won an award) in Australia a couple of years ago, maybe more.

And people say Morrison is not doing anything about climate change.

I shall have more to say on this later.

ruby said:

dv said:

This is why I kind of lose my shit sometimes at people who say “It’s easy to criticise, harder to find solutions”.

There are solutions, all ready to be developed further and implemented. All that is need is a suitable emissions pricing program.

Ahhh, you must be a civil engineer. Maybe you need to be a less-than-civil engineer more often.

In fact all engineers who are not working on military projects are civil engineers, although not all of them would recognise that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

dv said:

This is why I kind of lose my shit sometimes at people who say “It’s easy to criticise, harder to find solutions”.

There are solutions, all ready to be developed further and implemented. All that is need is a suitable emissions pricing program.

Ahhh, you must be a civil engineer. Maybe you need to be a less-than-civil engineer more often.

In fact all engineers who are not working on military projects are civil engineers, although not all of them would recognise that.

cough splutter

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

Ahhh, you must be a civil engineer. Maybe you need to be a less-than-civil engineer more often.

In fact all engineers who are not working on military projects are civil engineers, although not all of them would recognise that.

cough splutter

We already know that you’re not civil.

> Steel production can be made carbon neutral

No it can’t. Not from normal ores it can’t

Take coal
Heat to produce coke
Coke reacts in blast furnace with iron oxide to produce iron and carbon dioxide.

Every oxygen atom in the original ore ends up as carbon dioxide.
So that’s at least three molecules of CO2 for every four atoms of iron.

What the heck makes you think it can be made carbon neutral?

I’d be interested to know what can be done with abnormal iron ores, particularly hydroxide ores.

mollwollfumble said:

> Steel production can be made carbon neutral

No it can’t. Not from normal ores it can’t

Take coal
Heat to produce coke
Coke reacts in blast furnace with iron oxide to produce iron and carbon dioxide.

Every oxygen atom in the original ore ends up as carbon dioxide.
So that’s at least three molecules of CO2 for every four atoms of iron.

What the heck makes you think it can be made carbon neutral?

I’d be interested to know what can be done with abnormal iron ores, particularly hydroxide ores.

Reducing gas instead of coke. Usually syngas, which can be produced by pyrolysis of biomass, possibly even using solar thermal heat. Only needs to be cooked at about 400C in an oxygen free environment.

mollwollfumble said:

> Steel production can be made carbon neutral

No it can’t. Not from normal ores it can’t

Take coal
Heat to produce coke
Coke reacts in blast furnace with iron oxide to produce iron and carbon dioxide.

Every oxygen atom in the original ore ends up as carbon dioxide.
So that’s at least three molecules of CO2 for every four atoms of iron.

What the heck makes you think it can be made carbon neutral?

I’d be interested to know what can be done with abnormal iron ores, particularly hydroxide ores.

Again, you make it carbon neutral by using char derived from the atmosphere.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Steel production can be made carbon neutral

No it can’t. Not from normal ores it can’t

Take coal
Heat to produce coke
Coke reacts in blast furnace with iron oxide to produce iron and carbon dioxide.

Every oxygen atom in the original ore ends up as carbon dioxide.
So that’s at least three molecules of CO2 for every four atoms of iron.

What the heck makes you think it can be made carbon neutral?

I’d be interested to know what can be done with abnormal iron ores, particularly hydroxide ores.

Reducing gas instead of coke. Usually syngas, which can be produced by pyrolysis of biomass, possibly even using solar thermal heat. Only needs to be cooked at about 400C in an oxygen free environment.

Clarification: The pyrolysis needs to be about 400 C to make the syngas. Direct reduction furnace temps still need to be about 800-1000 C. Still less than a blast furnace and more energy efficient.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Steel production can be made carbon neutral

No it can’t. Not from normal ores it can’t

Take coal
Heat to produce coke
Coke reacts in blast furnace with iron oxide to produce iron and carbon dioxide.

