Yes it is however the implementation would be extremely difficult I would imagine. I doubt very much it’s about pouring cement, which is why cement is used.
After that how long would it take for it to be accepted into design and engineering let alone building. I just think about solar panels that could so easily be incorporated into a project from the start but just aren’t so 10 years after constuction the owner get’s solar panels fitted for some economic reason. (I have even been told that solar panels on the roof of where I work don’t function).
Perhaps these cement cells could be incorporated into brise blocks?
What happens if someone drills a hole?
I would have loved to work on the experimental side of this type of technology, batteries and ceramics being a bit of an old ‘flame’ for me.
Floor slabs seems the obvious place to me. Firstly they can be big so the volume is there and people dont drill into the slab itself more often than not (they may into a screed over the top of it but not the slab itself.) Plus it has the benefit of being able to monitor the slab condition.
Aside from that there’s bridge decks, runways, concrete roads, retaining walls, multi storey car parks and other major structures where there’s potential. The link to condition monitoring is particularly fascinating one to me given my experience in asset management.
I find it interesting as that reinforced concrete that is infiltrated with chlorides will eventually develop an electrical potential that results in corrosion of the reinforcement. It’s aggressive too. So this is building on that aspect that actually happens already. Still a long way off but what isn’t covered in the video to any depth is what happens to the cement and components within the “battery”. This is basically an extension of electrolysis which results in the loss of the cathode with the development of the electrical potential.
Also worth noting that there are numerous structures which are currently “plugged in” with the addition of cathodic protection systems to protect the reinforcement in the concrete.
They were my 1st inclination, the major obstacle there would probably be the additional cost, then the tax payer is solicited for so much these days why not again?
yep, I see an opportunity here. In terms of design these structures are extremely lightweight when compared to bridges. They are particularly at risk from road salts as the decks are often not waterproofed and the concrete detailing has not considered this risk. As a result many car parks are often subjected to massive refurbishment schemes which may offer opportunities to put this in place. They often end up with cathodic protection systems etc.
So Shell is going to do a seismic survey off our Wild Coast, a marine protected area and one of the areas with the greatest marine biodiversity on our coasts that also boasts precious and dwindling estuarine systems that many species use for breeding and as a safe haven for juveniles. It’s going to cause a pretty stark impact in the area and imho should not be allowed to go ahead. She’ll has won one legal challenge against the survey going ahead and is facing another but is likely to win that. Everyone is up in arms about with protests arranged to happen at the major beaches and roads along our East Coast.
All great for people to stand up for that eh. Except… I’m seeing footage of all these protests and you will see alot of these people with their placards and signs denouncing Shell driving massive bakkies and SUV’s the vast majority of whom have never seen a puddle let alone a track. I do have to wonder. I have mentioned before about my vehicle and the guilt I feel in driving it despite the split between tar and dirt I do but I don’t think any of these people have quite connected the dots yet.
Shell have recently pulled out of developing the Cambo oil field so there’s still hope that pressure can be applied and they will rethink things.
I do partly get the vehicle thing. My favored vehicle is a van. Great driving position, heaps of room and I’ve converted the back etc. No biggy if I put a wet dog in the back etc. I can see that same line of thinking in people with the big SUV’s, Chelsea Tractors, Bakkies etc. They’re great but in my defense I wouldn’t want one with a monstrous engine now. In fact I’ve been toying with converting it to an electric van but the costs have killed that project for now sadly.
Hydrogen is really the only long-term workable solution, innit? That and gigantic new forests.
Reading some pieces about the significance of Glasgow, and it is somewhat striking the level of denial among activists as to the significance of what just happened to Biden’s climate agenda. For all practical purposes, the US may as well not have attended the COP. Biden’s ability to deliver on even the soft commitments made lasted less than two months.
not really a surprise. it’s all just lip service. Show up for the dinners, make few speeches and sign a piece of paper committing to change. Then back to the status quo. the party leaders will be long gone and mostly dead by the time 2050 comes around anyways.
I think the Biden administration fully intended to follow through, hence the resistance they put up to the idea of going further. But their capacity to deliver was always the real question.
and in four years when a different administration comes into fruition, it’ll change.
it’s all lip service. They recognize that change needs to happen, but they’re more concerned about keep the economy going and keeping money in their constituents’ pockets so they can get re-elected for their fat salaries and pensions when their term comes up for renewal.
oh, and Fuck Trudeau. Useless fucking post turtle.
Out of interest, has the US public woken up to the issue of climate change? I certainly know the Trumpists are in 100% denial thanks to his BS.
There have now been a couple of articles on climate change (due to the warmest New Year’s Eve and New Day just now in the UK and the Colorado wild fires) and interestingly at the bottom of each article it has this - see below (particularly the highlighted part of the quote). If humans have contributed to climate change, which is in turn leading to extreme weather phenomenon, then then aren’t these events due to humans? I agree it is not concrete and there is wiggle room but adding the highlighted bit seems a bit odd. It (almost) seems to subtly call into question the link between humans’ role in driving climate change rather than specifically say anything useful about the cause of this specific event. It feels like pandering to an agenda, to soften the message, rather than to add something.
The Met Office say the UK’s record temperatures have all been elevated by manmade climate change which has raised temperatures globally by 1.1C.
Cold records are still being broken, as in the Beast from the East storm in 2018.
But the Met Office say warm weather records are being broken nine times more frequently - a clear sign of an over-heating planet.
The winter wildfires in Colorado are arguably even more alarming than unseasonal warmth in the UK.
It’s too soon to say what role human-driven climate change may have played in the disaster - but it’s the latest episode of regular weather patterns being disrupted.
I’m fed up of the weather this winter now. It’s basically rained since the end of October. Dry days you can count on your hands. Yet again we’re battered by high winds and rain.
Utterly fed up with it.
Isn’t this simply the distinction between weather and climate?
Possibly but I’d have preferred to have phrased it differently, primarily to not include “It’s too soon to say…”. The key message should be that extreme/unusual weather patterns are more frequent in recent times.
I can see the logic of nuclear, but gas is absurd. In the context of a working carbon price system that has successfully incorporated the power sector (after considerable teething pains), designating gas as ‘green’ means that only coal isn’t. Coal is dropping out of the matrix.
I have to wonder which member states are pushing for gas?
I think that is just safe language. The extremes are almost uncertainly driven by climate instability - it isn’t even that hard to figure out in the case of the cold records, because those extreme cold events have been caused by Arctic air moving south, and in several instances have been accompanied by extremely warm air over the Arctic. But for some phenomenon, we cannot precisely prove links as easily as that.
Asserting a stronger link than can be established just makes it easier for climate deniers to reframe the argument.