
Ferrock: A Stronger, Greener Alternative to Concrete? - vezycash
https://buildabroad.org/2016/09/27/ferrock/
======
mrob
This reads like an advert. The whole "carbon-negative" thing relies on the
assumption that steel dust is a waste product, which seems highly dubious to
me. Steel is commonly recycled, including steel in very small pieces such as
machining chips. It's hard to believe that anybody producing steel dust in
quantities sufficient for use as construction material would just throw it
away. The fair comparison would include the energy needed for steel making,
which needs even higher temperatures than the "staggering 2,800 degrees
Fahrenheit" needed to make cement.

~~~
Animats
Yes. It checks all the green boxes (CO2, Native American nations, EPA, etc.)
but not the structural engineering boxes. Now if the tensile strength were 5x
greater, that would be something. An alternative to concrete with rebar would
be useful. Rebar corrosion is a huge problem and the limiting factor on the
life of modern concrete buildings.

Some way to use up recycled glass cullet has potential. There's a glut of
that.

~~~
bmer
They do mention that it is less brittle (more flexible) than concrete. This
would mean that less cracks might form, which would be very helpful in
increasing rebar lifetime.

~~~
neltnerb
My first thought when I read it's more flexible was that this would be applied
to road surfaces where crack prevention was the only way to prevent damage
from weather. I agree, though this is also clearly an ad =)

------
abalone
Without commenting on Ferrock's merits, I want to say I'm glad every time I
hear concrete/cement's CO2 impact addressed. I feel that should be a MUCH
bigger part of the conversation about any kind of construction as we look
towards very sharply curbing emissions over the next decade.

For example, "the wall". Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part
don't give a crap about the environmental impact. But even on the Left I don't
hear this cited often as a reason to oppose it (amongst many). The CO2
emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel
border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.)

Even urbanists, who generally talk a lot about denser construction as having
environmental benefits and are kind of "lefty", don't generally talk about the
counterposing cost of concrete & steel emissions. I'm not saying it doesn't
pencil out, but let's please always talk about it.

~~~
lazyjones
> _The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or
> steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.)_

This might still be worth if it prevents illegal migration of 1 million people
per year from countries with much lower CO2 emissions per capita (e.g.
Venezuela 6t/year) to the USA (16.5 tons/year).

[http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-
us-m...](http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-us-mexico-
border-wall-equivalent-to-annual-co2-emmissions-of-smaller-countries/)
estimates the carbon footprint of the „Wall“ as 48m tons - once. With my
simplistic numbers above it saves up to 10.5m additional tons per year (i.e. N
times that amount in N years). So its carbon footprint is amortized in less
than 3 years.

That said, I have no political opinion about the „Wall“ (being in Europe), I
just like analyzing both sides‘ arguments.

~~~
abalone
Specious argument.

1\. It assumes that each immigrant’s carbon footprint will suddenly leap to
typical American consumer levels. But desperately poor immigrants are likely
the lowest producers of emissions. Thus, admitting more would actually _lower_
America’s per capita carbon footprint.

2\. Addendum: This "1M/year kept from entering" hypothetical is utterly
ridiculous to begin with. Even if the wall was 100% effective -- which is
absurd given it can be climbed over with a ladder or tunneled under -- only
190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1]

[1] [https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-
cros...](https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-
border-with-mexico/)

~~~
lazyjones
In other words, according to your data/assumptions the amortization time is
just longer by a constant factor (unless you mean to claim that the wall would
be completely ineffective, which is absurd and needs more proof than „I
believe it can be climbed over using a ladder“). I don’t disagree strongly.
The point that a single, large CO2 emission „investment“ may be worth it,
still stands.

~~~
abalone
So if a wall with a “carbon footprint close to Ireland’s annual CO2 emissions”
keeps out just one more immigrant/year, your point “still stands” and it’s
just a matter of “amortization time.” Your reasoning here is about as sound as
your mischaracterization by a factor of five of the number of immigrants
crossing illegally.

------
benj111
>David Stone

Nice Aptronym there

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym)

~~~
codetrotter
Thanks, the list of people with aptronym names was fun to read and the section
about inaptronym names was even better. I read them aloud to one of my flat
mates and we had a good laugh.

~~~
dylan604
I just saw something in one of those websites with overloaded side columns
that had an article about a UK police officer named Rob Banks.

