Jump to content

When the "Settled Science" gets PROVEN Wrong, will libs whine


Recommended Posts

 

Whoops, turns out concrete is actually a carbon sink

From the “settled science” department and the University or California Irvine, comes this inconvenient fact. For years we’ve been told by academics that cement is another nasty global warming contributor, because of CO2 released during production.

“Cement manufacturing is responsible for 5 to 8 percent of global CO2 emissions,” notes Del Gado, a theoretical physicist who is part of Georgetown’s
. “Although there have been calls for creating so-called ‘green cement,’ the sustainability and science communities have yet to find a way to reduce CO2 emissions while retaining the efficiency, durability and cost efficiency of cement. Our study could help change that.”

Now, not so much.

Concrete jungle functions as carbon sink, UCI and other researchers find

Cement-based materials eventually reabsorb much of the CO2 released during creation

Irvine, Calif. – Cement manufacturing is among the most carbon-intensive industrial processes, but an international team of researchers has found that over time, the widely used building material reabsorbs much of the CO2 emitted when it was made.

“It sounds counterintuitive, but it’s true,” said Steven Davis, associate professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine. “The cement poured around the world since 1930 has taken up a substantial portion of the CO2 released when it was initially produced.”

 

For a study published today in Nature Geoscience, Davis and colleagues from China, Europe and other U.S. institutions tallied the emissions from cement manufacturing and compared them to the amount of CO2 reabsorbed by the material over its complete life cycle, which includes normal use, disposal and recycling. They found that “cement is a large, overlooked and growing net sink” around the world – “sink” meaning a feature such as a forest or ocean that takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and permanently tucks it away so that it can no longer contribute to climate change.

 

Cement manufacturing is considered doubly carbon-intensive because emissions come from two sources. CO2 molecules are released into the air when limestone (calcium carbonate) is converted to lime (calcium oxide), the key ingredient in cement. And to generate the heat necessary to break up limestone, factories also burn large quantities of natural gas, coal and other fossil fuels.

Davis and his fellow researchers looked at the problem from a different angle. They investigated how much of the gas is removed from the environment over time by buildings, roads and other kinds of infrastructure. Through a process called carbonation, CO2 is drawn into the pores of cement-based materials, such as concrete and mortar. This starts at the surface and moves progressively inward, pulling in more and more carbon dioxide as years pass.

 

More than 76 billion tons of cement was produced around the world between 1930 and 2013, according to the study; 4 billion tons were manufactured in 2013 alone, mostly in China. It’s estimated that, as a result, a total of 38.2 gigatons of CO2 was released over that period. The scientists concluded, however, that 4.5 gigatons – or 43 percent of emissions from limestone conversion – were gradually reabsorbed during that time frame.

 

“Cement has gotten a lot of attention for its sizable contribution to global climate change, but this research reinforces that the leading culprit continues to be fossil fuel burning,” Davis said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What happens when everyone understands working theories always are incomplete by design in orchestrating chaos among self evident specific biological results of ancestral progression of lifetimes sustaining the food chain alive now from the ones that existed prior to here.

 

Death and extinction are the same thing to a point that separates a species still reproducing ancestors to those not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 38.2 gigatons were released into the atmosphere 4.3 gigatons were caused by the concrete curing of which 43% of the 4.3 gigatons were absorbed by the concrete. Thats still over 40 extra gigatons of co2 in the atmosphere of which a lot of it is caused by burning fossil fuels.

Please explain to me what your point is here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 38.2 gigatons were released into the atmosphere 4.3 gigatons were caused by the concrete curing of which 43% of the 4.3 gigatons were absorbed by the concrete. Thats still over 40 extra gigatons of co2 in the atmosphere of which a lot of it is caused by burning fossil fuels.

Please explain to me what your point is here?

Global warming is a hoax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOAA denied Man Made Global Warming until very recently. Which is it?

BTW, 2016 is breaking all sorts of heat records.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "settled science" getting proven wrong ... look what's happening in the world of dark matter and gravity right now. :D

Dark matter has always been a bit of a mystery.

Gravity is pretty much the same: you drop things, they still fall in a downward direction.

Neither gravity nor dark matter has one damned thing to do with climate change.

 

There is NOT ONE respectable scientific journal that does not agree that man causes climate change and that reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will slow down the process. Science is just too difficult for the teensy reptile brains of right wingers to comprehend. Thjat is why they are the ones doing all the whining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's attempts to bring back coal will be unsuccessful, as the reason that coal is losing out is that the US has a HUGE supply of natural gas, as well as propane from the cracking of petroleum. If you were to build a power plant, why would you build a coal-fired one, which means you would have to dispose of huge quantities of slag. Transporting coal is far more expensive than piping in gas. Gas burns with no serious waste products. It is less safe to store coal, and of course, it causes cancer,and killing your customers is always a poor feature of any business plan.

 

"Clean Coal" as a profitable venture has never actually happened. It takes more coal to produce "clean" coal than burning it the usual way, and then you need to dispose of the CO2 and other nasty chemicals produced as well.

 

Coal production will decline, "clean coal" will continue to be an empty slogan.Not because of the EPA,but because gas is cheaper in nearly every way. Capitalism will doom the US coal fuel industry.

 

Coal will continue to be used for steel production and other non-fuel uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no hope for this ijit. 123 is incapable of any original thought.

Nominated for ironic post of the year.

Coal production will decline, "clean coal" will continue to be an empty slogan.Not because of the EPA,but because gas is cheaper in nearly every way. Capitalism will doom the US coal fuel industry.

It's always interesting when a liberal argues market forces.

You're 100% correct in how this would work, without government interference, so why did Obama and the EPA stick their nose into a dying business?

Why not just let nature take it's course?

 

Oh yea, because you oppose fracking too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops, turns out concrete is actually a carbon sink

 

wanking.gif

oooooooooooooooo.....geeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....another anti-education/White-wing blog.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/21/whoops-turns-out-concrete-is-actually-a-carbon-sink/

*

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts#.WDRUeX3z28A

*

http://www.ucsusa.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But.. But... the jobs won't be created.. You would not be high on a list of favorite people for coal miners. People are starving in West Virginia and Kentucky.

Well, I am not running for president, nor am I contestant for a coal country popularity contest. I do not own any electric utility stock, I am not the one who decides to build a gas fired generation plant or a solar farm.

I lived in Buckhannon, WV for three years, and they cancelled my position. I moved to VA. It has been apparent for the last thirty years that coal is losing out as a fuel. People have the choice to educate their children for some job other than coal miner, after all. In the mid-'70's, pretty much everyone heard that coal was not the wave of the future.

 

In 2006, this happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago_Mine_disaster

 

 

My grandfather gave up farming in Nebraska when the crops failed for lack of rain. In 1919, he moved to Kansas City and joined a cousin in running a livery stable. When there was a shortage of horses, they bought a pump and started selling gasoline.

 

And so it goes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

^^ Translation: Phoenix just got his ass kicked again.

 

Yep.....gotta go with (actual) science.....rather-than some White-wingers blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...