D.C. DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Analysis on Carbon
Negative Cement
Separating Truth from Hype
By: John Stowell & Jacob Melone
2015
1200 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
5
Companies and Technology
5
Portland Cement
8
Building in D.C.
9
Getting CNC into D.C.
12
Possible Alternatives to Carbon Negative Concrete
16
Conclusion
19
2
Executive Summary
The cement industry is responsible for 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions (CO2)
globally. It is also the largest ingredient in the manufacture of concrete which is the second
most consumed substance on earth after water. Carbon Negative cement is technology in
development at is supposed to absorb more CO2 than it takes to produce it. D.C.’s
Department of the Environment will have to consider all forms of new technologies as it
continues to be a leader in America’s sustainable cities. This report will explain that while
carbon negative cement (CNC) is an exciting concept, at this time there is no product
available on any marketable or commercial level to use.
This report will break down the companies who have been attempting to create CNC
and the technologies being used. It will compare CNC to Portland cement and highlight the
structural codes CNC will have to meet to compete with Portland cement. The report will
then suggest ways of bringing CNC to D.C. through LEED and other incentives. Finally, this
report will offer an alternative by outlining the differences between Carbon Negative
Cement and Carbon Neutral Cement. Carbon Negative Cement is not presently available in
the common market but it may be in the next ten years. DDOE will want to know more
about this technology, how it is made, and how it compares to Portland cement before
encouraging investment in the D.C. area.
Carbon Negative Concrete has only recently begun to enter the market in California.
However, it will only be available to clients that are able to prepay or reinvest into
manifesting facilities (G. Kats, 2015). It is not clear when or if this product will be available
to the D.C. market, but if it does become available it is important to understand the ways in
3
which it could benefit the D.C. area. After taking a critical look into Blue Planet and their
brand of Carbon Negative Concrete it is clear that it embodies the characteristics of a truly
green and sustainable product. Given these characteristics CNC has great potential to be
used within building projects striving to earn LEED accreditation. LEED building projects
utilizing CNC would generate credits for the Materials and Resources credit Category
devised by the USGBC. In a similar way that Forest Stewardship Council (FCS) wood
products are utilized to obtain credits on a building site (T. Taylor, 2015). Based on our
research it is also likely that CNC will meet or exceed many other mandates and/or
Executive Orders that are designed to be a catalyst for sustainable technologies. These
include the concrete PCR, The 2030 Challenge, and Executive orders 13423 and 13514.
Though CNC is not available in D.C. currently, it is likely to be well received as D.C. mover to
become evermore sustainable.
However, an alternative may exist. CeraTech, a company based in Alexandria
Virginia, is manufacturing and distributing Carbon Neutral Concrete. Carbon Neutral
Concrete utilizes fly ash, a waste product from coal-fired power plants, which this is
different from Carbon Negative Concrete (Sustainability, 2015). While some may disagree
with Carbon Neutral as a sustainable source of concrete it does have some definite
advantageous over Portland cement. When compared to convention Portland cement
CeraTech’s ekkomaxxTM brand of green cement eliminates CO2 from the atmosphere,
diverts fly ash from landfills, reduces water consumption and preserves natural resources
(Case Studies, 2015). EkkomaxxTM provides other savings as well, by reducing the number
of cubic yards used on the project, reducing the amount of rebar and other structural
materials, and reducing total man-hours to complete the project (Finite Element Analysis,
4
2015). CeraTech’s green cement not only contribute to material and environmental saving,
but also meets and/or exceeds industry standards for Portland cement (High Strength
Concrete Sustainable Concrete, 2015).
Carbon Neutral Concrete has potential to be a good compromise until Carbon
Negative Concrete is available in the D.C. area. However, we are not advising D.C. to
reinvest into coal power plants. Moving D.C. to renewable forms of energy to meet demand
needs to remain a priority, we are only suggesting the Carbon Neutral is a more sustainable
product than Portland cement. The D.C. metro area is growing rapidly and because of this
growth and the pervasive used of concrete and cement products a more sustainable
material is needed now.
