Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cambridge Scientists may have discovered a carbon neutral way to recycle concrete

Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.

So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a60780331/dyson-sphere-evidence-alien-civilizations/

Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cambridge Scientists may have discovered a carbon neutral way to recycle concrete

Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.

So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.

I saw that earlier and it’s a pretty big deal; not just because it’s a big two for one (concrete recycled would be a big deal, but using waste heat is *chef’s kiss*), but also sounds like something you can just do, with minimal changes in equipment or process for the steel production. A+, would recommend.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a60780331/dyson-sphere-evidence-alien-civilizations/

Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.

Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...

But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a60780331/dyson-sphere-evidence-alien-civilizations/

Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.

Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...

But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.

You don't have to be an edgy know it all here, friend. The article is right there to read.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Cambridge Scientists may have discovered a carbon neutral way to recycle concrete

Another very exciting possible advance, as it’s done by using the recycling of steel too, in a way that allows for solar and wind power to generate the electricity.

So not an overnight fix like, but a pretty promising thing all the same.

I saw that earlier and it’s a pretty big deal; not just because it’s a big two for one (concrete recycled would be a big deal, but using waste heat is *chef’s kiss*), but also sounds like something you can just do, with minimal changes in equipment or process for the steel production. A+, would recommend.

Yup. Sure, for the carbon neutral approach you’d need an electric kiln and the worky gubbins to power it. But as I understand it, that’s such a promising technology in itself widespread adoption is already expected. If you can now twofer your recycling without doubling your investment (as I imagine there must be some additional cost)? That’s got to appeal as an investment. Spesh as demand for steel and concrete are hardly going to reduce.

Plus, interestingly, those in the business of demolition may stand to make higher profits if the concrete of a demolished building will then carry value in itself.

Only drawback I can see, and I can’t see the article touches on, is what’s the ratio of steel to slag necessary for recycling?

It’s tucked away at the bottom of the article:

“The Cambridge team estimate, given current rates of steel recycling, their low carbon cement could produce as much as a quarter of UK demand.”

However, if it’s a much greener way of producing concrete, and allows you to recycle rubble rather than use raw material, I do wonder if there would be a case for just doing it this way, independent of steel production. Just use a small amount of steel as a flux.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a60780331/dyson-sphere-evidence-alien-civilizations/

Between two studies of star IR emissions, we got 60 candidates for alien Dyson swarms.

Be very skeptical with claims like that in media. 99% of the time that's sensationalism.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that basically these two studies found stars whose light output is periodically reduced.
They don't know the cause (yet). Could be - probably is - an exceptionally dense asteroid/meteor/Oort cloud orbiting, a gas cloud, or some other natural phenomenon, but with no proof positive of what it actually is they can't rule out "Aliens!! Zomg!!" (yet). So the reporter goes "Aliens!!Zomg!!"...

But in astronomy, the answer is never "aliens". At least so far.

You don't have to be an edgy know it all here, friend. The article is right there to read.

Edgy? How so? And know-it-all? I was right.

Though to the author's credit, they did mention at the bottom of the article that natural explanations have to be ruled out first. But the title was, in fact, Zomg!!Aliens!!, albeit in slightly fancier words.

Bran Dawri wrote:

Edgy? How so? And know-it-all? I was right.

Nnno. You postulated:

- the article is sensationalist, which it isn't
- an incorrect assumption on what the studies found
- a couple of explanations that had already been ruled out by the studies (in fact the whole point of the studies was to rule out the easiest natural explanations)

So just arrogant cynicism for the sake of arrogant cynicism, based on a headline

Now now. You know that the vast majority of people only read headlines and skim articles, so him calling out the click-baity headline is still completely justified.

Its an example of terrible "technically correct" journalism that still spreads sensationalism and misinformation while having enough plausible deniability if you actually read the entire thing. But as above, most people do not read the entire thing and the author knows that and is taking advantage of it.

You say "Well, the study could mean X..." allow the reader's mind to run wild and then leave the article. Then later on in the boring part at the bottom you say "So X is almost certainly not the answer, its more likely boring old Y" but at this point the average Twitter Twit has long left the article.

Yeah. Whilst the universe almost certainly contains or contained extraterrestrial life somewhere else, constellations of dyson spheres is pretty damn low on the likelihood scale.

I also wasn't wrong on any of those points. The stars have a variable light output - which means it dims from time to time - which is what I said...

I said "we don't know why yet". Also correct. I then threw in a couple of possible explanations off the top of my head and specifically mentioned "currently unknown natural phenomenon". That some of those explanations had already been ruled out doesn't invalidate the rest, or the point in general.

And no, it wasn't cynicism. Sadness, more than anything else. There are so many genuinely fantastic, beautiful, fascinating, and weird things out there, this oversomplified sensationalism cheapens both that and the effort and accomplishments of the scientists.