A Big Change for Concrete Comes in Small Packages, page-30

I don't know Rules. EDE's patent states 2 forms of Carbon nanoparticles so if they used one, I guess that would get around it. EDE spent yrs getting the formulation, ratios and dispersion right. Then some more time getting the shelf life stabilised to general industry standards.

I'm actually happy to have other (maybe, in the future) competitors in the CNT admixture arena. The plethora of scientific research into CNT's value in concrete is because of the amazing results that can be achieved over a range of attributes. The problems have been acquiring the CNT's at an economical price point and the dispersion problem. Plus the yrs in the field proving itself once at the commercialisation stage of course. Anyone following is at least a decade behind but the more that are trying is the kind of proof of concept that will only benefit EdenCrete's rollout.

And Rolling, WTH? It is absolutely disgusting how you FUDsters just sprout any old lie you can think of then state it as fact.

This is their process;

"NANOTUBE MANUFACTURING PROCESS
CHASM’s proprietary nanotube manufacturing platform is believed to be the most scalable, affordable and
sustainable method known for mass production of CNTs. This platform uses a rotary kiln reactor, which can
be scaled with high capital efficiency. Production is low-cost and sustainable due to economies of scale and
efficient use of materials, including recycling of hydrocarbon feed gas and using hydrogen byproducts as fuel
to heat the reactor.
"
They use methane and where their reactor rotates, EDE's utilises a moving bed to get around the fouling of the catalyst problem.

So once again, EDE's technology is where others are following as the most efficient schematic.

As to green, the devil is in the detail that if you cared to look at the reality of the situation not just FUD on in your little determinedly negative bubble.

The hydrogen is considered turquoise, the carbon is considered captured and neutral. Use that neutral carbon to replace 50% of the cement content of a slab with flyash and you're in carbon negative territory. Make the slab a bit thinner because of the attributes conferred by EdenCrete allow engineers to design more sustainably and any nonsense you are about to sprout about electricity or whatever your new "waste" fixation is about is more than nullified.

As to your "ESG score" red herring;

"We should try to regulate ESG ratings to try to get much more commonality because they’re very important—they’re being used a lot—but there’s also so much confusion. And we’ve seen that debate, where certain oil and gas stocks are in a rating, and certain stocks like Tesla are out. Not saying one is right or wrong, but the methodology is being confused...

Demand for sustainable investing options—from the largest asset owners to the smallest retail investors—means that the financial sector uses ESG ratings voraciously. This has a cost, with a recent ERM research study finding that 33 institutional investors spent an average of $487,000 per year on external ESG ratings, data, and consultants. Those higher operating costs generally get passed on to sustainable investment product customers in the form of higher management fees, which may impact investor returns rather than the bottom lines of asset managers."

https://www.sustainability.com/thin...s a cost, with,ratings, data, and consultants.

Anyone else can clearly see "less cement/concrete, is good".