Blog Post #2 (Annotated Summary)

Bibliography

He, Z., Asutosh, A., & Hu, W. (27 November, 2018). Implementing Vertical Farming at University Scale to Promote Sustainable Communities: A Feasibility Analysis. Sustainability, 10(12), p. 4429. doi:10.3390/su10124429

This article focuses on the analysis of the feasibility of vertical farming application at university scale to promote sustainable communities. It rationalises the needs for vertical farming due to urbanisation, reduction in cultivable land, food security, climate change, energy crisis, water and supply chain logistics. It also provides background knowledge on the various types of vertical farming such as aquaponics, hydroponics and aeroponics, as well as the advantages. The authors made several case studies from various countries’ existing vertical farms. The feasibility is broken down through the breakeven based on their calculated space area allocation for the analysis as well as their surveyed top crops based on Huazhong University of Science and Technology’s demand. The benefits of implementation in the university are also discussed.

(150 words)

Summary_reader response Draft #3

In the article "What Happened to Green Concrete?", Majcher (2015) stated despite the existence of green concrete and its benefits, the application was uncommon as it failed to garner industry’s support. The technology also did not advance over the years. She mentioned that Novacem, the forefront of green cement in 2010, ended in 2012 due to poor investment for its green concrete technology. Calera another company, changed its focus to commercialise its green concrete technology with fibre to make boards for toilet usage, a more lucrative process.

Majcher cited that CarbonCure, on the other hand, sold green cement that had been utilised by approximately 20 projects in the 2 years since it had started. The technology only helped decrease carbon footprint by 5% but more if the carbon was self-captured by the plant. The production could not be in-situ at the project site but was still under development. She also reported that Solidia Technologies' green concrete was stronger and crack resistant but had not advanced since 2008 even with supports from big companies like Lafarge. 

Majcher wrote how Nanoengineering and fly ash inclusion could help to reduce "material environmental footprint". In 2014, MIT's Concrete Sustainability Hub published that nanoengineered concrete could resist fracturing better and reduce cement usage. Meanwhile, CeraTech found that replacing Portland cement with 95% fly ash not only reduced carbon emission (since it cured under chemical reaction) and water by half but landfill usage too.

While Majcher listed the development of various companies’ technologies and their means of carbon emission reduction, she failed to elaborate on what are the underlying factors that hindered the industry players from utilising the technologies.

One factor that prevents utilisation is the effective cost of green concrete. Majcher reported on green concretes’ environmental benefits but failed to mention that technically the effective cost is lesser than concrete. In the article by Williams (2018), he quoted Shahsavari, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and of materials science and nanoengineering, that "environmental benefits" are neutralised with the requirement for costly "sodium-based activators" for substituting Portland cement with fly ash. An article by Baggaley (2018), quoted Dr Franz-Josef Ulm, faculty director of the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT, where he had reservation for graphene (a nano-engineered material) due to its cost citing ‘it was more of a "concept material"'. These explain the industry’s hesitance in utilising costlier green concrete, as cost-effectiveness is crucial in sustaining a business.

The broad application of green concrete would also be dependent on the technical benefits. Majcher listed down how some of the technologies resulted in durability, fracture resistance and strengthening. However, she neglected other compromised concrete factors like creep, shrinkage and flexural strength. Based on the journal by Chhipa, Jain and Ram (2018), it mentioned that green concrete has decreased flexure strength and high creep and shrinkage. These suggest the limitation of green concrete application as it is not flexible for usage like earthquakes prone areas. High deformations resulted from the creep and shrinkage suggested restriction of application to less intensive load situation. The limited technical benefits of green concrete lead to restricted application results in the favour of concrete.

Another factor that prevents utilisation is the lack of knowledge on the plausible negative effects green concrete brings. In Majcher’s article, nanoengineered green concrete was reported to reduce cement usage without compromising strength. However, according to Baggaley (2018), she quoted Dr Rackel San Nicolas, “a civil engineer at the University of Melbourne in Australia and an expert on advanced construction materials”, research is still on to rule if there are “any health or environmental risks” result from the tiny graphene particles. The requirement of more assessment on green concrete’s adversity explains the uncommon application of green concrete technologies.

In conclusion, Majcher should also include the underlying reasons why the industry was not pushing for the use of green concrete, allowing readers to gain insights based on perspectives from both consumers and suppliers of green concrete.

