"The winner was CarbonCure, which showed it can inject CO2 into water used to wash out cement trucks, for a mix that makes stronger concrete, according to XPRIZE."
I think I got it: "The mix design was to achieve 35 MPa at 28 days. The mix was 308 kg cement + 77 kg slag per m^3 concrete". That's 385kg total cementitious incl slag. That's large, yet only 35C? 🤔
And the brown bars seem to contradict your claims? 🧐
Please be very careful making claims. RAPID carbonation in concrete is hugely controversial as it promotes CHALK. You understand? That means WEAKNESS. Hence your TINY fizzy dosage
...And why your paper I cited uses SLAG to BOOST strength gain. Yes? 🧐
Follow the breadcrumbs👍 There's an unelected plutocracy forming @fionaharvey, that's going to control #ClimateAction cash. DAC is cloud-cuckooland unless huge OPEX is funded from consumers who have no constituency independent.co.uk/climate-change…
See below. Bill Gates' dubious tech that enables Portland cement rather than abating it, gets rewarded by those who don't read tech reports to understand that anything other than marginal usage, introducing CO2 into concrete makes chalk & is DANGEROUS.
Either you know nothing about concrete & should be nowhere near writing a report, or you do know about concrete & missed-out EMCs deliberately (after all, there's a picture at p.2)
I get it. But I can't get to 0.4 stated by the UN, but it will set a benchmark. Very worrying if it's a howler. Seriously
@robbie_andrew@CharlieJGardner@COP26@HaahrMarianne@CHerweijer@SvenTeske
Dear Dr. Teske. Hopefully the thread above will make sense. From where does your report's p.59 "Sectoral pathways to net zero emissions" derive the 0.4 CO2/clinker ratio:
"process emissions...are assumed to decline evenly from 0.4 tCO2/t clinker in 2017–25..." 🙏