this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
112 points (95.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43363 readers
1419 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Asphalt used on road surfaces are byproducts from fossil fuel. With the ultimate goal of eliminating the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, are there any good alternatives for road surfaces? I don't think I've ever heard of a viable replacement of asphalt in the works, or even a plan to replace it in any environmental discussions before. At least, not enough for me to notice.

Extented question would be: what are some products derived from fossil fuel that are used in everyday life, but still lack viable alternatives you don't see enough discussions about?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dgmib@lemmy.world 45 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Climate change isn’t caused by just using fossil fuels to make a product, it’s caused by burning fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gasses, (primarily carbon dioxide and methane), into the environment.

Asphalt is a problematic material, but not so much because it’s made from oil. It’s problematic because we burn fossil fuels to harvest the raw crude and to generate the energy needed to refine crude into asphalt. The carbon in the asphalt itself remains sequestered there and doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect as long as it isn’t burned later.

If we figured out how to extract crude and generate the vast amount of energy needed to manufacture asphalt without actually burning fossil fuels we’d eliminate the vast majority of asphalt’s impact on climate change.

In fact it’s been shown in a lab that it’s possible to make asphalt from CO2. It’s currently cost prohibitive to do so, but in theory asphalt could be part of the solution to climate change.

Now Asphalt does have other environmental issues, like leaching toxic chemicals into the soil and water table and the fact that it’s usually black which absorbs more the sun’s radiation than almost anything else which would reflect more of the sun’s energy back out into space. But those problems aren’t necessarily solved by using non-petroleum based bioasphault, nor are they unsolvable with bitumen based asphalt.

About 20% of a barrel of oil gets made into products like plastics or foam, that’s not what’s causing climate change. What causing climate change is the 80% that gets refined and burned for cheep energy. So it’s less “Just stop oil” and more “Just stop burning oil”

[–] Tnaeriv@sopuli.xyz 11 points 11 months ago

That's not to mention the reusability of asphalt:

Regarding the circular economy, the data from reporting countries showed that in such countries, 72% of the reclaimed asphalt available for the industry was re-used, 25% recycled and only 3% used on unknown applications or put to landfill.

Source

[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

Thank you for the very detailed answer!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Asphalt is a problematic material, but not so much because it’s made from oil. It’s problematic because we burn fossil fuels to harvest the raw crude and to generate the energy needed to refine crude into asphalt. The carbon in the asphalt itself remains sequestered there and doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect as long as it isn’t burned later.

Not to mention the lighter fractions will include things like gasoline, and once you have gasoline it's oh-so-tempting to burn it.

Honestly I doubt the emissions just from heating it in a fractionating tower are all that significant themselves, even if they're not using renewables to do it.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I do like the brick roads they often have in places like the Netherlands. Example

Not sure how they compare in environmental impact though.

[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Aren't brick roads bumpy to drive on? It may be fine to put in housing areas where cars drive slow normally, but I imagine it would be a pain in the ass (literally, lol) and dangerous to drive on on high speed roads.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Sure, you wouldn't put them on highways. But I'd like to have less of those anyway. They're decent for cycling or driving at lower speeds.

[–] strawberry@artemis.camp 5 points 11 months ago (9 children)

dunno if I'd call it decent. bumps will wear out suspension components prematurely, meaning they'll have to be replaced more often. so more metal and rubber being produced. is it enough to make brick not worth it? idk. also worth noting that asphalt is far grippier than brick. more grip = safer

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think you really overestimate the bumpiness of those kind of roads. They're not like medieval cobbleroads.

[–] runblack@reddthat.com 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

We have all kinds in my city: Medieval cobblestone, brick roads and asphalt. As a cyclist I have to tell you that I hate all kinds of brick roads that I have encountered. Even when they're not the horrible middle age version, they will often get deformed by roots or depression of the ground quite rapidly, making them even more bumpy. For this reason I think, I saw in Sweden in an otherwise bricky city center that they had a narrow asphalt lane on the side of the road for cyclists. I was just amazed that someone would spend that much thought into what's great for cyclists. As a cyclist I really love asphalt :D

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Let’s be real here. Asphalt is the result of tens of thousands of years of human decision making, all of it heavily invested in finding the best solution to each problem.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

they will often get deformed by roots or depression of the ground quite rapidly

That's true, but more of a maintenance issue IMO. Brick roads do have the advantage that workers can just take some of the bricks out, fix whatever is wrong underneath and put the same bricks back on. Can't really do that with asphalt, which will eventually deform as well.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Asphalt is almost a liquid when it’s hot. That’s a significant advantage in application.

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think you underestimate how small differences have large results when we’re talking about nationwide or population-wide issues. If there are a million cars on the road and this change makes suspensions wear 5% faster, then every X years (however long it would usually take for them to wear) there are an extra 50,000 cars needing replacements. That’s not an insignificant amount. Scale that up to larger countries that have tens or hundreds of millions of cars and the result gets even larger.

