You could also call them “now” emissions vs “later” emissions.
October 6, 2023 4:31 PM Subscribe
This is why I will be using the term “upfront carbon” (instead of embodied carbon) because it is emitted upfront before a building is occupied, e.g. energy consumed in construction, including the entire life cycle of the materials (see concrete) used, from the extraction of raw materials to the manufacture, transportation, and installation of products at the building site.
An example of thinking about the right-now emissions:
An example of thinking about the right-now emissions:
"The Secretary of State has taken into account that the [Tulip building] would achieve a BREEAM [UK version of green building certification LEED] rating of outstanding and acknowledges the enormous lengths to which F+P have gone to make the construction and operation of the scheme as environmentally responsible as possible. However... the extensive measures that would be taken to minimise carbon emissions during construction would not outweigh the highly unsustainable concept of using vast quantities of reinforced concrete for the foundations and lift shaft to transport visitors to as high a level as possible to enjoy a view."
I can't help but think that if we weren't burning carbon for nearly everything we do in our globalist world, there would be a place where calculating the carbon cost of the lifetime of a material wouldn't matter because it would be at a level that could be absorbed. But, of course, we don't live in that world.
We need to cut all carbon burning to zero tomorrow. We won't do that but every day we burn carbon the world gets hotter.
posted by hippybear at 7:53 PM on October 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
We need to cut all carbon burning to zero tomorrow. We won't do that but every day we burn carbon the world gets hotter.
posted by hippybear at 7:53 PM on October 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
How much embodied carbon in the 24 LNG terminals being built? Those things are just massive amounts of concrete
posted by eustatic at 8:57 PM on October 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 8:57 PM on October 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Thanks for posting, I'm going to use those graphs in my lectures from now on.
This is the hardest thing to change, for several reasons. First of all the concrete, construction steel and glass insulation industries are huge, and thus also huge lobbyists that do everything they can to write every nation's building code. And all the rest of the product development within the field is adapted to this basic given. As in: a company that manufactures facade systems will base their system on the given that the main structural system is reinforced concrete or steel with concrete building parts.
Second, and this is insane but true, a lot of the current construction is happening on sites like reclaimed land, drained swampland, former beaches etc. and in those cases, concrete foundations are necessary. Theoretically, in some places one might be able to do like in Venice and hammer down thousands of piles of oak, but not really.
Third, most architects, engineers and contractors have never learnt how to build differently. I can't say how many exams I have been at, and asked "what is this made of?" where the student looked befuddled and replied "concrete", as if there was no other option. I hate it when people simplify the aesthetics of modern architecture, but it is true that a foundational concept was to create forms that fit "modern" materials. Students were taught this as a value, rather than a historical fact, even through the post-modern period during the 70s and 80s, and it returned with a vengeance during the last years of the 80s, and the rise of the star-chitects. (I'm not thinking of single-family housing here, though concrete is used a lot for those in many countries that are not the US too). This means that even though students are thinking differently today, the knowledge they need to actually do things differently is not easily accessible in many places.
If one looks at what gets published in journals, there are some spectacular structures made partially or even mainly out of timber, but if one looks at the vast bulk of construction, everything is concrete. And it can be causing up to 20% of emissions in many countries, depending on who you ask. For comparison, this EU report puts direct emissions from aviation at 3.8%.
Theoretically, concrete can have a very long lifespan, look at Pantheon and other Roman structures that are still here. But concrete is not very robust in wet climates, and it is very hard to repair or replace parts. Small mistakes can have huge consequences. One of my first jobs during the early nineties was to survey buildings from the seventies that had already been renovated once, and now needed a second renovation. Invariably, small mistakes had been made in the joining of parts in the "new" facade, so moisture could get into the concrete and lead to the rebar rusting silently and unseen, until the damage was huge. Many of these developments are now into their third or even forth renovation. Each time using facade systems based on composites, that promise not to need maintenance. Everything needs maintenance. Composites that "don't need maintenance" have a lifespan of less than 20 years, and replacing them is just another form of maintenance. Mostly, they aren't recyclable.
posted by mumimor at 1:36 AM on October 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
This is the hardest thing to change, for several reasons. First of all the concrete, construction steel and glass insulation industries are huge, and thus also huge lobbyists that do everything they can to write every nation's building code. And all the rest of the product development within the field is adapted to this basic given. As in: a company that manufactures facade systems will base their system on the given that the main structural system is reinforced concrete or steel with concrete building parts.
Second, and this is insane but true, a lot of the current construction is happening on sites like reclaimed land, drained swampland, former beaches etc. and in those cases, concrete foundations are necessary. Theoretically, in some places one might be able to do like in Venice and hammer down thousands of piles of oak, but not really.
