Carbon Negative Concrete???

As Industrial Design major who’s future career will most likely consist of creating a wide variety of products, something that is a big concern for me is creating environmentally friendly products. I don’t want to just create things that will eventually just create more waste and end up in a landfill polluting our Earth. I also don’t want to help perpetuate environmentally harmful manufacturing processes like those used to make cement that release tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  So when I heard about the Calera process I was very interested and wanted to look into it more to see if this was actually an effective and sustainable method for capturing and storing carbon.

The Calera Corporation developed the Calera process to sequester CO2 from our environment in a way that is actually sustainable and effective over time. They then used this process to create a superior form of concrete that mimics the form of calcium carbonate that marine animals use to create their hard shells. The Calera process results in the production of the vaterite polymorph which is stable when stored in the absence of water. When water and other proprietary additives are added to the vaterite polymorph, a cement reaction occurs in which the vaterite transforms via a dissolution and reprecipitation reaction to form another polymorph of calcium carbonate known as aragonite. This conversion of vaterite to aragonite results in a material with high strength, just as natural systems like mother of pearl are also constructed from the aragonite polymorph of calcium carbonate.

Concrete is the most widely used man-made material in the world. Concrete is made of roughly 80% aggregate (sand and gravel), 10-15% cement, and the remainder air, water, and additives. The Calera process can permanently mineralize carbon into either fine or coarse aggregates or a supplementary cementitious material that can be used to create building materials such as concrete. The standard process for manufacturing Portland cement generates large amounts of CO2 both from the fuel used to heat the raw materials as well as from the conversion of CaCO3 to CaO, which releases CO2. Because of this, concrete made from Portland cement carries a CO2 footprint of approximately 0.8-1.5 ton CO2/ton cement, translating to roughly 537 pounds of CO2/cubic yard of concrete! Calera SCM both captures carbon from one source and avoids carbon emissions from another. Concrete made with 20% cement replacement with Calera SCM, and 20% cement replacement with fly ash would have carbon footprint of negative 1146 pounds of CO2/cubic yard of concrete. This is a carbon savings of 1683 pounds of CO2/cubic yard of concrete compared to standard concrete. “With projected U.S. Portland cement consumption at nearly 200 million metric tons by 2020, a 20% market penetration with a SCM replacement level of 50% would reduce CO2 emissions by 30 million metric tons.” Which is far more than the reduction that would be accomplished by supplementing fly ash as a replacement for some portions of Portland cement used in regular concrete mix.

The carbon capture method employed by Calera, is also unique because it has many possible inputs including: fly ash, brines, waste water, and flue gas. In capturing CO2 and other emissions from flue gas, Calera’s carbonate mineralization technology uses solid and liquid sources of alkalinity, such as fly ash, wastewaters, and brines. The outputs of the process are clean air, fresher water, and solid materials that can be used as an aggregate or supplementary cementitious material. Another concern that often comes up in the conversation of carbon capture is how efficient is it, especially since you are trying to capture and manipulate a gas in this process. In its pilot landing facility, the Calera process regularly observes Carbon capture rates greater than 50% and has even reached rates of over 90%.

 

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.