5
Intro:
Carbon Negative Cement or “Green Cement” is cement that soaks up more carbon
dioxide than is emitted during production. CNC has yet to become a marketable product
capable of competing with the more common “Portland cement”. Portland cement, which is
currently used for all major building and construction worldwide, is extremely energy
intensive. Cement manufacture makes up 5% of total global carbon emissions and is
projected to rise as China and India increase development. As global demand for fossil fuels
rise so will prices for Portland cement. Finding a comparable product that is less energy
intensive and takes carbon out of the atmosphere is critical to addressing the danger of
climate change.
Companies and Technology:
There is a lot of interest in CNC technology worldwide with multiple companies
exploring different technologies to create CNC. The four companies who have used multiple
techniques to develop a successful CNC product are, Novacem of Britain, Carbon Sense
Solutions of Nova Scotia Canada, and Calera and Blue Planet both from California. Each
company has been developing its own unique technology to create CNC. Unfortunately
most have been unsuccessful and are out of business. Novacem has developed a class of
cement that they argue will offer performance and cost parity with Portland cement but
with a carbon negative footprint. Their cement is based on magnesium oxide (MgO) and
hydrated magnesium carbonates. As Novacem explains from a Wall Street Journal entry,
6
“Our production process uses accelerated carbonation of magnesium silicates under elevated
levels of temperature and pressure (i.e. 180oC/150bar). The carbonates produced are heated
at low temperatures (700oC) to produce MgO, with the CO2 generated being recycled back in
the process. The use of magnesium silicates eliminates the CO2 emissions from raw materials
processing. In addition, the low temperatures required allow use of fuels with low energy
content or carbon intensity (i.e. biomass), thus further reducing carbon emissions.
Additionally, production of the carbonates absorbs CO2; they are produced by carbonating
part of the manufactured MgO using atmospheric/industrial CO2. Overall, the production
process to make 1 ton of Novacem cement absorbs up to 100 kg more CO2 than it emits,
making it a carbon negative product.” (Novacem 2011)
The Canadian company, Carbon Sense Solutions uses carbon curing technology to
retrofit concrete plants to recycle waste products into creating a “greener” concrete. Carbon
Sense Solutions say they have developed a technology that captures carbon dioxide emissions
from industrial sources and includes it in the production process of precast concrete products,
improves mechanical properties of concrete, while reducing production cost. The company has
its own unique CO2 “Accelerated Concrete Curing” process which replaces heat and steam
curing for dry and wet precast products. Flue gasses are consumed to cure concrete and
permanently lock up CO2 emissions. The product is expected to reduce a company’s energy
consumption, decrease the curing time, and decrease the defect rates of precast concrete.
(CarbonCure 2015)
Calera of California focuses its research in developing calcium carbonate. Calera’s
website explains, “The special form of calcium carbonate that Calera makes in its process
7
also mimics or copies the form of calcium carbonate that marine organisms use to make their
shells and other structures. The special form of calcium carbonate is a cement or binder in
that when water and proprietary additives are used, the cement from the Calera process binds
together and creates structures with high strength and toughness that are used to make a
range of building materials.” (Calera 2015)
In the actual development of carbon negative cement, Calera details, “The conversion
of CO2 to calcium carbonate requires a source of alkalinity and calcium. One option is the use
of industrial waste streams that contain both alkalinity and calcium, for example in the form
of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2). Another option is to use alkalinity, such as caustic soda
(NaOH), which can be supplied from the conventional industrial manufacturing process.
Calera is also developing a proprietary, low energy technology for the production of caustic
soda. Calcium, in the form of for example calcium chloride can be naturally occurring or can
also be found in the waste streams of existing chemical processes. The Calera process can use
either waste or chemical of waste inputs, both resulting in the capture and conversion of CO2
to the special calcium carbonate cement which can then be used to form board products.”
(Calera 2015)
Out of all the companies listed, Blue Planet is the only one that seems to be
continuing its research and may actually develop a commercially viable CNC product. Blue
Planet, a company based in California seems to be the only company left in its research and
close to developing a commercial product. Blue Planet mimics nature using osmotic
pressure from both fresh and salt waters. It force generated by separating the fresh and salt
waters through a membrane generate alkalinity. The alkaline solution is then mixed with
8
waste CO2 from fly-ash to create carbonates. Blue Planet asserts that by using osmotic
force instead of electrolysis or electro-chemistry it is able to cut its operating costs by forty
percent.
