Scientists replaced 40 percent of cement with rice husk cinder, limestone crushing waste, and silica sand, giving concrete a rubber-like quality, six to nine times more crack-resistant than regular concrete. It self-seals, replaces cement with plentiful waste products, and should be cheaper to use.

[u/mvea]

https://newatlas.com/materials/rubbery-crack-resistant-cement/

[u/danielravennest]

Correct. Concrete is the single most used solid product on Earth, and about 1/6 of the mass is cement. Burning rock to make cement is done at very high temperatures, and usually by burning fossil fuels.

In theory, a solar furnace could be used, but nobody has developed an economical way to do it yet. Tests have been run with small amounts in solar furnaces, so we know it works, but not on an industrial scale.

[u/uslashuname → u/[deleted]]

It captures 43% of the CO2 created during conversion per https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161121130957.htm

[u/Hadrius → u/uslashuname]

Being entirely uninformed on this topic: if the new formulation from the article above were used, would we expect the capture rate be about the same, and the CO2 released in creation to be reduced? Does this improve net CO2 rates in any way?

[u/uslashuname → u/Hadrius]

The formula above changed very little in terms of net greenhouse gas creation because most of that is from the cement portion while OP mostly changed the concrete filler portions of the mix, and because the OP mix is self sealing concrete it may breathe less which I expect would reduce greenhouse gas absorption or at least slow it.

In other words my bet is it increases either net CO2 released or time to minimum net CO2, possibly both. This may, however, be offset by lasting longer before requiring replacement and/or when used in cases where traditional concrete would need sealer/additives that could cause the same issues.

Edit: clarity

[u/Hadrius → u/uslashuname]

Good to know! Thank you for the response!