Everything can be done better with a zero emmision electricty grid. Until that sorted ever step thats taken to reduce carbon emmisions will be made using an co2 emmiting grid and so will emit carbon.

Yes

Yes

@@nutzeeer belo

@@anon6056 Chris Kyle died in the

well, there is recycled aggregates and low cement concrete and etc to reduce the total carbon emission. but as engineers, what you can do the best is to use the green materials and green design that are approved by standards and policies and it must be within the budget, nothing more you can do.

@@kevinw9806 very true

Also have to prove carbon emissions are detrimental to the planet

Yeah you guys just have to use what is available to you. Concrete is just the most efficient material to use for the required strength and budget. Most of Civil engineering involves concrete. Imagine trying to make a waste water treatment plant with out it? Or just thinking of something more extreme, A hydroelectric dam lol. Those would be near impossible without concrete.

I dare say it is being talked about outside of the industry too, for like the past 10 years at least. People in the video saying that nobody is talking about it doesnt make it true. It is like the 10th video ive seen on the subject. Maybe they just want to make the video seem novel.

Yeah but to them that's too complicated it's easier to say cement industry bad natural good.

wouldn't retrofitting cost more time, money and effort rather than starting all over in most cases. It could beneficial in cases where the building is still stable and strong but can be a health hazard and just be difficult to do in others?

100% right and true

Wrong

@@DurzoBlunts it's false

agreed --- i kept waiting for that part too. tho, in fairness, i'm pretty sure other DW entities have produced videos dedicated entirely to the sand mining industry...

Hi there, you can view our video on sand here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hrOWl6aWu9-9o3U.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section.

@@DWPlanetA It's important to talk about the sand, when you talk about concrete. Maybe you could have mentioned the video about the sand problem in this video.

@@EhrenRunde_ yeah, not in separate videos like DW did here...

The issue is that It's coarse, and rough, and irritating, and it gets everywhere.

At least with this technology there is some room for optimization - renewable energy, nuclear power plants (those small nuclear generators we keep hearing about). If we can't get rid of concrete - it's a step in the right direction, is it not? Of course - if the electricity is going to be generated from coal burning, gas etc., then it makes no sense.

It's the same as people thinking electric cars are better for the environment, until you read what it takes to produce them and what elements go into making the batteries and electronics and how they pollute the environment when they are at the end of their life cycle

@@TowerHunter I’m so glad you brought up nuclear power. So many people see it as a bad guy just like how fossil fuels are, that is nothing but co-opted lies by oil company capitalist pigs and by Greenpeace hippies. Nuclear energy, despite it’s accidents is by far the safest form of power out there. It may be our only hope. As for the other guy who brought up electric cars. I think we should just ban cars all together and instead opt for public transport, trains, or even just straight up healthy walking and biking.

ccs is rich people screwing you again. Agriculture is the only thing big enough to capture enough carbon, and the only thing that doesn't cost anything, but pays(!) e. g. Greg Judy, Gabe Brown, Allen Savory

Isn't concrete bad for earthquakes? I would think that something more flexible, such as timber would be better because it doesn't break when it bends.

World's running out of sand, a key ingredient for concrete. As a former Californian that was born and raised in the San Francisco Bay area, I say let the cities crumble because it's going to be all underwater soon anyway.

@@aegaeon117 the world's not running out of sand, it's running out of cheap sand. Countless companies are proving the viability of desert sand, and once it becomes financially viable (not long as scale increases, and sand price increases) desert sand based alternatives will start to dominate.

@@aegaeon117 that's a myth california isn't going to sink

@@a.chavez5808 oh, I didn't know sea level rise was a myth. Do you have any empirical evidence or does it just not fit with your worldview?

Chris Kyle died in the battle rip Massachusetts

What about cumcrete

Unfortunately hempcrete is very low strength (around 1/20th of concrete) and would not be useful in the vast majority of what we use concrete for today.

Maybe rammed earth

Yes please, way more carbon capture and overall carbon negative footprint instead of these lobbied ideas of concrete. Don't get me wrong, there should be a place for both, but hempcrete is really easy to build with and super sustainable.

