Researchers turn carbon dioxide into sustainable concrete

Imagine a world with little or no concrete. Would that even be possible? After all, concrete is everywhere—on our roads, our driveways, in our homes, bridges and buildings. For the past 200 years, it's been the very foundation of much of our planet.

But the production of cement, which when mixed with water forms the binding agent in concrete, is also one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, about 5 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions comes from concrete.

An even larger source of carbon dioxide emissions is flue gas emitted from smokestacks at power plants around the world. Carbon emissions from those plants are the largest source of harmful global greenhouse gas in the world.

A team of interdisciplinary researchers at UCLA has been working on a unique solution that may help eliminate these sources of greenhouse gases. Their plan would be to create a closed-loop process: capturing carbon from power plant smokestacks and using it to create a new building material—CO₂NCRETE—that would be fabricated using 3D printers. That's "upcycling."

"What this technology does is take something that we have viewed as a nuisance—carbon dioxide that's emitted from smokestacks—and turn it into something valuable," said J.R. DeShazo, professor of public policy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

"I decided to get involved in this project because it could be a game-changer for climate policy," DeShazo said. "This technology tackles global climate change, which is one of the biggest challenges that society faces now and will face over the next century."

DeShazo has provided the public policy and economic guidance for this research. The scientific contributions have been led by Gaurav Sant, associate professor and Henry Samueli Fellow in Civil and Environmental Engineering; Richard Kaner, distinguished professor in chemistry and biochemistry, and materials science and engineering; Laurent Pilon, professor in mechanical and aerospace engineering and bioengineering; and Matthieu Bauchy, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering.

This isn't the first attempt to capture carbon emissions from power plants. It's been done before, but the challenge has been what to do with the carbon dioxide once it's captured.

"We hope to not only capture more gas," DeShazo said, "but we're going to take that gas and, instead of storing it, which is the current approach, we're going to try to use it to create a new kind of building material that will replace cement."

"The approach we are trying to propose is you look at carbon dioxide as a resource—a resource you can reutilize," Sant said. "While cement production results in carbon dioxide, just as the production of coal or the production of natural gas does, if we can reutilize CO2 to make a building material which would be a new kind of cement, that's an opportunity."

The researchers are excited about the possibility of reducing greenhouse gas in the U.S., especially in regions where coal-fired power plants are abundant. "But even more so is the promise to reduce the emissions in China and India," DeShazo said. "China is currently the largest greenhouse gas producer in the world, and India will soon be number two, surpassing us."

Thus far, the new construction material has been produced only at a lab scale, using 3-D printers to shape it into tiny cones. "We have proof of concept that we can do this," DeShazo said. "But we need to begin the process of increasing the volume of material and then think about how to pilot it commercially. It's one thing to prove these technologies in the laboratory. It's another to take them out into the field and see how they work under real-world conditions."

"We can demonstrate a process where we take lime and combine it with carbon dioxide to produce a cement-like material," Sant said. "The big challenge we foresee with this is we're not just trying to develop a building material. We're trying to develop a process solution, an integrated technology which goes right from CO2 to a finished product.

"3-D printing has been done for some time in the biomedical world," Sant said, "but when you do it in a biomedical setting, you're interested in resolution. You're interested in precision. In construction, all of these things are important but not at the same scale. There is a scale challenge, because rather than print something that's 5 centimeters long, we want to be able to print a beam that's 5 meters long. The size scalability is a really important part."

Another challenge is convincing stakeholders that a cosmic shift like the researchers are proposing is beneficial—not just for the planet, but for them, too.

"This technology could change the economic incentives associated with these power plants in their operations and turn the smokestack flue gas into a resource countries can use, to build up their cities, extend their road systems," DeShazo said. "It takes what was a problem and turns it into a benefit in products and services that are going to be very much needed and valued in places like India and China."