Every oxygen atom in the original ore ends up as carbon dioxide.
So that’s at least three molecules of CO2 for every four atoms of iron.

What the heck makes you think it can be made carbon neutral?

I’d be interested to know what can be done with abnormal iron ores, particularly hydroxide ores.

Reducing gas instead of coke. Usually syngas, which can be produced by pyrolysis of biomass, possibly even using solar thermal heat. Only needs to be cooked at about 400C in an oxygen free environment.

Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide. Just as bad, perhaps worse. Steel, unless you make it from pyrite ore or produce it by electrolysis like aluminium, or only use recycled steel, produces a lot of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, hydroxide ores are no better. Have to avoid steel if you want to avoid CO2 generation.

As for timber, i thought the Greens were campaigning against woodchip mills and chopping forests down. It’s CO2 positive, but really bad for the forests.

IMHO, if anyone wants to take CO2 production seriously, we need to start looking into both old CO2 neutral civil engineering techniques and new ones.

Have to avoid steel and concrete.

Old acceptable technologies include:

• Brick
• Tarred roads instead of concrete
• Structural glazing
• Clay core dams
• Gyprock
• Aluminium
• Glass reinforced plastic
• Sulphide ores (eg. Broken hill silver, lead, zinc)
• Copper iron alloy in the ratio 1:1 from chalcopyrite
• Nickel iron alloy in the ratio 1.15:1 from Pentlandite
• Porcelain
• High stength engineering polymers, like polyester, nylon and aramids.

I want to see more use of ceramics and ceramic-polymer composites in civil engineering.

• Making skyscrapers without steel or concrete would be an interesting challenge.
• Ditto making bridges without steel or concrete.
• Ditto making railways without steel.

For a while there i was hoping that manganese iron from seabed manganese nodules was low CO2 emission, but it isn’t.

mollwollfumble said:

As for timber, i thought the Greens were campaigning against woodchip mills and chopping forests down. It’s CO2 positive, but really bad for the forests.

.

probably old growth forests. most woodchip is plantation bluegum. if you do cut old growth it should be select and furniture grade.

mollwollfumble said:

As for timber, i thought the Greens were campaigning against woodchip mills and chopping forests down. It’s CO2 positive, but really bad for the forests.

.

Right, but hardly any of the world’s timber comes from chopping down native forests. It’s mostly plantation wood, which the greens don’t object to.

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

dv said:

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

party_pants said:

dv said:

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

> It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Actually, counting “carbon credits” is quite a difficult and slightly ambiguous task. I found this out in my CSIRO work on algae ponds. It was quite difficult to determine exactly where to draw the line in counting carbon credits for biodiesel generated by algae.

That’s because carbon never has an unambiguous initial state or a final state. In counting carbon credits for planet growth for instance, how do you count the fact that some plant matter rots into nothing (releases CO2) that some plant matter goes to enrich the soil (captures CO2), some gets eaten by pests, some becomes fertiliser for the next generation of plants, some becomes ethanol (with multiple uses), some becomes biodiesel, some is stock food? Some plant matter becomes building material (carbon capture) which eventually rots (CO2 release) or gets buried (a mixture of sequestration and methane and carbon dioxide production).

It can be done, but where the line is drawn has as much to do with legal law as physical law.

dv said:

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

That seems to be how it is worked at the moment, but it doesn’t make any sense.

It doesn’t matter where the carbon comes from, what is important is what would have happened to that carbon if it hadn’t been burned.

So if the timber would have ended up as CO2 anyway, then burning it is carbon neutral. If it would have ended up in long term sequestration then burning it is just as bad as burning coal. Worse in fact, since you get less energy per unit CO2 emission.

As an example, it makes no sense to ship American timber to the UK to fuel power stations there.

It would make more sense to bury the timber and burn coal in UK.