Blue Planet asserts its scientific breakthrough comes from liquid condensed phase
droplets. “Liquid condensed phase (LCP) droplets – nanometer-sized pockets of liquid that
contain high concentrations of sequestered CO2 – are manipulated and isolated by Blue
Planet using established water process technologies. A single feed solution containing LCP
droplets is treated by nanofiltration, a low-energy alternative to reverse osmosis, which
results in two output solutions; one is softened, nearly potable water, and the other is a
concentrated solution of LCP droplets that Blue Planet uses for direct geomimetic
mineralization of CaCO3.” (Blue Planet 2015)
The other attractive benefit to CNC by Blue Planet is its high reflectance. Blue
Planet’s CNC product is white as opposed to Portland cement’s grey or black coloring. The
white surface absorbs less heat from the sun. Blue planet says their CNC reflects 30% of
solar rays resulting in a fifteen percent reduction in energy costs. This CNC product can be
used for cool-roof, cool-pavement, and other exterior technologies.
While Blue Planet promotes itself as the leader of CNC technology, there are still
many questions to answer. Blue Planet still has no projects where their CNC product has
been used and it is still in the testing phase. Even when they do begin commercial
production, Blue Planet’s operations are out in California and have nothing in the D.C.
Region. This would mean the transport of CNC would increase the cost and carbon
footprint of the product. Lastly, there is still no price for their CNC. The Construction
9
community has no idea how CNC will compare with Portland cement both in price and
building strength.
Portland cement:
Portland cement is the most commonly used cement globally. It is developed largely
from limestone and shale. The natural occurring materials used in Portland cement make it
a very low-cost material compared to other building materials. It is essentially created by
heating lime, iron, silica, and alumina to a temperature between 2,500 to 2,800 degrees
Fahrenheit in a rotating kiln (The Concrete Society). It is then ground into a fine powder.
The heat from the kiln transforms the raw materials into new chemical compounds. It is the
variation of raw materials, plant specific characteristics, and finishing process that define
the cement produced.
The problem with Portland cement is that it is extremely energy intensive, water
intensive, and carbon emitting along with other chemicals. While Portland cement is a
product used around the world it is very difficult for countries to produce without
adequate access to water or fossil fuels. Since coal is both the most prevalent of fossil fuels
and cheapest, it is usually the most commonly used in the manufacture of cement leading to
large scale C02 emissions and global warming. Cement production requires the burning of
fossil fuels to heat the kiln to such high temperatures. Producing just one ton of cement
requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, which is equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal. This
generates approximately one ton of C02 in the atmosphere (Rubenstein 2012).
10
Building in D.C.:
If and When CNC becomes commercially viable it will still have to meet the current
building standards used today by conventional concrete. To ensure consistency from
cement production plants, chemical and physical limits are placed on cements. All Portland
cements must conform with “The American Society for Testing and Materials” (ASTM)
C150, Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cement (C595) and Performance
Specification for Hydraulic Cements (C1157).
In the US, three separate standards may apply depending on the category of cement. For
portland cement types, ASTM C150 describes:
Cement Type
Type I
Type II
Type II(MH)
Type III
Type IV
Type V
Description
Normal
Moderate Sulfate Resistance
Moderate Heat of Hydration
(and Moderate Sulfate Resistance)
High Early Strength
Low Heat Hydration
High Sulfate Resistance
For blended hydraulic cements – specified by ASTM C595 – the following nomenclature is
used:
11
Cement Type
Description
Type IL
Portland-Limestone Cement
Type IS
Portland-Slag Cement
Type IT
Ternary Blended Cement
Type IP
Portland-Pozzonlan Cement
ASTM C1157 describes cements by their performance attributes:
Cement Type
Type GU
Type HE
Type MS
Type HS
Type MH
Type LH
Description
General Use
High Early-Strength
Moderate Sulfur Resistance
High Sulfate Resistance
Moderate Heat of Hydration
Low Heat of Hydration
Note: For a thorough review of US cement types and their characteristics see PCA’s Design and
Control of Concrete Mixtures, EB001 or Effect of Cement Characteristics on Concrete
Properties, EB226.