Third, most architects, engineers and contractors have never learnt how to build differently. I can't say how many exams I have been at, and asked "what is this made of?" where the student looked befuddled and replied "concrete", as if there was no other option. I hate it when people simplify the aesthetics of modern architecture, but it is true that a foundational concept was to create forms that fit "modern" materials. Students were taught this as a value, rather than a historical fact, even through the post-modern period during the 70s and 80s, and it returned with a vengeance during the last years of the 80s, and the rise of the star-chitects. (I'm not thinking of single-family housing here, though concrete is used a lot for those in many countries that are not the US too). This means that even though students are thinking differently today, the knowledge they need to actually do things differently is not easily accessible in many places.
If one looks at what gets published in journals, there are some spectacular structures made partially or even mainly out of timber, but if one looks at the vast bulk of construction, everything is concrete. And it can be causing up to 20% of emissions in many countries, depending on who you ask. For comparison, this EU report puts direct emissions from aviation at 3.8%.
Theoretically, concrete can have a very long lifespan, look at Pantheon and other Roman structures that are still here. But concrete is not very robust in wet climates, and it is very hard to repair or replace parts. Small mistakes can have huge consequences. One of my first jobs during the early nineties was to survey buildings from the seventies that had already been renovated once, and now needed a second renovation. Invariably, small mistakes had been made in the joining of parts in the "new" facade, so moisture could get into the concrete and lead to the rebar rusting silently and unseen, until the damage was huge. Many of these developments are now into their third or even forth renovation. Each time using facade systems based on composites, that promise not to need maintenance. Everything needs maintenance. Composites that "don't need maintenance" have a lifespan of less than 20 years, and replacing them is just another form of maintenance. Mostly, they aren't recyclable.
posted by mumimor at 1:36 AM on October 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
This is super interesting! I'd never really thought much about the cost of discarding older buildings apart from annoyance at the waste of all the materials used to create it being (usually) dumped into landfill. Thinking about knockdown/rebuild vs renovation in terms of the carbon used (and captured) in existing buildings is something we need to do much more of.
posted by dg at 10:15 PM on October 8, 2023
posted by dg at 10:15 PM on October 8, 2023
IMO, drawing no distinction between concrete used for a building vs concrete used for roads is missing the forest for the trees. What's the percent? Like 10 -20% buildings vs roads and parking lots, at best? And roads have approximate 30 year lifespan before full replacement, not first repairs - most buildings last longer than that.
Also, concrete can be recycled. It's turned into base material for other projects. It's not 100% recycled, which is something we should work on.
But cutting back on roads, and narrowing them and using the excess land for public transport or almost anything else (even buildings made of concrete!) would be a far better expenditure of our effort, at least in fantasyland, because almost no major political party is championing narrowing roads to any real extent.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:03 AM on October 12, 2023
Also, concrete can be recycled. It's turned into base material for other projects. It's not 100% recycled, which is something we should work on.
But cutting back on roads, and narrowing them and using the excess land for public transport or almost anything else (even buildings made of concrete!) would be a far better expenditure of our effort, at least in fantasyland, because almost no major political party is championing narrowing roads to any real extent.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:03 AM on October 12, 2023
IMO, drawing no distinction between concrete used for a building vs concrete used for roads is missing the forest for the trees.
Really? I don't think much concrete or cement is used for roads here, except for recycled, crushed concrete as a replacement for crushed hard rocks because we don't have mountains here. I haven't looked at road-building since I was a student, but a quick look at the old textbook (1980s) told me it is because of the typical winter/spring weather here, with frequent cycles of frost and thaw. Concrete cracks under those conditions. The current textbook seems to say the same.
Concrete is obviously necessary for bridges, but that won't break the emissions bank.
posted by mumimor at 1:17 AM on October 13, 2023
Really? I don't think much concrete or cement is used for roads here, except for recycled, crushed concrete as a replacement for crushed hard rocks because we don't have mountains here. I haven't looked at road-building since I was a student, but a quick look at the old textbook (1980s) told me it is because of the typical winter/spring weather here, with frequent cycles of frost and thaw. Concrete cracks under those conditions. The current textbook seems to say the same.
Concrete is obviously necessary for bridges, but that won't break the emissions bank.
posted by mumimor at 1:17 AM on October 13, 2023
There is lots of concrete use associated with roads even when the actual surface is asphalt. Curbs, jersey barriers, light standards, freeway interchanges, drainage pipes, access vaults, culverts, etc. Reducing road miles and speed/width of roads reduces the concrete used in everything associated with roads.
posted by Mitheral at 5:06 AM on October 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 5:06 AM on October 13, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older But I don't have a thing to wear! | “Subject: Cool pics!” is a perfect Dimension Apple... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by kickingtheground at 6:37 PM on October 6, 2023 [3 favorites]