digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Building a Stronger, Safer, Cheaper, and Better Brick

ecogeek.org — Manufactured from fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion with a worldwide surplus production running in the hundreds of millions of tons each year, these new bricks are as strong and safe as the bricks we're all used to seeing, cost 20% less to make, and are far more environmentally friendly.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 15, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

36 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • djepik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Fly ash is already used in concrete. Its the standard, you have to pay a "non fly ash premium" if you want concrete without it.
  • axiomflash, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12this may be a great invention, i cant tell, but im not even sure its an invention. i need to correct a bunch iof things here.

    1) bricks aren't used structurally anymore. they are only ever used as a decorative facade. unless they used as pavers. then the strength doesnt matter so much anyways.
    2) if it is made using flyash, then its not a brick. its a block a concrete that looks like a brick.
    3) flyash has been in use in concrete for a longtime and is more popular lately since it reduces co2 emissions. flyash is a cement replacement, and cement is one of the greatest producers of co2 on the planet. like 20% of the earths c02 if i recall.

    so im not really sure what the point is here. sounds like a bunch of hype, and it sounds like the people at popular science don't know jack about how bricks are used or about flyash for that matter.
  • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12You are suggesting that governments should be involved in the development and manufacture of bricks? Personally, I'd like to minimize government involvement in my life and leave these things to motivated individuals.

    Also, the environmentally friendly claim is also a little dubious given that it depends on coal power plants for the fly ash.
  • guytoronto, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14"these new bricks are as strong and safe as the bricks we're all used to seeing, cost 20% less to make, and are far more environmentally friendly."

    Too bad governments are rarely interested in making something cheaper and better for the environment.
  • Lexomatic, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"1) bricks aren't used structurally anymore. they are only ever used as a decorative facade."

    Tell that to the 3 little pigs.
  • ChayD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@Pseudorius "Also, the environmentally friendly claim is also a little dubious given that it depends on coal power plants for the fly ash."

    But the power plants would be operating regardless of whether their waste products were being used might as well make some good use from them
    In addition to this, the energy saved from not heating conventional brickmaking kilns would make a difference IMHO.
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Digg Air 123, you are cleared direct to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/b987485a9f492110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
  • johnn11238, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Umm. I might be going out on a limb here, but I think the main point about this is THEY'RE MORE COST EFFECTIVE. The government doesn't need to force businesses to make things that are cheaper. They'll do it all by themselves. It's called the free market.
  • johnn11238, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well.
    Since the only appeal is the fact that they are cheaper (if you think builders will use them simply because they are environmentally friendly, then you're a chump) If the price goes up, demand will go down, and the price will stabilize. Market economics 101.
  • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm looking forward to seeing a fly-ash edition cribs.
  • reboare, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3So.....................


    If I dig a pit and line it with these bricks, did I infact make an ash-hole?
  • johnn11238, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think you'll be ok as long as you don't suck on the walls...
  • drm7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2To add on to axiomflash: A company called Headwaters has a very large flyash cement business. You can even buy stock in the company if you want (NYSE: HW).

  • krebcycle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I love that the title says they're stronger and safer, and the article says they are AS strong and safe.

    Typical Digg BS.
  • inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Fly Ash contains some nasty stuff, including Uranium and Thorium in small amounts. What happens when these two decay? Radon gasses released into the structure built from the bricks? Just a guess.

    This brick idea is better than simply dumping this stuff in a landfill. This will be a way to contain Mercury and heavy metals in Fly Ash from leaching into groundwater.
  • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@axiomflash

    Cement and subsequent products, like ready-mix concrete are a large source of man-made CO2, but nowhere near 20% of all CO2 from any source.
  • headcase, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5He gets "the black lung."
  • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you live in a clay-brick house, you already do, if those are found in soil as well.
  • johntsien, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@pseudorious

    I once worked on a project looking to use fly ash in concrete production for a construction company. I wasn't the concrete specialist but we rejected the proposal because our fly ash supplier wasn't turning out 'clean' enough ash.

    If I remember correctly, the best fly ash for use in construction comes from the cleanest burning power plants. The fly ash output from dirtier plants isn't as effective a substitute for portland cement. One could say that this represents an economic incentive for coal plants to clean up their acts in order to take advantage of the revenue stream that selling fly ash would represent. If someone can understand ASTM C618 (http://www.undeerc.org/carrc/html/ASTMC618.html) they can tell me if I'm right or wrong.

    That being said, while I think that the use of flyash in brick is a good thing, I would be curious to see how this works out and if it is taken up. This short article doesn't give us a really fleshed out story.

    Axiomflash, it is true that in the US brick is largely not used anymore. However, in many developing economies, brick is a mainstay because their lower labor rates make the manufacture and laying of brick more cost effective than reinforced concrete or even gypsum board in many applications. Lowering the cost of materials by 20% in a developing economy will be a substantial boon for these poorer economies as well.
  • baalzebub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1in my home town there is a concrete (cement) plant and a limestone quarry where the rock in mined for that cement plant, and the highest point in the county is made of flyash from the debris from making cement, i guess i can expect a new brick plant to be coming to town soon ;)
  • sremick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah seriously, how about linking your Digg post directly to the original (and better) article instead of some weblog?
  • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@chayd

    "But the power plants would be operating regardless of whether their waste products were being used might as well make some good use from them"

    Increasing the demand for fly-ash raises prices and provides an improved income stream for a "dirty" power source. I hope the bricks work-out well given the potential for cheaper prices, but let's examine all effects before slapping a green label on a product. The reduced energy for manufacturing may not negate the effects of the coal burnt for its raw ingredient.
  • saggygrandma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://duggmirror.com ?
  • ashlvsya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Father Jack: "Where's my Brick?!"
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Uh...got a point to that?
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Well, they're cheaper for now. This approval may change it from a waste product to an expensive commodity.
  • cuoops, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2This was in Popular Science...link is above
  • Anrkist, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7When you said safe.. I thought it meant I could hit people in the head with them, shame.
  • amunimanghi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Because bricks cause most of the world's pollution.
    /sarcasm
  • allaboutdatiki, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1But what happens if the big bad wolf huffs and puffs?
  • Pic0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"Fly ash like soil contains trace concentrations of the following heavy metals: nickel, vanadium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, lead, selenium and radium. Though these elements are found in extremely low concentrations, their mere presence has prompted some to sound the alarm."

    who wants to live in the arsenic shelled house?
  • fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1When something affects you, your city, your state, your country and your world, then governments should intervene. Insisting on environmentally-friendly solutions affects us all, as does the non-involvement you'd prefer.

    Is there any reason why these things shouldn't be made mandatory and the clay (or whatever?) older ones outlawed in future development?
  • datagod, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Yeah, they are better for the environment....you just have to burn 2 tons of coal to produce 1 brick....

    /kidding
  • DietMountainDew, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Amazing, Bricks huh?



  • johnn11238, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Boring yappers like you cause most of Digg's polution.
    /not sarcasm
  • TheIinLive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1boring

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.