DeShazo cited the interdisciplinary team of researchers as a reason for the success of the project. "What UCLA offers is a brilliant set of engineers, material scientists and economists who have been working on pieces of this problem for 10, 20, 30 years," he said. "And we're able to bring that team together to focus on each stage."

According to Sant, UCLA is the perfect place to tackle sustainability challenges.

"As one of the leading universities in the world, we see ourselves as having a blue-sky approach," Sant said. "We see ourselves wanting to develop technologies that might be considered fanciful at one point but become reality very quickly. So we see ourselves looking at a blue sky and saying, well then, let's come up with ideas which will change the world."

Explore further: New technique could make cement manufacturing carbon-neutral

EyeNStein

4 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2016

An interesting variation on the Roman empires "lime mortar" cement.
3D printing for block shaping, and concentrated CO2 exposure to speed its hardening.
Interlocking brick shaping could make wall building as quick as Lego.

Shootist

2 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2016

500 million years of limestone creation proves all concrete is "sustainable".

RealityCheck

2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2016

Isn't Lime (CaO) obtained by calcining limestone/oystershells etc (CaCO3) in order to produce Lime CaO solid and CO2 gas?

How is producing CO2 and CaO, and then re-forming those back into CaCO3 again using a different CO2, an 'advance' in CO2 reduction or concrete manufacturing? Isn't the same cycle already part of the conventional concrete manufacturing process which releases CO2 from calcined Limestone/shells into the atmosphere and then later using that atmospheric CO2 for in-situ curing of the concrete once poured/shaped?

Uncle Ira

3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2016

Because they are taking CO2 out of the air and binding it up to make something to REPLACE concrete? Less of the usual concrete getting used, and CO2 used to make the ersatz concrete with.

2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2016

Article:

"We can demonstrate a process where we take lime and combine it with carbon dioxide to produce a cement-like material," Sant said. "The big challenge we foresee with this is we're not just trying to develop a building material. We're trying to develop a process solution, an integrated technology which goes right from CO2 to a finished product."

The Lime has to come from somewhere, usually Limestone or seashells Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) which is CaO and CO2 combined). The CO2 from smokestacks:

The 'innovation' is not to do with reducing/capturing/reusing CO2, but a 'printing' system for a material made from Lime and 'stack-captured' CO2. To get Lime raw material CO2 produced from calcining, and re-use it to 'print' CaCO3 Limestone again. How is it more 'sustainable'?

antigoracle

How is it more 'sustainable'?

You know, they say "if it's too good to be true, it probably is.
In this case, definitely so. There is a significant cost to the power plant CO2 capture and transport, not just financial, but more importantly in the additional release of CO2. Then, just to use it in a process that easily draws all the CO2 it needs directly out of the atmosphere is beyond ignorant.

3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2016

The 'innovation' is not to do with reducing/capturing/reusing CO2, but a 'printing' system for a material made from Lime and 'stack-captured' CO2.

Using the 3D printer was just a "proving the concept" experiment Cher.

To get Lime raw material CO2 produced from calcining, and re-use it to 'print' CaCO3

I think they are aiming at something other than CaCO3 as the finished product. From the way I read him, they want to find a way to produce something called "C02NCRETE" and that is what they are aiming for. Making something where C02 is a (let me write this the way a scientist like you can understand) ingredient/component/additive/etc instead of a waste product/useless byproduct/pollutant..

Limestone again. How is it more 'sustainable'?

Well maybe they think they won't ever run out of CO2 so they can sustain it for as much as they want?

2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2016

Hi Ira. :)

The 'innovation' is not to do with reducing/capturing/reusing CO2, but a 'printing' system for a material made from Lime and 'stack-captured' CO2.
Using the 3D printer was just a "proving the concept" experiment Cher.
To get Lime raw material CO2 produced from calcining, and re-use it to 'print' CaCO3
I think they are aiming at something other than CaCO3 as the finished product. From the way I read him, they want to find a way to produce something called "C02NCRETE" and that is what they are aiming for. Making something where C02 is a (let me write this the way a scientist like you can understand) ingredient/component/additive/etc instead of a waste product/useless byproduct/pollutant..
Limestone again. How is it more 'sustainable'?
Well maybe they think they won't ever run out of CO2 so they can sustain it for as much as they want?