DC would more than likely refer to the current building code, IBC 2012 and the referenced
specs ACI 318, ASCE 7, for minimum concrete strengths and other requirements. Chemical
tests verify the content and composition of cement, while physical testing demonstrates
physical criteria.
Chemical testing includes oxide analyses (SiO2, CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, etc.) to allow the cement
phase composition to be calculated. Type II cements are limited in C150/M 85 to a maximum
of 8 percent by mass of tricalcium aluminate (a cement phase, often abbreviated C3A), which
impacts a cement’s sulfate resistance. Certain oxides are also themselves limited by
specifications: For example, the magnesia (MgO) content which is limited to 6 percent
maximum by weight for portland cements, because it can impact soundness at higher levels.
12
Typical physical requirements for cements are: air content, fineness, expansion, strength, heat
of hydration, and setting time. Most of these physical tests are carried out using mortar or
paste created from the cement. This testing confirms that a cement product has the ability to
perform well in concrete; however, the performance of concrete in the field is determined by
all of the concrete ingredients, their quantity, as well as the environment, and the handling
and placing procedures used. (U.S. Cement Codes and Standards)
If CNC is to become commercially viable it will have to meet the same rigorous testing that
Portland cement meets. Blue Planet has been working with global leaders to develop their
own Carbonstar rating system for green buildings. The Carbonstar rating is a metric based
on the mass of CO2 in one unit of concrete. Since cement in the largest contributor to CO2
emissions in concrete, approximately a 1:1 ratio (1 ton of cement produces 1 ton of CO2)
the idea is to make the CarbonStar rating as low a possible.
Getting CNC into D.C.
As of 2015, Blue Planet will begin making Carbon Negative Cement (in tons), but this
product will only be available in the California Market. Depending on how successful and
adaptive the market is, the product will then likely spread outside of California. However, it
will only be available to clients that can either pay for the product upfront (prepay) or to
clients that are able to reinvest into building plants for the products they may need. In our
research it did seem that Carbon Negative Cement was a on the cusp of becoming mass-
produced (G. Kats, 2015). There was an abundance of articles in the early 2000’s discussing
many different manufacturers around the world. While articles were available discussing
the technology it was difficult to find any dated more recently, 2010 and newer. CNC was
13
likely another casualty of the recession of 2008. When housing bubble burst the
construction and building sector was hit very hard. Investments into new technologies such
as CNC were halted, and any companies making the products likely folded or sold off. Blue
Planet has emerged post-recession and is one of only a few companies globally trying to
reintroduce CNC to the world.
Getting Carbon Negative Cement into the mainstream market will be one of the
greatest challenges, but can be accomplished thought the adoption of more sustainable
building practices such as LEED and Living Building Challenge. D.C. is a leader in the
construction of LEED accredited buildings and the U.S. Green Building Council could
become a great ally to bring products like CNC to the D.C. market. While the USGBC does
not directly endorse environmentally friendly, or green products they do endorse products
that have been verified by a third-party as “green” (T. Taylor, 2015). A great example of this
is FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) wood products. LEED recognizes specific materials and
products that demonstrate better performance, increase sustainability and mitigate
negative impacts to the environment (Building Design + Construction Guide, 2015). This
would definitely apply to CNC in terms of the manufacturing process (that is more
environmentally consciences than traditional Portland cement), and the physical
properties of the product (sequestering atmospheric CO2).
The greatest emitters of greenhouse gases are building. This is due to the energy
demand of the structure and also the intensive manufacturing process of materials that are
needed for construction (The 2030 Challenge, 2015). In order for a product to be verified
as green it will need to comply with several different orders and mandates. This can
14
include the concrete PCR, the 2030 challenge, as well as executive order 13514 and 13423.
The concrete PCR or Product Category Rules are specific rules, necessities, and guidelines
for creating Environmental Product Declarations of (EPD). The PCR is designed for
manufactures to provide consistent and quantifiable information of the environmental
impacts. This helps to identify the impacts of concrete from the time of manufacturing to
the time it is delivered to the client, referred to as “cradle-to-gate” (Concrete, 2015).
