Microsoft takes concrete steps (literally) toward greener datacenter construction Microsoft is exploring ways of cutting carbon dioxide emissions from its datacenters, including using building materials that lower the overall embodied carbon in concrete. Several years ago, Microsoft set a goal of being "carbon-negative" by 2030, but this isn't easy when you keep expanding, especially since constructing new …
US Geography is not by strong point but I don't think Boulder, Colorado is near the sea. That raises the question of where the calcium in this "biogenic" limestone comes from. If it's from non-carbonate sources such as gypsum that's fine but if it's obtained by treatment of limestone that releases CO2 then it's not a gain.
"Biogenic" limestone in quotes because all limestone is biogenic.
Use of fly ash seems to be becoming increasingly popular as a cement replacement material, driven largely by the desire to cut carbon. Which is potentially a problem, since as the article notes, fly ash comes from coal combustion (it's the ash that goes up the chimney, but doesn't quite escape). Since we're not supposed to be burning coal anymore, we're not making the stuff like we used to. Still, we have a reasonably large amount 'stockpiled'.
Use of fly ash seems to be becoming increasingly popular as a cement replacement material
AFAIK both fly ash and 'slag' have long been used in making breezeblocks.. Especially I guess if you can collocate block production with a plant that produces a lot of fly & bottom ash. But now I'm curious how much paperwork might be involved in turning 'industrial waste' into useful products. I was talking to some folks about glass recycling a while back and how little of that ends up as 'recycled' glass bottles and jars. That's used in making block products, and I've also seen it used as a sand alternative for laying paving. Even though it's ending up as landfill, it avoids the landfill taxes.
Rest seems to be the usual Greenwash. Instead of taking a waste product and doing something useful with it, we're shutting down the 'waste' producers, replacing them with more expensive/less efficient alternatives and adding transport carbon costs into it in the process. Of course if we ignored the 'renewables' scumbags, we could reduced CO2 emissions by 30%+ by building modern supercritical coal power stations and keep a supply of building materials.
Also I read an interesting report from one of the US biosphere projects. It failed after CO2 levels dropped unexpectedly and plants started dieing. That was due to the concrete absorbing CO2, which lead me down a rabbit hole of learning about concrete science.
"the concrete absorbing CO2"
Quite. Calcium really does want to become the carbonate so most if not all the CO2 is absorbed in the long run - except what's released by burning the fuel to produce the energy to drive off the original CO2. This is why I get a bit sceptical about solutions that depend on using some form of calcium to absorb CO2. There's one which involved using it as a sort of middle man to absorb CO2 from chimneys, then heating it to drive it off again for sub-sea storage. But what's the overall efficiency if it depends on a fossil fuel for the heat? And if there's some sort of renewable energy for the heating why wasn't that used instead of whatever required the chimneys? You need to look at the complete system.
There is no way of escaping carbon, we live in a carbon based universe. CO2 is a natural and unavoidable component of chemistry in this reality and nothing will change or eliminate that. Carbon negative, carbon neutral....as real as unicorns. Build us some nice big Perpetual Motion Machine while your at it Microsoft!!
Sometimes the pressure to use easily digestible phrases results in such imprecision that it's just frustrating.
"Embedded carbon in concrete" sounds like someone figured out a way of making usable concrete with a substantial carbon fraction, effectively capturing and storing said carbon, preventing its release as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (such technologies are actually being developed).
What's meant in the article instead is embedded carbon dioxide emissions, i.e. those released as the concrete was made. Which is something completely different. "Embedded carbon," really?
The Japanese did some recent research with low carbon concrete and actually came up with a few mixes that were carbon negative. The fact that anywhere in Japan is close to the sea and some places in the USA aren't necessarily so might have something to do with some of this I realize. Still, this is promising research.
Now, about coming in to the office everyday....
This is all well and good, but given current geopolitics they might find actual hardware in short supply once they've finished building it.
My thinking is that given water shortages globally, I think thirsty people and farmers are probably going to get given priority over chip fabs, given that politicians tend to dislike social disruption.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