One question, Cher Ira: Do you ever reflect in the middle of typing and 'listen' to what you are typing? :)

3 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2016

One question, Cher Ira:

Unlike a lot of other peoples around here (won't call no names me) I would be glad to answer the direct simple question. If it is too hard for me I probably have somebody I could recommend to you that might answer him better.

Do you ever reflect in the middle of typing and 'listen' to what you are typing? :)

Well that is the direct and simple question and you are in luck, I can answer him quick. Non Cher, I do not do that me.

Now it is your turn to answer me a question.

Why you think I would waste a lot of time listening to what I am typing?

I already know what I am going to say faster than I can type already. Is that something you do a lot when you are typing? That might explain why you say so many weird unnatural sayings all the time. Maybe you would do better if you just typed and not keep stopping to listen to what you are typing.

humy

4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2016

Not really. The manufacture of conventional modern concrete generally releases a lot of atmospheric CO2 which makes it unsustainable while the natural formation of limestone actually locks away atmospheric CO2.

LizR

1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2016

'Another challenge is convincing stakeholders that a cosmic shift like the researchers are proposing is beneficial—not just for the planet, but for them, too.'

"Not just" for the planet!!!

Because these people obviously live somewhere else, not on this planet.

If something benefits the planet, it benefits us (probably more so - the planet doesn't care that much about us).

D'oh.

antialias_physorg

4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2016

You don't really know what the word 'sustainable' means, do you? That explains a lot of your postings.

bluehigh

2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016

There you go Anti-Thinking inviting a flame war by immediately stepping into the gutter with an unnecessary insult. Do you need a reminder of your recent lack of reading and comprehension skills?

"Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2016

The ignorance of the Chicken Little is mind-boggling, yet not surprising, since it's a necessary trait for membership to the club. If they are the ones who will "save" the earth, then we are literally fucked. If one of you should grow a brain, could you tell us, how is this concrete "sustainable" compared to that which we have been using.

3 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2016

Not that you're much better RealityCheck with your sanctimonious hollow words about peace then at the drop of a hat you bait Uncle Ira with ..

"One question, Cher Ira: Do you ever reflect in the middle of typing and 'listen' to what you are typing? :)"

I just wanna punch you in the face. (Is that a Trumpism now?)

Stuff ya smiley face. You're a hypocrite.

... And Angry-Goracle, you too are just sloshing in the sewer. I don't mind, it can be amusing. Although if you want your views to be seriously considered then try rephrase and leave the outrage out.

"how is this concrete "sustainable" compared to that which we have been using?"

That's all needed and even Anti-Thinking might provide a less dismissive response.

Then again, pigs might fly.

And Angry-Goracle, you too are just sloshing in the sewer.

Oh, you haven't seen me when I'm angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.
The only reason I'm in the sewer, was to find you.

Excellent, another toy to play.

I'll get a gas mask because you stink.

I don't do angry. I seek revenge ;)

I don't do angry. I seek revenge ;)

It's a good thing you won't angry here...

Deaf, dumb and terminally ill.

Die. (Painfully).
http://phys.org/n...uit.html

You can certainly do arsehole. Now sink back down into that sewer. You are ignored.

compose

not rated yet Mar 16, 2016

This study examines the carbonation of portlandite (Ca(OH)2) by carbon dioxide (CO2) in the liquid and supercritical states as a potential route toward CO2-neutral cementation. Too bad is, that the portlandite itself is manufactured by thermal decomposition of limestone by using of fossil fuels under formation of carbon dioxide, during which another carbon dioxide gets released into an atmosphere. Many other technologies of carbon dioxide capture are much more carbon neutral and economical, than just this one.