It would make even more sense to use the timber for something useful, and replace the coal/wood burning power station with something more efficient emission-wise.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

“Nope. That’s not carbon neutral. That’s burning biomass in the presence of iron ore to produce carbon dioxide”

I don’t think you’re quite getting it. If you derive the carbon from the atmosphere (either directly or via plants) then the released CO2 is the same as the consumed CO2. It’s carbon neutral.

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

Agree that the idea that burning biomass is carbon neutral is bs.

Have you looked into geopolymer concrete?

Regarding the question in this thread, I think it is an excellent question and well worth discussing, but we shouldn’t treat the answers as being what should be done in practice.

What we need to do is return CO2 levels to equilibrium as quickly as possible, and at minimum cost. To do this we need to both reduce emissions and increase sequestration, and both need to be done as efficiently as possible. To aim for zero production of concrete and steel is certainly not the way to do this.

The best way to achieve this aim is literally impossible to calculate, because economic models are grossly over-simplified and simply ignore most of the complex interactions that take place.

That’s why we need a global price on CO2 emissions, and payment for CO2 absorbtions, so the market can sort it out.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Regarding the question in this thread, I think it is an excellent question and well worth discussing, but we shouldn’t treat the answers as being what should be done in practice.

What we need to do is return CO2 levels to equilibrium as quickly as possible, and at minimum cost. To do this we need to both reduce emissions and increase sequestration, and both need to be done as efficiently as possible. To aim for zero production of concrete and steel is certainly not the way to do this.

The best way to achieve this aim is literally impossible to calculate, because economic models are grossly over-simplified and simply ignore most of the complex interactions that take place.

That’s why we need a global price on CO2 emissions, and payment for CO2 absorbtions, so the market can sort it out.

Yes

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

Agree that the idea that burning biomass is carbon neutral is bs.

Have you looked into geopolymer concrete?

It’s not bs. This is pretty basic stuff. You grow a tree in a plantation that exists solely for this purpose. You chop it down and plant another one. You make biochar from that tree. The CO2 from the combustion of that biochar equals the CO2 taken in to produce the tree.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would make even more sense to use the timber for something useful, and replace the coal/wood burning power station with something more efficient emission-wise.

We’re not talking about coal or wood burning power stations. We are talking about coke for iron smelting.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would make even more sense to use the timber for something useful, and replace the coal/wood burning power station with something more efficient emission-wise.

We’re not talking about coal or wood burning power stations. We are talking about coke for iron smelting.

What does that have to do with it?

What matters is how much CO2 is emitted, and how much would have been emitted if the biomass had not been burned.

If the latter is less than the former, it’s not carbon neutral.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What matters is how much CO2 is emitted, and how much would have been emitted if the biomass had not been burned.

If the latter is less than the former, it’s not carbon neutral.

No, a holistic view is needed. Without the scheme, the tree would not have even been grown. The plantation exists to provide biochar to make steel. Remember, in the universe that moll has lain out here, all electricity and transport is powered by renewables. There’s no net carbon emission from growing, processing, transporting the wood or creating the char, in this somewhat futuristic universe of moll’s original post. So the net emissions from this plantation scheme for making biochar is zero.

Still looking for replacements for concrete and steel.

I mentioned glasslike ceramics and NaCl as a cheap but not very good replacement for concrete. Two other ideas are the following.

Magnesium can play the same tricks as calcium, as in
CaO reacts with water to form Ca(OH)2 reacts with carbon dioxide to CaCO3
Similarly
MgO reacts with water to form Mg(OH)2 reacts with carbon dioxide to MgCO3

The good news is that, unlike calcium, MgCl2 in seawater can be used directly to get Mg(OH)2 which is heated to give MgO. The bad news is that it’s not carbon neutral because it uses Ca(OH)2 to produce Mg(OH)2 from seawater.

The other idea is sulphur and sulphur compounds as a replacement for concrete. Sulphur caps are used on concrete cylinders, they are stronger than concrete and smoother. High temperature is needed, but only 115 Celsius, which isn’t high at all compared to other ceramics. Glass for instance softens at temperatures anywhere between 140 amd 370 celsius.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

Yes. This is what I was just about to start typing in reply.

