Concrete is horrible for the environment and its fucked up global emissions of buildings and architecture. (Cement production alone constitutes 8% of global emissions, not considering its inefficiency in thermal lifecycles of a building and ultimate un-renewable waste). It is in fact not the best fit for every circumstance.

One shoe fits all architecture trends have effectively killed vernacular wisdom and climate conscious local innovation. Favoring “cheap” garbage that jacks up costs in other sectors, damages climate and ignores localized need, requiring complex, often power-hungry, solutions like extensive BAS to try and counterbalance their piss poor application.

(For those unaware modern buildings when all is said and done account for over 40% of global emissions. And the heating/cooling systems far outpace keeping the lights on in terms of energy consumption (something like 2/3 of the total buildings demands over time). Tackling that behemoth number is going to take a multifaceted approach but the importance of materials and place-specific design cannot be understated.)

sincerely, someone whose installed one too many motors for automated blinds and slapdash bandaid HVAC solutions.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

95% sure you're the brother

[–] unconsequential@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

I would happily smash concrete blocks in the early am- don’t threaten me with a good time!

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Doesn't concrete also absorb CO2?

Or was that cement

[–] unconsequential@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Shah also said that “cement carbonation requires very specific conditions” including humidity of between 40 and 80 per cent and open-air conditions.

“Submerged or buried concrete or concrete will not undergo carbonation,” he said, adding that “concrete carbonation happens at an extremely slow rate: an average of one to two millimetres per year.”

Shah added that he was “a bit frustrated with the IPCC using the word ‘sink’ because that gives the impression that it is beneficial.”

“Cement and concrete are not carbon sinks,” Shah said. “They are net sources [of CO2].”

Article: Cement and Concrete “are not carbon sinks” says Cambridge material scientist

Also: “Carbonation in concrete refers to the chemical reaction between carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and calcium hydroxide in the concrete. This reaction forms calcium carbonate and gradually reduces the pH of the concrete, which can lead to the corrosion of embedded steel reinforcement.”

So, not exactly a process you want to occur in your buildings or bridges. So if you’re hoping waiting around until it turns into limestone (if it’s not buried, submerged or sealed) it will probably mostly be demolished and long buried in a landfill somewhere potentially leaking toxins where it will never undergo the natural processes to absorb carbon anyway.

Beautiful in theory but impractical in mass scale execution. But certainly a good way to justify the continuation of a multibillion dollar industry. (This is not to say that there aren’t serious material scientists working on this problem, but a lot of it unfortunately is straight up greenwashing rather than advocating for reduction in initial footprint and investment in long-term sustainable alternatives.)

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the fact check!

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 23 hours ago

Cement is an ingredient in concrete