The above study sounds nonsensical for me. The advantage of portlandite is, it absorbs even the sulphur and arsenic from waste gases of coal-fired power plants due to its strongly basic nature. But the resulting products aren't usable as a building material after then, as they contain much of pollutants. Once we use the portlandite for capture of pure carbon dioxide only, then we face the problem, this agent binds carbon dioxide too strongly - which means, too much heat gets released during its absorbtion. This heat gets wasted and once we attempt for recycling of portlandite by heating, this energy must be exerted again - in form of fossil fuel, which releases another carbon dioxide by its burning.

The environmentally effective methods of carbon dioxide capture therefore utilize materials, which don't absorb carbon dioxide too strongly, so that they can be recycled in more effective way.

These materials (solutions of basic amines etc.) enable to concentrate carbon dioxide in relatively pure form. But the carbon dioxide is gas and it cannot be effectively stored at atmospheric pressure. OK, so we can absorb it in some material - but why to use just the portlandite, which cannot be prepared in other way, than just by removal of carbon dioxide from limestone? If we want to use the product as a cement for building purposes, why we just don't use the grounded limestone directly? The meaning of such a "research" goes over my head.

Phys1

3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016

One question antigoracle.
How tall are you ?

Captain Stumpy

you haven't seen me when I'm angry. You won't like me when I'm angry

@antiG
LOL - so now your the Hulk?

as if you could be a threat?
LMFAO

ok Hulk - what could you even do if you got angry here?
type harder?
throw your monitor at us?
growl menacingly and threaten litigation like gkam?

LOL

sorry, but that was just too funny!
couldn't resist

1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2016

When I'm angry I can do things like use your own words to prove how stupid you are.
For example - Please learn the difference between "you're and your"
For example. Being the very epitome of stupid, you're incapable of comprehending your ignorance.

LOL.
NOT sorry, but that was just too funny!
couldn't resist

1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2016

In relative terms, I'm way shorter than you are stupid. Your wife, however, likes my length.

the difference between "you're and your"

it's hard to type when laughing... especially when you attempt to come off like some scholar who actually can prove a point
LMFAO

you know, if i were a perfect example of stupid, i would not have been able to prove:
- you a liar and incapable of reading a graph
-you can't tell the difference between science and bloggers who lie about science
-you can't read dates on your own links
-you're a conspiracy idiot who doesn't understand climate science at all

nor would i have been able to show where you lied about dates
there is much more in the thread too

http://phys.org/n...mon.html

so, if you consider me the "epitome" of stupid, what would that make you?
ROTFLMFAO

thanks, Hulk!
(you really didn't think you were dr. b, did you? LMFAO)

1 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2016

One question, Cher Ira: Now it is your turn to answer me a question.

Why you think I would waste a lot of time listening to what I am typing?
I already know what I am going to say faster than I can type already. Is that something you do a lot when you are typing? That might explain why you say so many weird unnatural sayings all the time. Maybe you would do better if you just typed and not keep stopping to listen to what you are typing.

Maybe that's why you missed the fact that their 'raw material' is LIME; which, as most other people who stop to reflect before typing realize, is obtained by CALCINING Limestone/seashells, which RELEASES the CO2 from the CaCO3 constituting Limestone/seashells. That is why I suggested you reflect before typing the first thing that comes into your head. You have time to rethink what you think you read, and have time to catch what you may have missed that is crucial to the point at hand. Try it, mate! Cheers. :)

1 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2016

Hi bluehigh. :)

Not that you're much better RealityCheck with your sanctimonious hollow words about peace then at the drop of a hat you bait Uncle Ira with:

"One question, Cher Ira: Do you ever reflect in the middle of typing and 'listen' to what you are typing? :)"

I just wanna punch you in the face. (Is that a Trumpism now?) Stuff ya smiley face. You're a hypocrite.