~~~
MarkSummer
That's... hi-larious. Favorite from the Wikipedia names list: Don Black -
white supremist.

------
kristianp
There are a couple of papers here that provide more details.

[http://ironkast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/USC-
Ferrock-F...](http://ironkast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/USC-Ferrock-
Final-Paper-4.24.17.pdf)

[http://ironkast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Ferrock-
basic...](http://ironkast.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Ferrock-basics.pdf)

------
zeristor
I’m not sure why the article calls CO2 C02, did they just think zeros look
better; it makes you wonder about the article.

Are typos a known issue in searches? 1, I, or l, 0 and O

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashed_zero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashed_zero)

------
JulianMorrison
Looks nice but I really wonder about its chemical properties over the longer
term, and its other unexpected behaviours (how does it react to electrical
discharge? fire? extreme cold? acid rain?).

------
AlphaWeaver
I'm curious how the patent will impact it's adoption. Was regular concrete
patented when it started to be used? Depending on how strictly he enforces it,
this could easily prevent Ferrock from becoming widespread.

~~~
jSully24
Did a quick google on patents in this area and there are MANY! And, Thomas
Edison even had concrete patents
[http://edison.rutgers.edu/cemepats.htm](http://edison.rutgers.edu/cemepats.htm)

[https://www.google.com/search?&q=concrete+patent&oq=concrete...](https://www.google.com/search?&q=concrete+patent&oq=concrete+patent)

------
arthurfm
The B1M YouTube channel recently made a video [1] covering concrete
alternatives (Ferrock, Biomason bricks) and solutions for injecting CO2 into
concrete (CarbonCure). It's really interesting.

[1] [https://youtu.be/wOE4UegzJ_M](https://youtu.be/wOE4UegzJ_M)

------
baybal2
There are a lot of other portland cement alternatives that are not exploited
despite being very cheap.

There are literally mountains of flyash laying around in Europe without
anybody wanting to use them for concrete.

------
crankylinuxuser
> While the material composition and implementation techniques have already
> been tested at the University of Arizona, IronKast is currently in the
> process of commercializing the Ferrock patent and implementing it into pilot
> projects within marine environments.

So, in other words bought and paid for by the taxpayer, and sold to the
highest bidder on the commercial market.

So much for encouraging use of this stuff. It'll be priced right out of the
market because it's "green".

~~~
Kalium
> So, in other words bought and paid for by the taxpayer, and sold to the
> highest bidder on the commercial market.

Yes. And why this has become common practice might surprise you.

Universities used to try to open technologies up to anyone who might want to
use them. Cool new thing, come use it, free to all humanity! Problem was, for
the most part nobody wanted the free thing. University outputs typically
require some non-trivial amount of investment and work to actually be
commercializable, and few companies want to invest when they can't know
they'll get a commercial advantage over the competition out of it.

Selling it on the commercial market, on the other hand, accomplishes two
things. First, it puts some money back into the university, which might allow
for more research for the taxpayer dollars (cool, right?). Second, it offers
improved chances that the patents might actually turn into real stuff now that
the owners of it have both a commercial interest and temporary exclusivity.

------
Synaesthesia
I wonder if it could be made at a reasonable cost at global scale.