References

Baggaley, K. (3 May, 2018). 'Green' concrete could be game-changer for construction industry. Retrieved 1 February, 2019, from MACH: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/new-green-concrete-could-be-game-changer-construction-industry-ncna870371

Chhipa, N., Divyank, J., & Jeeya, R. (2018). A Review Paper on Green Concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research, 7(Special 4), 563-565. Retrieved from http://ijer.in/publication/v7/173.pdf

Majcher, K. (19 March, 2015). What Happened to Green Concrete? Retrieved 24 January, 2018, from MIT Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535646/what-happened-to-green-concrete/

Williams, M. (18 June, 2018). Cementless fly ash binder makes concrete ‘green’. Retrieved 1 February, 2019, from Rice University News & Media: http://news.rice.edu/2018/06/18/cementless-fly-ash-binder-makes-concrete-green-2/


*edited on 6th April 2019

Summary_reader response Draft #2

In the article "What Happened to Green Concrete?", Majcher (2015) stated that albeit the existence of green concrete and its benefits, the application was not common as it failed to garner support from the industry. The technology also did not advance over the years. She cited Novacem, the forefront of green cement in 2010, winded up in 2012 due to poor investment for its green concrete technology. While Calera another company, changed its focus to commercialise its green concrete technology with fibre to make boards for toilet usage; a more lucrative process.

Majcher mentioned that CarbonCure, on the other hand, sells green cement that had been utilised by approximately 20 projects in the 2 years since it had started. The technology only helped decrease carbon footprint by 5% but more if the carbon used was captured by the plant itself. The production cannot be in situ at the project site but was still under development. Solidia Technologies' green concrete is stronger and crack resistance but had not advanced since 2008 even with supports from big companies like Lafarge. 

She also mentioned how Nanoengineering and inclusion of fly ash also can help to reduce "material environmental footprint". MIT's Concrete Sustainability Hub published in 2014 that nanoengineered concrete can resist fracturing better and cement usage is reduced. Meanwhile, CeraTech found that replacing Portland cement with 95% fly ash not only reduced carbon emission (since it cures under chemical reaction) and water by half, landfill usage can be reduced.

While Majcher listed how the various companies developed their technologies and the benefits they brought in reducing carbon emission, she failed to elaborate on what are the underlying factors that hindered the industry players from utilising the technologies.

CeraTech’s technology may have its environmental benefits, but technically the effective cost is lesser in comparison to cement. In the article "Cementless fly ash binder makes concrete ‘green’”, Williams (2018) quoted Shahsavari, "an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and of materials science and nanoengineering", that "environmental benefits" are neutralised with the requirement for costly "sodium-based activators" for substituting Portland cement with fly ash. This may further explain the hindrance for the construction industry to utilise green concrete, as like all sectors cost-effectiveness is crucial in sustaining the business.

The successful application of green concrete in the industry will also be dependent on the technical benefits it brings about. Majcher listed down some of the technologies can help with strengthening, longer lasting and fracture resistance. However, she neglected other compromised factors like creep, shrinkage and flexural strength. Based on the journal “A Review Paper on Green Concrete” by Nikhil, Divyank and Jeeya (2018), it mentioned that green concretes’ “shrinkage and creep are high” while flexural strength decreases. These suggest the application for green concrete is limited as it is not flexible for usage like earthquakes prone areas. High deformations will also be resulted due to the creep and shrinkage, meaning the application is restricted to less intensive load situation. This is one of the reasons why the industry is hesitant to utilise the technologies.

In Majcher’s article, nanoengineered green concrete was reported to reduce cement usage. However, in the article "'Green' concrete could be game-changer for the construction industry" by Baggaley (2018), she quoted Dr Franz-Josef Ulm, "faculty director of the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT", where he had reservation for graphene (a nano-engineered material) due to its cost citing ‘it was more of a "concept material"'. Meanwhile, Dr Rackel San Nicolas, “a civil engineer at the University of Melbourne in Australia and an expert on advanced construction materials”, research is still on to rule if there are “any health or environmental risks” resulted from the tiny graphene particles. These explained the reasons more effectively why the industry is more resistant to switching to green concrete technologies.