Relax, mate; Ira and I just gently 'ribbing' each other now. No malice or insults involved. You should have seen the sort of slanging matches we USED to have before we 'mellowed'! Now we mostly amuse each other occasionally, just to keep each other on our toes (not ToEs. That was a corny pun; mea culpa!). Anyhow, as you can see from my response to him just above, it was to prompt him to reflect more in serious conversation (as opposed to his 'funs' conversations; in which reflection would spoil his 'funs' time and make him sound boring rather than humorous----and we can't have that now, can we, Ira?). :)

3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2016

Maybe that's why you missed the fact that their 'raw material' is LIME;

I did not miss that Cher. I read it with enough comprehending to see that they were not trying end up with something which uses lime, only using lime in the experiment to play with the process of using CO2.

which, as most other people who stop to reflect before typing realize, is obtained by CALCINING Limestone/seashells, which RELEASES the CO2 from the CaCO3 constituting Limestone/seashells.

Okayeei, but I did not see that they were looking for a way to make regular concrete, but in the future trying to make something that uses MORE CO2 than is released.

That is why I suggested you reflect before typing the first thing that comes into your head.

And that is why I suggest you not try to read between the lines, there ain't nothing there but white space.

Try it, mate! Cheers. :)

Okayeei, I tried. Still nothing between the lines but white space and room to get it wrong.

Hi Ira, you're still missing it. :)

Article:

"There is a scale challenge, because rather than print something that's 5 centimeters long, we want to be able to print a beam that's 5 meters long. The size scalability is a really important part."

Printing beams etc is the main 'innovation' in this.

Also article:

"While cement production results in carbon dioxide, just as production of coal or production of natural gas does, if we can reutilize CO2 to make a building material which would be a new kind of cement, that's an opportunity."

Don't you/they realize that ORDINARY cement ALSO ABSORBS CO2 from the air once poured/curing; thus 're-using' the CO2 released in its production from CALCINED (releases CO2) limestone etc.

So it's ALREADY 'closed loop'. No 'innovation' in using stack CO2 instead of atmos CO2. They could use the CALCINING process CO2 as their 'stack' sourced CO2. Using OTHER 'stack' CO2 not 'innovative', just 'alternative' stack.

See it now? :)

Hi Ira, you're still missing it. :)

So? I don't think so but if you think I am, that's fine with me. I don't see either one of us going into the concrete business any time soon.

Don't you/they realize that ORDINARY cement ALSO ABSORBS CO2 from the air once poured/curing; thus 're-using' the CO2 released in its production from CALCINED (releases CO2) limestone etc.

Actually I did know that, that is why I am thinking they want to end up creating a material that does not use lime as an ingredient. But ORDINARY cement does not ALSO ABSORBS as much CO2 as is released in making the lime. Bet you didn't know that, eh?

No 'innovation' in using stack CO2 instead of atmos CO2. They could use the CALCINING process CO2 as their 'stack' sourced CO2. Using OTHER 'stack' CO2 not 'innovative', just 'alternative' stack.

Unless they can develop a product that does not require lime.

See it now? :)

About the same as I was seeing it before.

Don't you/they realize that ORDINARY cement ALSO ABSORBS CO2 from the air once poured/curing; thus 're-using' the CO2 released in its production from CALCINED (releases CO2) limestone etc.
Actually I did know that,...

I mentioned that FYI in my first post. Did you read it before typing without reflection?

But ORDINARY cement does not ALSO ABSORBS as much CO2 as is released in making the lime.

What proportion is that? Anyhow, same CO2 produced when making Lime, regardless how Lime used.

No 'innovation' in using stack CO2 instead of atmos CO2. They could use the CALCINING process CO2 as their 'stack' sourced CO2. Using OTHER 'stack' CO2 not 'innovative', just 'alternative' stack.
Unless they can develop a product that does not require lime.

Where does it say that? :)

3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2016

Hi and how you are again? You don't have to give me a new "Hi" every postum you write, it wastes letter spaces.

Unless they can develop a product that does not require lime.

