Comments on: Cement that Eats Carbon Dioxide Invented by British Scientists

By: m.senthilkumar

m.senthilkumar — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:06:17 +0000

nice to hear about this product, would i know about the method of preparation about magnesium silicate cement.

By: Mrs.?

Mrs.? — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:02:16 +0000

Yes, cement plants emit CO2 and it is not possible to remove it totally. We need cement to build houses, roads, bridges etc. What we need is an optimisation of the cement use.

On the cement plants we can try to have as little pollution as possible (also other species more dangerous than CO2).

In general if you have raw materials close to the plant with the properties for making this “CO2 friendly” cement (which I don’t really believe in) then you can do it. But how many plants in the world have this opportunity? 5 or less? Just don’t go into moving the raw materials far away for processing – this will only give higher CO2 emissions from the transport of the materials. It is important that this transport is as little as possible.

By: mxlexrd

mxlexrd — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:15:38 +0000

So if 1 tonne of cement absorbs 1.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, doesn’t that mean it will get over twice as heavy during its lifetime.

If so wont this cause problems structurally?

By: 1337NeRD

1337NeRD — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 04:01:04 +0000

Unbelievable! Kudoz on the invention. But as to the other diatriabe; I can’t believe the majority of people believing in CO2 reduction. It’s the other junk in the atmosphere that isn’t good for the planet. However; the planet has things in place for that. Including Trees and Plants of all kinds for the CO2. If we continue the to strip what plants breathe, eventually they’ll die but first they will lessen. Then we’ll have a lack of oxygen. Then animals and such that depend on oxygen will begin to weaken and die off. Where does the maddening anti-science stop?!

By: saravana

saravana — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:56:13 +0000

nice comment abaout pollution
……………..

By: someone

someone — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:53:48 +0000

I agree that it is a great idea, if used properly, but on the other hand if we cling on to one solution for too long and do not try to use others, it will only create a larger problem. For instance: most people do not want to change back to living without technology, but we cannot live without nature. We need to find a balance.

By: Bebo

Bebo — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:03:09 +0000

I think this is a great idea, anything that reduces co2 is a good thing. Like most things it will come down to money though, the only way this will work is if the planning authorities impose it on developers as a condition of getting permission to build.

By: Martin Lewis

Martin Lewis — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:54:19 +0000

It’s a load of cr*p. Debunked.

By: Mr. ?

Mr. ? — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:48:33 +0000

So what happens when it absorbs more than its capacity of Carbon Dioxide? I wonder if these so called scientists take into the consequences…of course they don’t…no-one does anymore. Gonna be a long couple of years :/

By: MICHAEL J. SCHMITZ

MICHAEL J. SCHMITZ — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:53:20 +0000

ALL SMOKE, AND ALL NON-SOLIDS THAT RISE UP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE SEPARATE WITHIN 20 MINUTE. NATURES WAY OF KEEPING THE ATMOSPHERE CLEAN FOR SUN LIGHT TO MAKE PLANTS GROW. MOST CARBONS MAKE PLANTS FLOURISH MORE AND PLANTS HELP ALL THE LIVING TO BREATHE. LIKE THE FOREST FIRES, IF THE SMOKE WENT UP TO THE OZONE, THE HELICOPTERS WOULD’NT BE ABLE TO SEE TO GO TO PUT THE FIRE OUT. IF FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS THE SMOKE AND WHATEVER WENT TO THE OZONE WE WOULD’NT BE HERE, BECAUSE LIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOCKED OUT. MIKE