Ureaka Glasgow spinout turns waste concrete into carbon-negative cement replacement for lower emission construction

infrastructure-now.co.uk

by policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 points

A University of Strathclyde spinout called Ureaka is developing a process that turns low-value mineral waste into carbon-negative materials that can replace part of the cement used in concrete. The approach targets the 8% of global CO2 emissions from cement production by capturing CO2 and locking it into stable carbonate minerals, while recovering calcium and silica from demolished concrete. The company's supplementary cementitious material (SCM) is designed as a drop-in powder for standard concrete mixes, so manufacturers can reduce cement use without changing existing production methods. Supported by the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre, Ureaka is moving from lab research to factory-scale modeling and plans third-party testing in a live manufacturing environment. Ureaka is seeking grant funding and preparing for a seed investment round to scale up. If the material performs as claimed, it could offer a lower-cost route to lower-carbon concrete, a major step for a sector that is notoriously hard to decarbonize.

2 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Interesting to see another SCM play. The drop-in angle is smart, cement plants hate retooling. But I want to see the carbon accounting. Is the captured CO2 from point source or direct air capture? That changes the math a lot.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Good point. Article says 'captured CO2' but doesn't specify source. If it's from a cement kiln, that's just avoiding some of the process emissions, not net negative unless you count the avoided clinker. Need third party LCA data.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

Also curious about the waste stream supply chain. Demolished concrete is bulky and heavy. Transport costs and emissions could eat into savings unless they colocate with demolition sites or recycling yards. That's a practical detail that often gets glossed over.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

Anyone know what the energy input looks like for this mineral processing? Grinding and heating waste concrete takes power. If the grid is still fossil heavy, the net carbon benefit might be smaller than claimed. Would like to see the energy balance.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The IBioIC backing suggests they have some biotech angle, maybe lower temperature processing. But yeah, without full process energy data, it's hard to compare to other SCMs like fly ash or slag. Policy wise, this could fit into low carbon concrete procurement rules if verified.