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

> It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Actually, counting “carbon credits” is quite a difficult and slightly ambiguous task. I found this out in my CSIRO work on algae ponds. It was quite difficult to determine exactly where to draw the line in counting carbon credits for biodiesel generated by algae.

That’s because carbon never has an unambiguous initial state or a final state. In counting carbon credits for planet growth for instance, how do you count the fact that some plant matter rots into nothing (releases CO2) that some plant matter goes to enrich the soil (captures CO2), some gets eaten by pests, some becomes fertiliser for the next generation of plants, some becomes ethanol (with multiple uses), some becomes biodiesel, some is stock food? Some plant matter becomes building material (carbon capture) which eventually rots (CO2 release) or gets buried (a mixture of sequestration and methane and carbon dioxide production).

It can be done, but where the line is drawn has as much to do with legal law as physical law.

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

> It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Actually, counting “carbon credits” is quite a difficult and slightly ambiguous task. I found this out in my CSIRO work on algae ponds. It was quite difficult to determine exactly where to draw the line in counting carbon credits for biodiesel generated by algae.

That’s because carbon never has an unambiguous initial state or a final state. In counting carbon credits for planet growth for instance, how do you count the fact that some plant matter rots into nothing (releases CO2) that some plant matter goes to enrich the soil (captures CO2), some gets eaten by pests, some becomes fertiliser for the next generation of plants, some becomes ethanol (with multiple uses), some becomes biodiesel, some is stock food? Some plant matter becomes building material (carbon capture) which eventually rots (CO2 release) or gets buried (a mixture of sequestration and methane and carbon dioxide production).

It can be done, but where the line is drawn has as much to do with legal law as physical law.

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

> If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral.

So you really think that cars are carbon neutral because they can run on biodiesel?

I beg to disagree.

The aim is not to make steel at all, except by the three methods described in the OP.

Sulphur as a binder with sand has a compressive stength of 55 to 62 MPa. Compare to concrete with strengths of 25 MPa (bog standard) and up, above 40 MPa is high strength concrete. Extreme concrete can go up to 100 MPa.

So we replace concrete bound together with cement by concrete bound together by sulphur.

Or other, still looking. How strong is neoprene? Up to 83 MPa in compression if not beyond. Excellent adhesion to existing concrete.

party_pants said:

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

bingo

How many different types of energy generation systems could exist in outer space ?

There’s mirrors to laser ground based designs but are there any others?

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Actually, counting “carbon credits” is quite a difficult and slightly ambiguous task. I found this out in my CSIRO work on algae ponds. It was quite difficult to determine exactly where to draw the line in counting carbon credits for biodiesel generated by algae.

That’s because carbon never has an unambiguous initial state or a final state. In counting carbon credits for planet growth for instance, how do you count the fact that some plant matter rots into nothing (releases CO2) that some plant matter goes to enrich the soil (captures CO2), some gets eaten by pests, some becomes fertiliser for the next generation of plants, some becomes ethanol (with multiple uses), some becomes biodiesel, some is stock food? Some plant matter becomes building material (carbon capture) which eventually rots (CO2 release) or gets buried (a mixture of sequestration and methane and carbon dioxide production).

It can be done, but where the line is drawn has as much to do with legal law as physical law.

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

> If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral.

So you really think that cars are carbon neutral because they can run on biodiesel?

I beg to disagree.

The aim is not to make steel at all, except by the three methods described in the OP.

You have two pools of carbon. Firstly carbon which locked away underground in a closed static state, and secondly the active dynamic system of atmosphere and biosphere. The terms carbon neutral, positive or negative are defined with respect to the second pool; does your process increase, decrease or have no impact upon the supply of carbon in the second pool. Of course biodesiel can be carbon neutral if it is not taking carbon from the first pool and dumping it into the second. I’m not sure where your existential crisis over cars comes from, it is just adding confusion.