Small differences make large impacts. 1.5°C average global warming is having disastrous effects on the environment and our capacity to thrive. COVID-19 has a Case Fatality Rate of around 1% (depending on country) and it has caused nearly 7 million deaths - more than the amount of Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust and similar to the Holodomor.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Holocaust total was 12 million, of which 6 million were Jews.

[–] Instigate@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Cheers for the correction - I’ve edited my comment.

[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I actually know from watching Formula E, that in order to make their indoor/outdoor track in an exhibition center in London race viable, and would still be able to operate normally after the race, they developed a way to add grip on concrete floors without the use of asphalt.

Article link
YouTube video from Chain Bear on how they made the track

Edit: Link format

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Thisfox@sopuli.xyz 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

...No they are very smooth. I think you are thinking of cobblestones.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Cars should be banned.

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] jeroentbt@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yellow brick

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]

[–] HardlightCereal@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

What about brick?

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

What ruins the asphalt is the weight of vehicles, and in car-free places, you can see 30+ year old asphalt without potholes or cracks with only minor damage or repairs. If it weren't for the sun making the asphalt pale, you wouldn't know it isn't a recently paved street.

By reducing the number of cars in cities and towns in favour of bicycles and rail, and putting stricter restrictions on the weight of the vehicles, we can make asphalt last WAY longer.

Also, some modern asphalts are more durable than older ones, but I don't know the specifics.

[–] Rogue@feddit.uk 3 points 11 months ago

While it's not a full replacement the raw materials making up the road surface can be reduced. Here's an example where books were recycled into the road surface - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3330245.stm

[–] centof@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Modern farm fertilizers are all made with ammonia which is produced with natural gas. Apparently Yara,a Norwegian company, is trying to replace the fossil fuel with solar power. Source

Of course you could also use manure or compost as fertilizer, but only some of the few small farmers would probably be willing to since it is harder and therefore more costly.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Hmm. Well, the obvious choice would be some kind of tar. Someone mentioned that oil extraction is not as bad if you don't burn it, too. What about a plastic blend?

Extended question: One thing I think of is all the various chemical building blocks that go into synthetic things, like drugs. As I understand it, right now we pull up crude, and then repeatedly process it until we've split it into 1000s of individual component molecules. Pick a chemical, go to the "production" section of the Wikipedia, click on a component and repeat; you'll probably find one.

There's approaches to making individual building blocks green ways, but I don't think there's a fallback for cases where a specific commodity chemical has no alternative. What we really need is a way to make a similar blend of things from pyrolysis of biomass. I assume somebody is working on it.

[–] Rouxibeau@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Roads wear. Plastic dust getting spread everywhere is probably a bad thing.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's true, but AFAIK asphalt roads don't tend to produce a fine dust (rather, the tires and mufflers do), so there should be some kind of plastic resin that would wear a similar way.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then we’ve got big chunks of plastic everywhere.

Trouble is that kind of gradual wear pretty much guarantees the material is coming off in tiny chunks that are basically dust.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hmm. Usually when I see roads break, it's more of a disintegration into chunks situation. I really though I watched a video where they vacuumed up dust from alongside a road.

If microplastics are going to be made, that is kind of an issue. Maybe it's still worth it, or maybe we have to pick an alternative. I guess worst case we could just go to all gravel roads, and it would be slow but you would get there.

[–] Rouxibeau@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a great solution actually, you should de-emphasize cars and put in more trains and infrastructure for local individualized personal vehicles like bikes, ebikes, electric scooters, and even pedestrians.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aren't bike paths usually asphalt too? They definitely are where I live.

Rail would work I guess, and mass transit is better than personal cars for any number of reasons, but we'd have to put in a lot of rail and abandon all the significant road infrastructure built up. I've mostly stanned buses in the past for that reason.

[–] Rouxibeau@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

They can be anything, even asphalt. Concrete, gravel, dirt.

Bikes won't wear asphalt or anything else as fast as a high speed multi ton vehicle will though.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (7 children)

If we eliminate the use of fossil fuel to combat climate change, our agricultural output will drop enormously and a significant fraction of humanity will starve to death.

I think if you‘re driven to find non-fossil road pavement strategies, you should refocus your efforts on finding non-fossil sources of nitrogen for fertilizer.

Food is way more fundamental than roads, and it’s far more heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

[–] falkerie71@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Well this thread is a discussion on alternatives and what you think are not talked about enough, so thanks for informing about fertilizers. I certainly didn't know that they were also reliant on fossil fuel.

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 3 points 11 months ago

Your logic doesn't make sense. Reducing the use of fossil fuels in other things leaves more for use of growing food.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›