Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Concrete Proposal

by: Tom Konrad January 13, 2008 | about stocks: CX / LR    
Tom Konrad

Tom Konrad

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

The Economist recently had a story on how the cement industry is beginning to confront the fact that the industry produces 5% of the world's emissions of greenhouse gasses. Carbon dioxide is emitted not only by the fossil fuels used to create the heat used in the creation of cement, and by the chemical reaction in that process.

Unfortunately for us, cement is a remarkably useful building material, not least as a structural material which can also serve as thermal mass in passive solar buildings.

All the large cement firms: Lafarge (LFRGY.PK), Holcim, and Cemex (CX) have joined a voluntary emission reduction initiative, the Cement Sustainability Initiative, pledging to reduce their emissions per ton of cement they produce. This is more likely to be effective with industry PR than to actually produce reductions in industry greenhouse gas emissions, even if they meet their goals of per ton emissions reductions, since production continues to grow. (All three are on track to reach their voluntary targets.)

One avenue of CO2 reductions they are pursuing is fuel substitution for their kilns, such as using agricultural waste or used tires. This can lead to opposition due to the concern about more conventional emissions.

The Economist article was titled "Concrete Proposals Needed." Here's my proposal: consider more radical fuel-switching, and build new plants in deserts with abundant direct-ray radiation. Then the heat can be provided by the sun, in the form of concentrating solar. I'd almost certainly buy a public cement firm adopting that strategy in a big way. We may need a lot of cement for levees in the not-so-distant future.

DISCLOSURE: none.

Related Articles

This article has 5 comments:

  •  
    Jan 13 06:29 AM
    Oh yes. You have revealed yourself as a true believer in the church of Globull Smarming! You have used one of the requisite words in the liturgy - "may". This is one the GS believers favorite words, along with "could", "might', "possibly" and other wussy words. I dare you "true believers" to come up with an incremental number that we can use as a guide to the truth of the tenets of your religion. For instance, instead of saying that we are going to drown a large portion of Florida, why don't you say that the water level is going to increase by 1 foot per year. That is a reasonable request. Surely you're not trying to tell us that a huge tsunami is going to build offshore all these years and then suddenly wash over Florida? Or are you afraid that your dark predictions are only contributing to the hot air surrounding this subject?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Jan 13 12:28 PM
    Only idiots would believe the BS Al "Gork" puts out. The lies that ALL scientists believe in global warming are just that, lies! I have a geology degree and do not support the theory, along with many contemporaries. Just how does "Gork" explain that 4,000,000 square miles of North America and 2,000,000 square miles of Europe were covered with an ice shield at one or more times. It is estimated that Hudson Bay had an ice cap 10,000 feet thick. How does he explain why the ice melted. Man was not around then.

    The term "green house gas" keeps coming up. Water vapor is the main "green house" gas. Is "Gork" going to stop evaporation, rain, and snow? How will our vegetation and food sources survive without water. Surely, we will starve.

    Most reasonable scientists believe that the earth's temperature fluctuates in cycles. These cycles are mainly caused by increased or decrease solar flare (sun spot) activity on the sun, and the earth's orbit around the sun.

    Man is being very conceited when he thinks he has the power to control earth's climate. Only Mother Nature has that power!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Jan 13 12:41 PM
    I dont' have data to be absolutely sure about my observation, but it is relative, anyway. The author would build cement plants in desert areas where sunshine could power the operations. If he would calculate the EXTRA cost of shipping cement to the makers of concreete blocks or poured houses or highways and the effluent such trucking would cause he might re-evaluate his miracle answer.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Jan 14 10:06 AM
    Tom,
    I'm a fan of your work, but on this one I have to agree with The Jackal: cement plants need to be either where the raw materials are, or where the cement is being used; third locations that are not near the transport line between the raw materials and the construction site introduce too much shipping-energy cost. Of course, as fossil-fuel prices increase, the definition of "near" expands...
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Jan 17 07:53 PM
    There is a plan in place. This company is one. They have basically reinvented concrete and other cement based products to do incredible things. At the same time the process emits a fraction of emissions.

    For example, they can produce lightweight panels that provide incredible levels of fire and ballistic protection. There are many other uses such as prefab housing etc.

    They will be acquired by a major or go public. Watch this space.

    gigacrete.com/
    Reply | Link to Comment
More Comments on CX ยป
Top Rated Comment Streams:

Numbers are net rating-

See all Top 100 »
More by Tom Konrad

Investment Resources
Money Management
Research
Seeking Alpha provides these ads as a service to its leading contributors
Articles on related themes
Alternative Energy
Coal
Ethanol
Exploration & Production