good point and it did cross my mind. This product is still more beneficial than the old concrete block in the sense that it encourages marine biological growth, much of it from the carbon fixing type (i.e. shell making coral, mollusk and shellfish). It could still be a win in the end since the marine biology offsets some of the concrete carbon emissions.

I forgot to add that mineral accretion is good to encourage reef building but in sea-land interfaces structures (i.e. seawall) this concrete tech at least encourage marine biology... a combo of both tech would be maybe the best scenario.

@Lukian Indeed. From what I know, it's as strong as concrete, and I see no reason why the substrate electrode, which actually can be typical steel concrete reinforcement products, can't be formed in a way to result in blocks of desired shape and size, or very nearly to it. It's also supposed to remove CO2 from the water in the process (in the form of carbonate minerals).

I really have to wonder why it's use isn't more ubiquitous at this point. Then again, I'm often struck at the failure to apply known technology.

@Lukian I've also thought that the mineral accretion tech could be used to make and replace precast concrete products. I've even thought it could be formed as a non-profit, and the products sold to support the effort. But that is contingent upon whether or not it actually does take CO2 out of seawater and lock it up. I'm not sure there's any definitive study or studies proving that.

@bingst nice idea though. it removes CO2 like marine biology but it's the structural engineering part is not clear on i.e. building a seawall, etc...

@Lukian Assuming that blocks can be grown, I don't see why it wouldn't work, since it has comparable strength to concrete. Everything I've read says that mineral accretion will continue as long as current flows. I imagine that would result in a block roughly the shape needed, but would have to be cut and ground to final dimensions.

@bingst makes sense