------
nurettin
I wonder if this ferrock would have undesirable qualities when interacting
with radio signals and electronics.

~~~
justinclift
Accidental faraday cage? :)

------
newnewpdro
Isn't the mercury produced by cement manufacturing a more urgent issue than
its CO2 output? CO2 is being attacked on many large-scale fronts, but last I
checked the mercury in the oceans rendering seafood unsafe to eat was largely
put there by the cement industry.

------
zackmorris
The high temperature needed for industrial processes like making concrete is a
perfect fit for concentrated solar furnaces. That's because there is a
thermodynamic loss in taking heat energy to another form like electricity and
back again. That's why natural gas heating is roughly 2-4 times cheaper than
electric heating. I don't understand why every factory in the world doesn't
have one of these attached to it to save close to 100% of their fuel costs for
4-8 hours of the day:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace)

Some formulas on concentrator efficiency:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Effic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power#Efficiency)

[https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/465BBDC3-CD88-...](https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/465BBDC3-CD88-DB70-A7D010CB8BBB020B_198416/oe-18-S1-A5.pdf?da=1&id=198416&seq=0&mobile=no)

(PDF): [http://www.desware.net/sample-
chapters/d06/e6-106-05.pdf](http://www.desware.net/sample-
chapters/d06/e6-106-05.pdf)

(PDF):
[https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82769819.pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82769819.pdf)

It looks like the highest temperature achievable for a trough-shaped solar
collector is about 400 C, whereas for a parabola, it's closer to the
temperature of the sun (at least 2000 C). Note that the maximum possible
temperature achievable for any concentrator is the temperature of the source,
by the laws of thermodynamics:

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279146/what-
can-...](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/279146/what-can-we-
deduce-by-the-fact-that-mirrors-cannot-get-a-ray-hotter-than-suns-s)

I don't have time at the moment, but maybe someone could derive the maximum
temperature for a parabolic trough? I feel like it might be approximately the
square root of a parabolic dish, but I don't know for certain.

I could put together buying ferrock in large quanties (over $1 million)
because of the many bike paths and greenbelts that still need to be poured
along the river, canals and train tracks in my city. But using concrete or
asphalt is perhaps too environmentally unfriendly, and I haven't found a good
alternative (say pavers) because we still want people to be able to skate and
have a comfortable bike ride. We also have football field-sized piles of glass
bottles waiting to be recycled that would be another free input along with
solar heat.

~~~
Armisael16
What are you going to make your crucible out of that is transparent, won’t
contaminate the contents and is strong enough at high temperatures to
withstand regular use?

Also if it wasn’t available 20 years ago there’s your reason.

~~~
zackmorris
My first thought was maybe silicon carbide, since it can be made with readily
available silicon and carbon. But there are other caramics which have much
higher melting points. Who wants a little hafnium carbide at 3958 C haha:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-
temperature_ceramic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-
temperature_ceramics#Physical_properties)

I'm having trouble finding infrared conductivities:

[https://global.kyocera.com/fcworld/charact/heat/thermalcond....](https://global.kyocera.com/fcworld/charact/heat/thermalcond.html)

So looks like aluminum nitride might be best (first made in 1877 so we have
the technology!) with a melting point of 2200 C:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_nitride](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_nitride)

Portland cement (the basic ingredient of concrete) is made at 1450 C:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement#Manufacturing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_cement#Manufacturing)

And looks like any aluminum from the crucible wouldn't contaminate the
concrete. Not sure about the nitrogen, but since the air is nitrogen/oxygen,
it should be ok:

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3130/jaabe.10.217](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3130/jaabe.10.217)

But I think it's important to flip the problem on its head. Since solar
thermal energy is essentially free after the solar furnace is manufactured,
then we might as well scale it up to provide 2-10x more heat than we need, and
then choose a ceramic with the material properties we want, even if its
thermal conductivity isn't as efficient as we'd like.

Keep in mind that any heat we get from this will be roughly 4 times cheaper
than from photovoltaics (running at 25% efficiency) since we avoid the
light->electricity->heat conversions.

~~~
Armisael16
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how crucibles operate.
The outside of the crucible is not supposed to get particularly hot. Heat is
applied to the inside; the crucible contains both the material and the heat.

If you don’t do this then all the air in the room is also heated up to
ludicrous temperatures, and that tends to be bad for any other equipment or
people nearby.

------
anotheryou
but we have more sand than iron-dust, no?

~~~
timkpaine
Surprisingly we don't

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/world-
facing-g...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/world-facing-
global-sand-crisis-180964815/)

~~~
ubittibu
I heard that there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on
earth, so we could use stars instead..

~~~
zeristor
Have you tried mixing stars and water together?

~~~
MarsAscendant
I believe that's the recipe for the Philosopher's Stone, from the old books.

That's why the Middle-Age alchemists couldn't make one.

 _Now we can_.

~~~
zeristor
Perhaps that’s how the sauna was invented

------
ohiovr
Looks good. I wonder if is color fast for lack of a better word. Would it
cause stains?

5 times harder.. superlative concrete?

------
politician
(2016)