Another way to increase the sustainability of concrete and to improve the standards is
through the 2030 Challenge. The goal is to encourage new construction/development or
renovations to meet or exceed a fossil fuel, GHG-emitting, energy consumption
performance standard. For today’s market the goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption in
construction by 70%. The goal for 2020 is to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 80%, 90%
by 2025 with the final goal of becoming carbon neutral in 2030 (The 2030 Challenge,
2015). In 2009 Executive order 13514 was introduced. This mandate for “Federal
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance” was designed to initiate
and manage new greenhouse gas emission requirements, increase water conservation,
introduce waste diversion, encourage sustainable building practices and local planning, as
well as implement new standards for environmental management and electronic
stewardship (Executive Order 13514, 2012). Executive Order 13423 was initiated in early
2007 and promotes “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation
Management”. It could be said that this E.O. 13423 was the precursor to E.O. 13514 and
also addressed issues of energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving
building performance, and pollution prevention (Executive Order 13514, 2012).
15
Based on the information provided by Blue Planet it seems that Carbon Negative
Cement would meet and/or exceed the goals of all of the mandates or initiatives listed
above. The environmental impacts of CNC are clear, and this improved performance over
other types of concrete would encompass the concrete PCR. CNC would also be a great
product to aid architects, contractors, and developers in meeting the goals set by the 2030
Challenge. A carbon negative source of concrete would help achieve carbon neutrality by
2030. CNC also complies with both Executive Order, 13423 and 13514. Mainly during the
manufacturing process, CNC will help improve energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, reduce water consumption, and prevent further pollution, when compared to
the manufacturing processes of dirtier Portland cement. The Sustainable D.C. Plan is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources, with a target of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions to 50% by 2030. Should CNC become available in the D.C. market this goal,
reducing carbon emissions by 50% is incentive enough to adopt the new technology
(Sustainability D.C, 2015).
Within the LEED rating system it would be possible for CNC, like FCS certified wood
products, to help projects earn credits within the Materials and Resources credit category,
as referenced above. LEED projects are demanding products that are comprised of more
recycled content, made from bio-based materials, or manufactured/ harvested in more
sustainable ways. Under the new LEED V4 rating system MR credits are awarded for using
such products during construction. The focus is to improve the life-cycle of the products.
This is achieved by increasing product performance and by promoting resource efficiency.
The embed energy of transporting CNC from California (to D.C.) is too great, and is the
Achilles heel of CNC on the East Coast. For today’s market, a complete life-cycle assessment
16
of the total sustainability of CNC is reduced due to the transportation factor. Meaning that,
even if it were imported for a project today, credits would not be awarded because of the
distance the material had to travel. However, this would not be an issue if CNC is successful
in California and the technology makes its way to the East Coast, where it could be
manufactured closer to project sites (Building Design + Construction Guide, 2015).
After this long analysis of Carbon Negative Cement we can definitively say that it is
currently not available for the D.C. market, and it is unclear as to when it may become
available. While in theory, this technology seems to be a great replacement to conventional
Portland cement. However, more projects need to be completed and more data will need to
be collected to determine if the performance of CNC exceeds that of conventional concrete
products.
Possible Alternatives to Carbon Negative Concrete
If the goal for D.C. is to move away from the more environmentally degrading
Portland cement there may still be another alternative. CeraTech, a company in Alexandria,
Virginia is manufacturing and distributing Carbon Neutral Cement. This is a different
product from Carbon Negative Cement. In this process fly ash is combined with their
proprietary “renewable liquid additives”, this reaction generates crystalline hydrates in the
mixture that set similarly to Portland cement with strength that meets or exceeds the
industries standards. Many customers ranging from the department of Defense, state
departments of transportation, port and turnpike authorities as well as other industrial
facilities and commercial construction companies, have used this brand of ekkomanTM
concrete. CeraTech also claims their brand of environmentally friendly cement and
17
concretes will exceed the standards for new sustainable design initiatives and policies. This
includes USGBC’s LEED V3 and V4 rating systems, the concrete PCR, the 2030 Challenge,
Executive Order’s 13514, or 13423. CeraTech has achieved the distinction by producing
products that lead the way in reducing CO2 emissions, reducing the amount of water and
other natural resources used, contribute to energy and landfill saving, and increasing the
durability and life-cycle of the product (High Strength Concrete Sustainable Concrete,
2015).