Where does it say that? :)

It says it up there in the article Cher. If you spent more time reading and not reflecting on your typing you might have caught it. Psss, this is me whispering to you Cher,,,, like I said, reading between the lines doesn't help you much, there is nothing there but blank white space.

The Skippys that are working on this say in the article,,,

we're going to try to use it to create a new kind of building material that will replace cement

exoticmagnetodynamics

2 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2016

Reality Check is dead on, these guys produce a slick marketing video, but all commercial sources of lime are still putting Co2 into the atmosphere. So they have to use a carbon positive material to create their carbon neutral material, no great feat at all.

5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2016

So it's not as carbon friendly as using wood or natural fibre: But putting some of the carbon dioxide normally emitted at power stations or cement/lime factories back into solid form is clearly a benefit to the environment.
Though it is hardly carbon neutral unless their lime is made using non-fossil-fuel heat sources and if it absorbs an equal amount of CO2 to that released in its lime-conversion from calcium carbonate. (Even ordinary Portland cement slowly absorbs some atmospheric CO2 over time as it hardens.)

Much of the 5% of world CO2 emissions from cement making is from the fuel used heating the limestone to over 1400C in kilns and crushing the rock in process.

2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2016

Unless they can develop a product that does not require lime.
Where does it say that? :)
It says it up there in the article Cher. If you spent more time reading and not reflecting on your typing you might have caught it. Psss, this is me whispering to you Cher,,,, like I said, reading between the lines doesn't help you much, there is nothing there but blank white space.

The Skippys that are working on this say in the article,,,

Cement is a compound of lime and other materials, not just lime. If they want to replace cement by using only lime, then even more CO2 is produced from calcining more limestone. A CHEAP alkali material like LIME binds CO2, so if they are thinking of using something else they haven't said what/how much it will cost (whole point of CEMENT is it's cheapest mass-produced 'glue'; so no alternative to using Lime). :)

3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016

they want to replace cement by using only lime, then even more CO2 is produced from calcining more limestone

That's you reading between the lines again Cher.

But whatever, it is just another article on the physorg. It's not like we are doing any high powered solving of the great science conundrums. So you can win. I am going to let the experts decide how to spend their money and time, they don't really need our help non.

1 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016

It's not like we are doing any high powered solving of the great science conundrums.

Speak for yourself, mate. :)

...they don't really need our help non.

Oh, but sometimes they do, mate. :)

Good luck, Ira; and to us all. Cheers. :)

2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2016

I told you about those superflous "Hi"s Cher.

It's not like we are doing any high powered solving of the great science conundrums.
Speak for yourself

I am speaking for my self. For my self, I don't see any of that being done here in the comment sections, all I see is a bunch of couyons fooling around (me), pretending to scientists (they stand out so I won't name them), arguing because they seem to like to do that (like you), and trolling (like the ones I got on the ignore thing).

But I don't see "any high powered solving of the great science conundrums" here. If you do, then maybe you should dig a little deeper because this is just playground stuffs on the physorg.

they don't really need our help non
Oh, but sometimes they do, mate. :)

Well why you not worry them with it instead of us on the physorg. All the years you been fooling around here I still have not seen one person thinks you helped. (;;)

If you buy the bollocks these guys are spinning, then I got a bridge to sell you and it's made from the tried and proven "old" concrete.

2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2016

those superflous "Hi"s Cher.

I address my interlocutors; in threads with many conversations it helps casual readers avoid confusing who is talking to whom.

It's not like we are doing any high powered solving of the great science conundrums.
Speak for yourself
I am speaking for my self. For my self, I don't see any of that being done here in the comment sections, all I see is a bunch of couyons fooling around (me), ...

Not everyone is you, Ira.

Well why you not worry them with it instead of us on the physorg. This is not all I do, mate. And you would be surprised how many scientists read sites such as these. Some cosmologists even have their own blogs. It's all connected.

I still have not seen one person thinks you helped.