I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Old fashioned steel making using wood charcoal instead of coke is carbon neutral.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What matters is how much CO2 is emitted, and how much would have been emitted if the biomass had not been burned.

If the latter is less than the former, it’s not carbon neutral.

No, a holistic view is needed. Without the scheme, the tree would not have even been grown.

Yes, a holistic view is needed. Without the scheme, something else would have been grown, so we have to add in what CO2 would have been absorbed, and what would happen to that CO2 to work out the true nett emissions from burning the tree.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

> If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral.

So you really think that cars are carbon neutral because they can run on biodiesel?

I beg to disagree.

The aim is not to make steel at all, except by the three methods described in the OP.

You have two pools of carbon. Firstly carbon which locked away underground in a closed static state, and secondly the active dynamic system of atmosphere and biosphere. The terms carbon neutral, positive or negative are defined with respect to the second pool; does your process increase, decrease or have no impact upon the supply of carbon in the second pool. Of course biodesiel can be carbon neutral if it is not taking carbon from the first pool and dumping it into the second. I’m not sure where your existential crisis over cars comes from, it is just adding confusion.

I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Old fashioned steel making using wood charcoal instead of coke is carbon neutral.

> I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Ditto. You can’t refer to green plant growth as an integral part of steel manufacture in supporting an argument that steel manufacture is carbon neutral.

Sodium silicate as a possible replacement for concrete.

“Sodium silicate can be used to fill gaps within the head gasket. Commonly used on aluminum alloy cylinder heads. “Liquid glass” (sodium silicate) is added to the system through the radiator, and allowed to circulate. Sodium silicate is suspended in the coolant until it reaches the cylinder head. At 100–105°C, sodium silicate loses water molecules to form a glass seal with a remelt temperature above 810°C”.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

no that’s bs.

you’re not deriving carbon from the atmosphere, you’re deriving it from biomass, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

It’s the same as claiming that if we combine a CO2 producer with a CO2 sink, then the CO2 producer is carbon neutral.

It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Looking around for a carbon-neutral replacement for concrete. Need something cheap. Ceramics are fine but tend to require heat. Polymer-ceramics like plastic-impregnated clay may be the best bet.

But I was wondering about totally inorganic. Perhaps salt, NaCl, could be used as a cheap replacement for cement in locations where water is not an issue. It’s cheap and sort of strong. Or some other salt that’s even less soluble. What’s the binder for natural sandstone?

Or gyprock as a replacement for concrete, perhaps not. I think I’m missing something important, something in inorganic chemistry.

> It’s the same logical fallacy as saying that burning biodiesel can be used instead of burning mineral diesel, and concluding from that that cars are carbon-neutral.

Actually, counting “carbon credits” is quite a difficult and slightly ambiguous task. I found this out in my CSIRO work on algae ponds. It was quite difficult to determine exactly where to draw the line in counting carbon credits for biodiesel generated by algae.

That’s because carbon never has an unambiguous initial state or a final state. In counting carbon credits for planet growth for instance, how do you count the fact that some plant matter rots into nothing (releases CO2) that some plant matter goes to enrich the soil (captures CO2), some gets eaten by pests, some becomes fertiliser for the next generation of plants, some becomes ethanol (with multiple uses), some becomes biodiesel, some is stock food? Some plant matter becomes building material (carbon capture) which eventually rots (CO2 release) or gets buried (a mixture of sequestration and methane and carbon dioxide production).

It can be done, but where the line is drawn has as much to do with legal law as physical law.

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

I disagree. If carbon credits don’t take account of the things described by moll they will give very sub-optimal results. It’s not just a question of “new” CO2. It’s a question of adding CO2 that would otherwise not have been emitted.

So it’s me & moll vs everyone else.