In conclusion, factors like cost-effectiveness, technical lapse and potential health or environment risks hampered the utilisation of green concrete by the construction industry as opposed to Majcher's citation of the benefits the green concrete bring.  

References

Baggaley, K. (3 May, 2018). 'Green' concrete could be game-changer for construction industry. Retrieved 1 February, 2019, from https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/new-green-concrete-could-be-game-changer-construction-industry-ncna870371

Nikhi, C., Divyank, J., & Jeeya, R. (2018). A Review Paper on Green Concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research, 7(Special 4), 563-565. Retrieved from http://ijer.in/publication/v7/173.pdf

Williams, M. (18 June, 2018). Cementless fly ash binder makes concrete ‘green’. Retrieved 1 February, 2019, from http://news.rice.edu/2018/06/18/cementless-fly-ash-binder-makes-concrete-green-2/

Summary_reader response Draft #1

In the article "What Happened to Green Concrete?", Majcher (2015) stated that albeit the existence of green concrete and its benefits, the application was not common as it failed to garner support from the industry. The technology also did not advance over the years. Novacem, forefront of green cement in 2010, winded up in 2012 due to poor investment for its green concrete technology. While Calera another company, changed its focus to commercialise its green concrete technology with fibre to make boards for toilet usage; a more lucrative process.

Majcher cited that CarbonCure on the other hand, sells green cement that had been utilised by approximately 20 projects in the 2 years since it had started. The technology only helped decrease carbon footprint by 5% but more if the carbon used was captured by the plant itself. The production cannot be in situ at project site but was still under development. Solidia Technologies’ green concrete is stronger and crack resistance but had not advance since 2008 even with supports from big companies like Lafarge. 

She also mentioned how Nanoengineering and inclusion of fly ash also can help to reduce "material environmental footprint". MIT’s Concrete Sustainability Hub published in 2014 that nanoengineered concrete can resist fracturing better and cement usage is reduced. Meanwhile CeraTech found that replacing portland cement with 95% fly ash not only reduced carbon emission (since it cures under chemical reaction) and water by half, landfill usage can be reduced.

While Majcher listed how the various companies develop their technologies and the benefits they brought in reducing carbon emission, she failed to elaborate what are the underlying factors that hindered the industry players from utilising the technologies.

CeraTech’s technology may has its environmental benefits, but technically the effective cost is lesser in comparison to that of cement. In the article “Cementless fly ash binder makes concrete ‘green’”, Williams (2018) quoted Shahsavari, “an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and of materials science and nanoengineering”, that “environmental benefits” are neutralised with the requirement for costly “sodium-based activators” for substituting Portland cement with fly ash. This may further explain the hindrance for the construction industry to utilise green concrete, as like all sectors where cost effectiveness is crucial to sustain the business.

The success application of green concrete in the industry will also be dependent on the technical benefits it brings about. Majcher listed down some of the technologies can help with strengthening, longer lasting and fracture resistance. However, she neglected other factors like creep, shrinkage and flexural strength are compromised. Based on the journal “A Review Paper on Green Concrete” by Nikhil, Divyank & Jeeya (2018), it mentioned that “shrinkage and creep are high” while flexural strength decrease. These implicate the application for green concrete is limited as it is not flexible for usage like earthquakes prone areas as well as high deformations will be resulted due to the creep and shrinkage, which means application is restricted to less intensive load situation. This is one of the reasons why the industry is hesitant to utilise the technologies.

In Majcher’s article, nanoengineered green concrete was reported to reduce cement usage. However, in the article “'Green' concrete could be game-changer for construction industry” by Baggaley (2018), she quoted Dr. Franz-Josef Ulm, “faculty director of the Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT”, where he had reservation for graphene (a nanoengineered material) due to its cost citing ‘it was more of a “concept material”’. Meanwhile, Dr. Rackel San Nicolas, “a civil engineer at the University of Melbourne in Australia and an expert on advanced construction materials”, research is still on to rule if there are “any health or environmental risks” resulted from the tiny graphene particles. These explained the reasons more effectively why the industry is more resistant to switching to green concrete technologies.

References 

http://news.rice.edu/2018/06/18/cementless-fly-ash-binder-makes-concrete-green-2/ Williams (2018) accessed: 1 Feb. 19

http://ijer.in/publication/v7/173.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/new-green-concrete-could-be-game-changer-construction-industry-ncna870371