You 'see' what you want to see. You admit to being here for 'funs'/denial/insulting/do

...superflous "Hi"s Cher.

they don't really need our help non
Oh, but sometimes they do, mate. :)
Well why you not worry them with it instead of us on the physorg.

This is not all I do, mate. And you would be surprised how many scientists read sites such as these. Some cosmologists even have their own blogs. It's all connected.

You 'see' what you want to see. You admit to being here for 'funs'/denial/insulting/downvoting games. Waste. :)

Errata: Above post correctly re-formats previous one. Thanks.

That is why I speak only for my self. And never try to make peoples think I am more than what I am. It would be a boring world if everybody was like me.

I still have not seen one person thinks you helped.

You 'see' what you want to see.

I see what I see. Not what you want me to see.

I realize you got the boot-a-roo every where they do the serious science talks, but this place ain't one of them. Cher, how long you trolling this place? 9 years? I would have thought that someone as biased and objectionable as you would have caught on to the fact that this is just comment section where couyons gather.

There is no real deep and profound stuffs getting done here. The 1000 letter space limit ought to have given you a clue to that fact. If the nice peoples at physorg thought we were on the verge of getting the big things sorted out, they would give us more letter spaces to write it. They don't think that so they got the limit.

Not a problem Cher, the second one was as silly as the first one. They were both Really-Skippy-ish.

You admit to being here for 'funs'

Yeah, more than just a few times, non great revelation there.

/denial

Yeah that too. I deny believing you, well believing a lot of the foolishments you postum here.

/insulting/

Pot/kettle/black/hypocrite/do/better/diligence.

downvoting games.

Voting is not the game, it is the right of every citizen. And they can vote anyway they like without getting approval from Really-Skippy or anybody else.

Waste.

You must be getting something out of it. You sure are wasting a lot of time on me. But I am not so very busy so that's okay, if you want to waste your time on me, that's okayeei with me.

See,Ira? You do 'see' what you want to see, and deny the rest. Just because you find no scientific value in this site doesn't mean others don't. And when discussions are leading edge, it's these sorts of forums where they start. If it wasn't so important, then why downvote me at all, even when I am correct in the science/logic? Because it IS important site; and you just cannot stand that, because you want to drag it down to your level of non-scientist and bad human playing your games despite the important things passing uncomprehended in front of your eyes glazed by your own irrelevance and malice towards this site and other people trying to have scientific conversations which you cannot be a part of as long as you have that attitude. Do better, mate. :)

Just because you find no scientific value in this site doesn't mean others don't.

I learn a lot here Skippy. About science, AND about silly peoples.

And when discussions are leading edge, it's these sorts of forums where they start.

You say that with the straight face? When was the last time you seen the Nobel Prize winning Skippy postum here in the physorg comment sections?

If it wasn't so important, then why downvote me at all, even when I am correct in the science/logic?

How do I know you are correct in the science? I vote on the way you "present" your science (if that is what makes you happy to call it.) And the "/logic" part always earns a downvote, you really don't work that area very well non.

Because it IS important site; and you just cannot stand that, because you want to drag it down to your level of non-scientist and bad human playing your games despite the important things passing uncomprehended in front of your eyes glazed by your own irrelevance and malice towards this site and other people trying to have scientific conversations which you cannot be a part of as long as you have that attitude. Do better, mate. :)

Cher, I got no malice towards anybody here. Not the ones I talk to anyway, the ones I would have malice for are on the "ignore" thing. I enjoy life, sorry you don't. But you been having these same problems a long time before I showed up, so all that is on you.

Now if all this science stuffs is burning a hole in your brain waiting to get out, why you not write about that instead of wasting your valuable science time on me. Try out the "ignore" thing if you find me distracting. (But it only works if you got some will power.)