Makes a change anyway.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

I think you are making it far too complicated. The aim is to make steel without using carbon from fossil sources, for example coal. Using coke derived from coal produces CO2 and releases carbon into the atmosphere, which prior to your invention was locked away underground outside of the atmosphere. If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral. Since it has not added new carbon to the atmosphere.

> If using biomass as an energy source and as a reducing agent means that no fossil carbon has transitioned to being atmospheric carbon, then it should be considered carbon neutral.

So you really think that cars are carbon neutral because they can run on biodiesel?

I beg to disagree.

The aim is not to make steel at all, except by the three methods described in the OP.

You have two pools of carbon. Firstly carbon which locked away underground in a closed static state, and secondly the active dynamic system of atmosphere and biosphere. The terms carbon neutral, positive or negative are defined with respect to the second pool; does your process increase, decrease or have no impact upon the supply of carbon in the second pool. Of course biodesiel can be carbon neutral if it is not taking carbon from the first pool and dumping it into the second. I’m not sure where your existential crisis over cars comes from, it is just adding confusion.

I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Old fashioned steel making using wood charcoal instead of coke is carbon neutral.

> I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Ditto. You can’t refer to green plant growth as an integral part of steel manufacture in supporting an argument that steel manufacture is carbon neutral.

Sodium silicate as a possible replacement for concrete.

“Sodium silicate can be used to fill gaps within the head gasket. Commonly used on aluminum alloy cylinder heads. “Liquid glass” (sodium silicate) is added to the system through the radiator, and allowed to circulate. Sodium silicate is suspended in the coolant until it reaches the cylinder head. At 100–105°C, sodium silicate loses water molecules to form a glass seal with a remelt temperature above 810°C”.

party_pants said:

I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Old fashioned steel making using wood charcoal instead of coke is carbon neutral.

this

dv said:

party_pants said:

I would have thought this was so simple even I could understand it.

Old fashioned steel making using wood charcoal instead of coke is carbon neutral.

this

It may or may not be.

In the circumstances where it is, keeping the wood and burning some coal is also carbon neutral.

Alright, I’m going to have one more go, then drop it. I can’t think of any simpler way to put this, so there’d be no point in persisting.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without the scheme, something else would have been grown

No. There are millions of square km of arable land that is currently clear.

It’s a question of adding CO2 that would otherwise not have been emitted.

So you agree with us. Carbon neutral systems such as plantations used to make biochar for iron smelting would not be a net source of emissions and would be accounted for as such.

oh come on, we all know the argument is a bunk of bunk

i mean, burning coal is carbon neutral

i mean, coal is renewable, it’s not like the earth was created 6000 years ago with all the coal already there as if by magic

i mean it found its way there before, it’ll find its way there again, neutral, why be afraid

dv said:

Alright, I’m going to have one more go, then drop it. I can’t think of any simpler way to put this, so there’d be no point in persisting.

If you addressed my argument, rather than repeating the same stuff, there might be some point in persisting.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without the scheme, something else would have been grown

No. There are millions of square km of arable land that is currently clear.

It’s a question of adding CO2 that would otherwise not have been emitted.

So you agree with us. Carbon neutral systems such as plantations used to make biochar for iron smelting would not be a net source of emissions and would be accounted for as such.

We are not discussing the plantations. Plantations absorb CO2, and in some cases the CO2 would not otherwise have been absorbed; no-one has disputed that.

The question is, once the trees are grown, why is it better to burn them and re-emit the CO2, rather than burn coal and sequester the CO2 in the trees?

So far you haven’t addressed that question.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Without the scheme, something else would have been grown

No. There are millions of square km of arable land that is currently clear.

It’s a question of adding CO2 that would otherwise not have been emitted.

So you agree with us. Carbon neutral systems such as plantations used to make biochar for iron smelting would not be a net source of emissions and would be accounted for as such.

We are not discussing the plantations. Plantations absorb CO2, and in some cases the CO2 would not otherwise have been absorbed; no-one has disputed that.