Lol especially since that smoke isn't even smoke.. It's steam coming from the cooling towers. But have to remember nuclear energy is the big bad scary to the green energy groups because it is actually effective unlike all their products.

do you mind posting the title, authors, and or link for this study? I am interested

but where do you get the same amount of Ca(OH) if not by burning limestone in the first place? What's the UCLA study called?

yeah sometimes older is better. fe old furniture was much more durable than what we have these days. and thats not just because we use pressboard etc but also becasue of the way we make them, put together the pieces. we should keep asking why we do certain things the way we do them. if sth works better then we should do that. but having these standartized rules what we are allowed and not allowed to do make it hard for that to happen.

@@philiproler5572 It's called capitalism. Make something mediocre enough that people will buy it and do it as cheap as possible, and you're ahead in the game. Unfortunately there's no good solution.

@@dav356 ofc... what i said doesnt deny that. you can do the best with sth mediocre still. and also dont forget thats it not only about using the least needed for the highest gain. new things or things that work the best for sth will also be bought since for certain things ppl want the best and then are willing to pay more for it. if you want to get really rich you make sth for the masses with the least ressources but if you want to get rich you make sth really good.

@@philiproler5572 I don't know in what financial position you are in, but I would not be able to afford furniture for my home if it were to be "the old furniture" - it's simply too expensive! On top of that - how would you approach moving with such furniture? They get pretty heavy, so moving them is almost impossible. I like my IKEA furniture, and they last for long enough for me. As for the point above - yeah, maybe there are some alternative ways of building a home, but where am I going to find a team that will build it for me? I am sure as heck not going to have time to learn it myself. In a bigger city/suburbs MAYBE, but a small village? No way.

@@TowerHunter you shouldnt just think about your point of view only... just because you and me couldnt afford it or dont own a house where we could get such furniture for doesnt mean that there arent enough ppl who can afford it and/or own a house. there are plenty ppl out there. and since youre offering a luxury item it doesnt matter that there are way less ppl who would choose "old style" furniture over ikea furniture since instead of low price high quantity youre selling high price low quantity. still a way to get rich. and as for who will build it thats what i meant basically. we should adapt more to certain situations. there should be ppl offering such a thing. if sth is better it should be done. you dont own a house and you wont be able to move with "oldstyle" furniture and it would be to expensive for you? best option is ikea furniture. you own a house and dont have to move and you got the money? best option is oldstyle furniture. youre happy with a house made from mud and dont need electricity etc? get yourself a house made out of mud xD youre living somewhere dangerous and need protection? get yourself a fortress. hope you got what i wanted to tell you with that :)

Yes, we will make that for you! Stay tuned.

@@LolwutLol2000 Lots of real estate considered too toxic to plant food plants, mine heaps, splash piles, rubbish tips.

@@LolwutLol2000 a bit hard to find, but you don't have to cut trees, you can use metal stud framing, or there are companies that make structural basically big lego brick construction, so it would be like a concrete block house, but made out of hemp. it's cool stuff.

The most cost effective way to reduce methane emissions will be to eliminate leaks in natural gas distribution systems and leakage during the extraction of methane from the ground. Capturing methane from landfills (which is already done in many places), food production processes, and from natural decay of foliage would also be useful, but the more spread out the leakage, the harder the capture process would be.

Also plastic could be used

lepszy kontrolowany wzrost cen niż nagły kryzys - myślisz, że celem ekologii jest uprzykrzanie życia?

Here’s the thing about environmental damage: we pay for it one way or the other. Want to keep pumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere for “free”? Well, okay, but don’t come crying when your house burns down in a forest fire or gets flooded in a freak storm or your local reservoir runs dry. That’s your “free” sending you a bill.

If the Pantheon was build of cob, it never was in the first place, but it certainly wouldn't be. Nothing against cob, but replacing concrete with cob is not really a thing.

It's been covered in another video.

no ones enjoying poor climate and pollution, and its usually the fault of planners and higher ups for what we get stuck with. Spreading awareness and active participation is our last chance I think

so you're suggesting to produce cement using fresnel lens?

@Tyson Bryant nah, I don't think so

@Tyson Bryant As much as you want :) Just add mirrors. The setup in the video is only a demo. It is actually designed with scalability in mind. The test plant has 400 mirrors; the real thing will have 40000. All deployed and installed by robots. Designed from the ground up to be dirt cheap and easy to set up. Heck, they store the eat into rocks. You can't get cheaper than that!

Could you put a link for us to see that tech, please?