Hi Ira. :)

Good to hear you have learned some things here. So this site isn't as valueless as your badmouthing of it and your bot-voting/insults/denials games would have us think, hey? Good to see the truth come out at last, mate. And the driving force for real scientists is not Nobel prizes or fame or wealth, it's the science advance itself, for its own sake and for the sake of present/future humanity. All great new things start with a seeded thought/idea. And that 'seeding' can happen anywhere; even here at PO. If you didn't know that before then you know it now. No one person or group or venue has a monopoly on novel scientific thoughts/ideas/discussion. Only egotistical, self-interested, 'elitist' arrogant persons pretend otherwise; and they're the ones usually left behind when the science advances while they stick to their personal prejudices and incomplete knowledge. Start really learning, mate. Drop the games and false pretense that this site is not important. :)

3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2016

Only egotistical, self-interested, 'elitist' arrogant persons pretend otherwise; and they're the ones usually left behind when the science advances while they stick to their personal prejudices and incomplete knowledge

sound like you, @illiterate lying POS rc...

Speak for yourself

so hey, sammie... why don't you link just ONE scientific advancement you've done in your decades of research here ...

personally, i would like to see your 4 fatal flaws pointed out in the BICEP 2 papers.. but i will actually accept anything that can be considered a published peer reviewed reputable journal paper ...

just one!
because i searched Google Scholar and i can't even find one!

the above doesn't include your earthling club page, BTW...
because that "earthling" crap is proven pseudoscience and not worthy of anything but a good laugh... especially as there isn't any maths or means for making predictions (you know, like a scientific hypothesis or theory must have)

One question antigoracle.
How tall are you ?

In relative terms, I'm way shorter than you are stupid. Your wife, however, likes my length.

I ask this because you are obsessed with size.

2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2016

Hi CapS. Move on, mate. This is not good for your blood pressure. Or your language. Obviously. Give it a rest, mate. You'll feel better after you've taken a break from your obsessive need to insult and harass people even when they have been proven correct and you incorrect on many fronts. Take another vacation from your addictive internet 'persona and ego', CapS. Enjoy life in the real world; don't let this internet 'life' become the destroyer of your health and sanity. Take a long break, mate. And rethink it all. Good luck, good thinking, and good health to you, CapS; and to everyone! :)

3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2016

Hi CapS. Move on, mate.

@illiterate lying POS rc

so... ya got nothing then, right?

imagine that

So... you want us to all refuse to accept the scientific method while you teach us your version of the scientific method which is actually just "argument from self perceived authority" and D-K...

that isn't science
that is called religion

if you want to start a cult, just start one and get a 501(c)3 from the US... get rich... do whatever

but quit lying about crap which you have no ability to actually prove or validate

that just aint science

Eikka

3 / 5 (2) Mar 20, 2016

Don't be idiots.

They're not proposing to develop fundamentally new materials. They're just developing technology for using concentrated CO2 captured from smokestacks to quickly cure perfectly ordinary burnt lime for the purpose of 3D-printing it. If you add sand and gravel, it becomes perfectly ordinary concrete, but then it won't go through the printer nozzle.

The rest of it is pure greenwashing. The "CO2NCRETE" is simply a buzzword that refers to the -process- of fabricating parts out of cement by 3D-printing using their process. It is NOT a new type of material per se, and nowhere do they claim that it is - it's just a different formulation.

The fundamental issue is that the production of burnt lime produces more CO2 than the lime subsequently captures, so the process is not net carbon negative, nor neutral. Cement itself can be CO2 neutral if the lime is produced without the use of fossil fuels, but their source of CO2 from smokestacks -adds- more CO2 on top of that.

2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2016

CapS. It's not rocket science, mate. It's knowledge available to anyone willing to research and confirm it for themselves. Lazy people, or people who want personal ego-games and dramas instead of scientific discourse, make themselves irrelevant and keep themselves ignorant by choice. Obviously. Now, mate, have you any comment on-topic and on-science re above article? If not, then please stop cluttering up the thread. Thanks. :)

PS: Will your ego ever let you tone down the insulting tone in your addressing and your commenting? Please try harder to get your ego/language under control, mate. Thanks. :)