It is important to note that Fly Ash is a waste product generally produced from coal
fired power plants. This byproduct is usually removed from the plant and disposed of in a
landfill. CeraTech creates ekkomaxxTM by recycling this waste product; this reduces the
amount waste that enters landfills (High Strength Concrete Sustainable Concrete, 2015).
Opponents to this technology do not view this product or other Carbon Neutral Cements as
truly “green” products. This lack of acceptance is largely due to the continued need for coal
fired power plants for raw materials. While coal-burning technology has increased
significantly, we know that this form or energy is still a large contributor to the rise of
atmospheric CO2. The District is trying to remove coal-fired power plants from their list of
energy producers, so adopting a product that endures because of the existence of coal
plants is in direct conflict with D.C.’s mission. Having said that, the current Portland cement
used in building projects around the Metro Area is not sustainable. The EPA says that the
manufacturing process is very energy intensive, and is known to produce many harmful
pollutants during the manufacturing process including mercury, acid gasses, particulate
matter, and Portland cement also requires more water while mixing (Basic Information,
2012). In a case report available on CeraTech’s website it is stated that, “ekkomaxxTM
18
cement eliminated one ton of CO2 for every ton of Portland cement it displaces” (Case
Studies, 2015). When weighing out the costs of switching from a product that is known to
not be sustainable to one that relies heavily on the burning of coal there is no clear winner.
However, until D.C. is able to completely rely on renewables to meet energy demand it
would seem advantageous to explore Carbon Neutral Product similar to that of
ekkomaxxTM.
CeraTech provides an example of the environmental benefits of a one mile, two lane
roadway constructed with ekkomaxxTM concrete. Each lane is 12ft wide and there is also an
8ft shoulder spanning the entire roadway. The total concrete used for the project is 14,500
yds3 according to the company’s estimates. By constructing with ekkomaxxTM instead of
Portland cement the project eliminated, 4,742 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. It also
benefits from diverting 4,750 tons of fly ash waste from the landfill, and reduces water
demand by 261,000 gallons (ekkomaxxTM require 50% less mix water). This product also
preserves natural resources by preserving 78 tons of virgin mineral resources.
EkkomaxxTM combines with additives that are rapidly renewable, and also saves 4,827
barrels of crude oil (Sustainability, 2015).
Not only are there great environmental saving from using ekkomaxxTM, but there
are also material and cost saving by using green(er) concrete. In another project analysis,
constructing a typical 50,000 sqft, three-story building with CetaTech products will reduce
the total amount of concrete used by 239 yds3. It will also save 37 tons of rebar, use 556
fewer shoring units, require less column formwork by 693 sqft, take 256 fewer finishing
man hours, and add 66 sqft of floor space to the overall project. Similarly to the road way
19
mentioned above there are also saving to the environment, the project will require 4,302
fewer gallons of mix water, decrease CO2 production by 90 tons and divert 89 tons of fly
ash from landfills (Finite Element Analysis, 2015).
Conclusion
While the benefits of Carbon Negative Cement are vast, the product is still emerging.
This makes CeraTech or other Carbon Neutral Cement products a real alternative to the
dirty Portland cement, and more importantly Carbon Neutral Cement is available now.
According to the USGBC about 40% of the total solid waste in the US is generated
from construction and demolition. The Materials and Resources category in the LEED
rating system addresses this issue. The purpose of the credit category is to encourage
source reduction, reuse, recycling, and waste to energy strategies to the overall amount of
waste created. Current and previously accredited LEED projects are responsible for
redirecting more than 80 million tons of waste from landfills, and this is expected to
increase to 540 million tons by 2030. Whether looking at Carbon Negative or Carbon
Neutral Cement both of these replacements for dirty Portland cement have the LEED
strategies for MR credits deeply rooted in their creation (Building Design + Construction
Guide, 2015).