@@DunnickFayuro Yes let's deforest large areas and cook it dead from the refracted light and heat it produces... Sounds like such a great thing for the environment. Which Fyi is one reason why cities are having so many issues with heat, all the reflective windows they put in so it literally cooks the city raising their temperatures upwards of 30 degrees in the summer.

go look deeper what green energy really means. solar power plants needing natural gas to start every day, wind turbines lasting 10-20 years, then the material is nonrecyclable and dont even get me started on ''green fosil fuel''... they are literally burning trees to make ''green fuel''

Economics disagrees

@@Bleckyyyy best we have right now is hydro and atomic, but no atomic scary waaa

Uranium is green energy, like literally

@@Bloated_Tony_Danza Uranium isn't even green, it's silver in it's metallic form... silvery gray in it's oxide form and it's fluoresces a yellow when used in glass.

@Flame elites Don t care

Plastic bricks, from recycling trash, have already been invented. It just hasn't caught on yet.

The beauty of carbon sink principles

You can't. No green power source can even provide the electricity effectively for the foundries (And yes they pretty much all run off electricity for their forges now days)

@letsTrySelfImprovement exactly!

I thought it was very scant on detail too. Glad to read that it wasn't only me with those thoughts.

I think that was kind of the point, if you connect the dots, carbon storage is very poor as a solution.

@@afromaximus Fair and maybe I'm just not getting it but I feel like at least on it's face, this video was taking concrete production as a given and thus the concrete industry existing in its current form, so the only proposed options were what the industry people are giving as their promise to go "carbon nuetral" even though offsets and capture are largely shams. This channel is generally making videos that presents these ideas at an intro level so it's easier for people unfamiliar with the topics to digest, I feel like relying on people to connect dots to understand that these solutions that are being offered won't actually "fix" the world's concrete problem would be counterproductive, and it's more likely I think that someone who's not really familiar with greenwashing or how capitalism has currently been responding to the climate crisis might take these promises at face value and believe that CCS and recycled carbon would do anything but put a dent in the footprint of the concrete industry if it's allowed to continue existing as it does now.

@@XDarkxSteel Agree with you 100%, just frustrated that people could watch the same video and come to wildly different conclusions.

Totally! That is the workaround for the fossil industry. Just as disingenuous as proposing to use trash as fuel. Modern trash burns mainly because of plastic.

Don't forget to hit subscribe! We release a video every Friday :)

No it's because most of them are made of huge slabs of solid stone with concrete cementing them together and also not nearly to the scale that we build things. We use rebar to strengthen concrete to make up for it's deficiency since it is great under compression but weak against shearing so we add rebar to give it strength along the shearing plane so instead of just snapping like a dry twig it cracks and the rebar takes up the load.

This replaces the aggregate with hemp fibers. But the mortar is still the same stuff, Portland cement, so the climate impact is mostly unchanged.

And... there's absolutely no evidence than any of the 3 things you've mentioned are possible in the near or mid future.

Yes but that 8% is the total emitted over a year, which we can directly compare to the annual emissions of the entire transportation sector which is about 14%. We can't abruptly stop building in the same way we can't stop travelling and transporting goods. Both industries need to clean up and scale down.

Not necessarily. Some countries have such weird building codes and building costs, that they also knock down perfectly fine buildings because it's cheaper to build a new one than maintain an older one. Case in point, Japan.

Hi there, you can view our video on sand here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hrOWl6aWu9-9o3U.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section.

Fly ash is on the way out as less coal is burned in power plants.

The efficiency is not fine, like you stated in your OWN post, the numbers do add up. If the avg foundation(giant concrete slab) weights 7.5tons, then that's 4500 kg of co2 released in the air. The average car puts out 4.6 tons of co2 per year meaning that one house's foundation could be a year's worth of driving. The salseforce tower in SF foundation was 22.226 Million kg, or the same as driving for nearly 5000 years on 1 building or the same emissions as every driver in America(115 million cars) to drive for 0.5 miles.

@@freevipservers so just one year? that makes concrete a lot more efficient than cars, since it just makes co2 ONCE, and you can use it for 100 years after. cars make that every year.

@@yakir11114 Good observation, it does. I'm not disagreeing with you either but both are issues. I think active pollution is the problem and not concrete to but the 60% of weight to c02 is still terrible. If it was like