19 Comments

Old data. Green cement is cement that is sufficiently high mpa so you can use up to 20% less for the same concrete strength. This can be achieved using engineered sand - which is the right shape to maximise concrete binding. Engineered sand is manufactured using ‘junk’ quarry residue, instead of dredging the ocean and wrecking ecosystems. So it is double beneficial. Japan is a high user of this technology; having banned sea dredging. See also Kayasand.com

Expand full comment

It is hard to predict the impact of technology development and expansion on costs.

A search for "green cement" will lead to a link of a company that is based on cement technology used by the Romans known as Pozzelanic cement, https://greencement.com. Pozzelanic cement was replaced 200 years ago because of the invention of Portland Cement which cured faster. This company has reengineered Pozzelanic cement to make it cure faster. The big advantage is that there is no heat required in the manufacturing process. According to this recent, detailed article in Forbes it sounds very promising and competitive, https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkobayashisolomon/2023/11/13/eco-materials-sustainable-green-cement-is-transforming-construction/ . They are even it using to 3-D print houses in Austin, Texas.

I think we are in the early days of the green cement transformation.

Expand full comment

Tackling small bananas with the consumer again forced to pay for this “transition”. I’m all for a healthier, cleaner environment just not for the individual citizen (wherever you are) paying increased costs (1% or 10% or more) when whole industries will and do pollute more, skirt laws and pay minimal fines. What’s the environmental impact of turning these commodities green? Better? By how much? It’s just people profiting off of “climate crisis” narratives.

Only a 1% increase? Find me a car for $25k or a house at 250k. I know these are “only examples” but come on. Whataboutism incoming. What’s the impact on shipbuilding, skyscrapers, containers, heavy machinery. Picking industries that fit a narrative is simple. There’s very little steel in your typical house unless mandated by regional/local building codes; rebar, nails, screws, fasteners, etc. Same for cars as manufacturers started transitioning to aluminum, composites a while back to meet EPA requirements. Concrete. Unless a block house or poured walls/fallout shelter then we’re talking about a foundation, the house’s footprint, sidewalks and driveway.

The suggested differences in cost seem fairly “cheap” and worthwhile except the non-million/billion-aire is already paying more for less, being charged for higher “input” costs as business (many) rake in record profits.

I’m NOT for government intervention at every corner of life but there are so many crooked, greedy, anti-competitive, monopolistic-like entities we are forced to use due to limited or no competition — creating a list would be easy — and they create artificial demand shocks, increase prices; everything comes out of my pocket for a healthier climate while they continue their non-innovative, polluting, environment-destroying practices.

Anyone suggesting a price increase for anything TODAY or tomorrow is absolutely out of touch with reality. Same for sanctions. The entire backbone of this country is corrupt and greed fueled.

Expand full comment

250K will be the build cost of a pretty decent house. You just need to find some free land.

$25K is about the price of the new Citroen EC-3.

Expand full comment

Hi Hanna, your numbers are useful and mostly correct, but they are often based on average, Western numbers. For the developing world and the poor, the cost of a car is much lower, and also a home, and the impact of more expensive inputs would be far greater. A typical home in India uses RCC construction (reinforced concrete cement), and so premium green cement would be a measurably larger hit. It would still be modest compared the cost of a house. BUT the overall "few percent" is misleading. If we simply take 40 Gt of global emissions and apply a $100/tonne-CO2 price on it, that's $4 trillion, or about 4% of world GDP. Measurable, but theoretically "affordable" - ON AVERAGE. That's not how decisions are made, and not how people react to options. And the impact on the poor would be far worse.

Expand full comment

Who's building a house for $250k??

Expand full comment

Great perspectives!

Expand full comment

Price the externalities, what's the cost to the environment of not doing it? What's the health savings? The increased productivity of a healthier population? What was the GDP hit of lead paint in the USA?

That's been our problem since the industrial revolution and what we are now trying to correct

Expand full comment

Thanks Hana. Numbers provide some context even if only general. Likely, even more impact would be had using 'green' cement in highway construction and other infrastructure (water/sewer systems) including high rise buildings and parkades in cities.

Expand full comment

Thanks for surfacing more data, Hannah. Always helpful. But you are raising a deeper point here. Choice happens at the margin, not based on averages. As we decarbonize, the remaining emissions sources get more expensive to clean up. And the marginal benefit declines, too. (Avoiding 1 degree of global warming is at least ten times more valuable than avoiding a 0.1 degree rise.) Also, as fossil fuel use declines, its marginal cost falls. The Saudis can lift oil at $10/barrel. That's probably cheaper energy than solar electricity. Net zero won't make economic sense without tough regulations.

Expand full comment

In the US, steel prices jumped by that much after one round of tariffs a few years ago.

Expand full comment

Just one question. You said you picked 75% premium for cement and 25% for steel, but you didn't really explain why. I'd say the values you picked are quite low, taking into account that your sources say premium for cement is between 40% and 120% and for steel bewteen 16% and more than 40%. I know that even taking the higher values would just increase the premium by 1-2%, but even so it'd good for understanding better your thoughts.

Another different issue would be logistics. I don't know if the sources you shared took into account increased cost of logistics for low carbon steel and cement, which would probably hit them for first years until they escale enough.

Expand full comment

It seems there are 2 approaches to green Steel:

1. Use hydrogen to reduce FeO.

2. Use electricity for electrolysis.

In theory (2) could be cheap. Perhaps even cheaper than current steel production. Especially if the capital cost is low enough that it can run on solar power, when available.

Conventional concrete is perhaps more difficult, as it involves using heat (energy from burning gas) to turn Calcium Carbonate into Calcium Oxide and Carbon Dioxide. The heat can be from solar PV produced electricity, but that still leaves the CO2 for sequestration.

Expand full comment

You are thinking in terms of prices, but you shall also think in terms of quantities. These are energy intensive sectors, you have to replace cheap with expensive energy and perhaps it will not be so important for the final price of those goods, but it will impact the general price of energy.

The right question is: how much capital Shall be replaced or newly installed? That will has to be payed one way or another.

Expand full comment

Brilliant analysis to take the price economics all the way through to the customer experience

Expand full comment

A truly enlightening perspective! Thank you for sharing.

Expand full comment

Great article/newsletter. Thank you!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 11
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Sorry, what does this cut and paste have to do with Green Cement or Green Steel?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Jun 12
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

And without the sun it wouldn't be s topic either.

Expand full comment