The question is, once the trees are grown, why is it better to burn them and re-emit the CO2, rather than burn coal and sequester the CO2 in the trees?

So far you haven’t addressed that question.

Hard to see how sequestering the carbon in the trees can be made permanent. When the trees die they will decompose, or get burned up in the next bushfire, thus releasing all that carbon again. Seems to me (but I have not researched it) that sequestering the carbon in the trees needs some human intervention to make it permanent, or at least outside being available to the biosphere.

party_pants said:

Hard to see how sequestering the carbon in the trees can be made permanent.

Right. Basically it would be making things harder for no reason.

also, rotting of the wood might produce methane, which is even badder than carbon dioxide.

dv said:

party_pants said:

Hard to see how sequestering the carbon in the trees can be made permanent.

Right. Basically it would be making things harder for no reason.

party_pants said:

also, rotting of the wood might produce methane, which is even badder than carbon dioxide.

Good. You’re starting to come to grips with the difficulties now. You either have to prevent the methane by using preservarives or, better, capture and use it ws a biofuel and for making plastics.

But don’t say “for no reason”, the reason is that it is one heck of lot easier and more effective than sequestering carbon dioxide.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

So you agree with us. Carbon neutral systems such as plantations used to make biochar for iron smelting would not be a net source of emissions and would be accounted for as such.

We are not discussing the plantations. Plantations absorb CO2, and in some cases the CO2 would not otherwise have been absorbed; no-one has disputed that.

The question is, once the trees are grown, why is it better to burn them and re-emit the CO2, rather than burn coal and sequester the CO2 in the trees?

So far you haven’t addressed that question.

Hard to see how sequestering the carbon in the trees can be made permanent. When the trees die they will decompose, or get burned up in the next bushfire, thus releasing all that carbon again. Seems to me (but I have not researched it) that sequestering the carbon in the trees needs some human intervention to make it permanent, or at least outside being available to the biosphere.

Not that hard.

The trees have been cut down. The question is do you transport them to wherever the steel making is going on and burn them, or do something else with them.

Possibilities include:
Bury them in a location where they will become fossil fuel.
Bury them in a location where you can collect the decay products, and use that as fuel.
Use them for anything that timber is good for, and worry about disposal at the end of their useful life.

Whatever is done with them, it is something separate from the steel making operation.

There are big holes all over the world, exhausted quarries and mines. What you do is DNA engineer a gum with a bamboo, so it grows quick, use the good wood and the rubbish into biochar to feed more trees and you bury most of it in the pit selling as carbon credits.

there we told you burning the fossil fuels were carbon neutral

https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s269960.htm

Bury carbon now, say 2001

Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill is due to visit the US soon and is understood to have plans to tell Washington that Australia will continue with domestic efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

aha

ha

a

SCIENCE said:

https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s269960.htm

Bury carbon now, say 2001

Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill is due to visit the US soon and is understood to have plans to tell Washington that Australia will continue with domestic efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

aha

ha

a

Tax on petrol, batteries to power SA grid, tree planting, yep, lots of “efforts”.

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s269960.htm

Bury carbon now, say 2001

Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill is due to visit the US soon and is understood to have plans to tell Washington that Australia will continue with domestic efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

aha

ha

a

Tax on petrol, batteries to power SA grid, tree planting, yep, lots of “efforts”.

At the moment batteries are a very cost prohibitive storage option.

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

SCIENCE said:

https://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s269960.htm

Bury carbon now, say 2001

Federal Environment Minister Robert Hill is due to visit the US soon and is understood to have plans to tell Washington that Australia will continue with domestic efforts to curb greenhouse emissions.

aha

ha

a

Tax on petrol, batteries to power SA grid, tree planting, yep, lots of “efforts”.

At the moment batteries are a very cost prohibitive storage option.

No argument there. But they are a necessary evil in any power supply system that is more than 90% renewables, wind and solar.