So it’s CCS. Just another version of carbon capture. Yawn.
Way more interesting is e.g., the projects with Rondo and Titan Cement, where they are using industrial heat batteries powered by regular electricity instead of fossil fuels. With this kind of technology, you can not only reduce/eliminate emissions, but can even theoretically turn concrete production into a carbon sink through CO2 injection/mineralization (which can even improve the performance of the concrete, though current regulations don’t permit pushing this to its limit in real construction yet).
That is, use use renewable energy along with CO2 gathered from any source (not limited to just CCS – even DAC) to build stronger, better, cheaper, more environmentally-friendly concrete that creates fairly durable carbon sinks.
Seems like this whole “ReAct” thing is just trying to claim/trademark a concrete technology as their own when it really isn’t.
I’ve seen some cool stuff about heat batteries. Very interesting implementations of old technology.
Yea I wasnt sure if this was something new or not, but I’d agree that carbon capture isnt nearly as interesting as some of the new battery storage or renewable energy tech thats being developed.
The ReAct stuff isn’t new. For a more industrial example of this, check out CarbonCure. It’s not yet economical, though once you include external factors like carbon credits or other tools that financially punish emissions / reward sequestration it theoretically can be. As the the tech scales up, there’s every reason to think the cost of this kind of carbon-enriched concrete will at least be priced in the same league as traditional PCC.
So it’s CCS. Just another version of carbon capture. Yawn.
Way more interesting is e.g., the projects with Rondo and Titan Cement, where they are using industrial heat batteries powered by regular electricity instead of fossil fuels. With this kind of technology, you can not only reduce/eliminate emissions, but can even theoretically turn concrete production into a carbon sink through CO2 injection/mineralization (which can even improve the performance of the concrete, though current regulations don’t permit pushing this to its limit in real construction yet).
That is, use use renewable energy along with CO2 gathered from any source (not limited to just CCS – even DAC) to build stronger, better, cheaper, more environmentally-friendly concrete that creates fairly durable carbon sinks.
Seems like this whole “ReAct” thing is just trying to claim/trademark a concrete technology as their own when it really isn’t.
I’ve seen some cool stuff about heat batteries. Very interesting implementations of old technology.
Yea I wasnt sure if this was something new or not, but I’d agree that carbon capture isnt nearly as interesting as some of the new battery storage or renewable energy tech thats being developed.
The ReAct stuff isn’t new. For a more industrial example of this, check out CarbonCure. It’s not yet economical, though once you include external factors like carbon credits or other tools that financially punish emissions / reward sequestration it theoretically can be. As the the tech scales up, there’s every reason to think the cost of this kind of carbon-enriched concrete will at least be priced in the same league as traditional PCC.