Carbon Neutral Cement has potential to be good compromise until Carbon Negative
Cement becomes available to the D.C. market. DDOE could begin supporting Carbon Neutral
Cement through policy changes and education programs for builders as a way of preparing
the market for Carbon Negative Concrete. Having said that, moving D.C. to renewable forms
or energy to meet energy demands should still be a priority. Keeping renewables a priority
20
is vital to D.C. because it would to ensure that incentives are not created to reward coal
fired power plants to continue operating. This would also limit other stakeholders from
entering the market and derailing D.C. from its current track of moving to renewable
energy. The D.C. metro area is growing rapidly and within the urban jungle, construction
will unlikely subside. It is because of this rapid expansion that attention needs be drawn to
the abundant, artificially constructed conglomerate rock that covers the majority of the
landscape.
Overall, greater support needs to be generated to move away from the out-dated,
polluting Portland cement. Preferably to Carbon Negative Cement, but Carbon Neutral
Cement is a fine alternative if Carbon negative is not available. The question DDOE has to
ask itself before offering incentives to companies to use Carbon Neutral or Negative cement
is, does D.C. want to support this technology? If DDOE encourages CNC it is supporting the
continuation of fossil plants. Does DDOE want to promote the use of coal fired power plants
on the hope that they will be used for a technology that is not currently commercially
viable? DDOE can always fund education programs for builders, making CNC a part of a
carbon credit program, or offering tax breaks to builders but are DDOE’s funds better
utilized elsewhere at this time?
21
Works Cited:
“Basic Information” EPA. December 26, 2012. Accessed March 31, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement/basic.html
“Blue Planet” Accessed February 27, 2015. http://www.blueplanet-ltd.com/
“Building Design + Construction Guide”. U.S. Green Building Council. Accessed March 20,
2015. http://www.usgbc.org/guide/bdc#mr_overview
“ Calera” Accessed February 27, 2015 http://www.calera.com/beneficial-reuse-ofco2/index.html
“Case Studies”. Ceratech. Accessed February 28, 2015.
http://www.ceratechinc.com/Content/PDFs/CeraTechUSA_Case_Studies.pdf
“Carbon Sense Solutions”. Accessed February 27, 2015
http://carboncure.com/news/carboncures-technology-recognized-for-leading-theway-in-carbon-sequestration/
“Concrete Society” Accessed March 17, 2015
http://www.concrete.org.uk/fingertips_nuggets.asp?cmd=display&id=141
“Concrete”. EDP The Green Yardstick. Accessed April 15, 2015.
http://www.environdec.com/en/PCR/Detail/?Pcr=8108#.VTugcGanGAW
“Executive Order 13423”. EPA. November 5, 2012. Accessed April 15, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/practices/eo13423.htm
“Executive Order 13514”. EPA. November 5, 21012. Accessed April 15, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/practices/eo13514.htm
“Finite Element Analysis” CeraTech. Accessed February 28, 2015.
http://www.ceratechinc.com/Products/ekkomaxx/FiniteElementAnalysis
G.Kats, Personal Communication, March 18, 2015
“High Strength Concrete Sustainable Concrete”. Accessed February 28 2015.
http://www.ceratechinc.com/Products/ekkomaxx
“Novacem” The American Ceramics Society. Published March 9, 2011 Accessed March 4,
2015 http://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/novacems-carbon-negative-cement
PCA, “American Cement Manufacturers”. Accessed February 27, 2015.
http://www.cement.org/for-concrete-books-learning/concrete-technology/durability
22
Rubenstein, Madeline. Emissions from the Cement Industry. Published May 9, 2012
Accessed March 17, 2015 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-thecement-industry/
S. MacAvy, Personal Communication, April 11, 2015
“Sustainability” CeraTech. Accessed February 28, 2015.
http://www.ceratechinc.com/Products/ekkomaxx/Sustainability
“Sustainability D.C.”. Sustainable DC Plan. Accessed March 1, 2015.
http://sustainable.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sustainable/page_content/at
tachments/DCS-008%20Report%20508.3j.pdf
T. Taylor, Personal Communication, April 2, 2015
“The 2030 Challenge”. Architecture 2030. Accessed April 15, 2015.
http://www.architecture2030.org/2030_challenge/the_2030_challenge
U.S. Cement Codes and Standards Accessed March 17, 2015
http://www.astm.org/Standards/cement-and-concrete-standards.html
23