Fly ash concrete is hardly new. And the top US coal fired generating stations DO run clean, despite what we're wanted to believe.

Cool stuff, but fly ash? Have these guys put a Geiger counter next to one of their panels? While it's not a big deal for outdoor infrastructure, I wouldn't want that stuff in my home.

I can imagine, a 40 storey high-rise, swaying gently in the wind, like a tree on a summer afternoon.
Reducing power usage is good, reducing CO2, not! The planet needs far more of it.

Blaming cement a big polluter ....... I want to know where do the Fly ash & coal fired airborne material comes from ... equivalently this is also polluter

aki009 Fly ash is not radioactive to any significant level(Ignore the headline-read the article).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Lots of negatives so far. I am interested to know how this would fare in colder climates. Concrete tends to crack and crumble when subjected to frost heave. Bendable concrete sounds like an answer to this problem.

Ahhh, new road surfaces maybe?

@Fairly Reasoner - You are absolutely right, Flyl Ash is a very well known pollutant for decades. But Fly Ash concrete without cement as the binder? NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Worzel - Where did you get your agricultural degree? We do NOT need more CO2 in our environment. While all photosynthesis uses CO2 (to the best of MY knowledge), the efficiency of chloroplasts is so high as to pull enough CO2 out of the air for continued existence without needing levels high enough to induce the greenhouse effect. That goes for Methane, Halogenated Anesthetic Gases, and other worst greenhouse man-made molecules. I'd like to read one or two of the studies you base your "reducing , not!" statement upon. And in the 1970's, I was in a 36 story steel and glass structure that still does sway in the winds - you would not want to be on the 40th floor of a structure that swayed more than that tower swayed. I don't get seasick but several workers did get seasick and have to go to lower floors because of the movement. If you don't get my point, nature's technological efficiency means we absolutely do not need to acidify our oceans and pump more CO2 into the air for any reason other than to destroy our environment for future generations.

So, is this similar to the geopolymer concrete that was mentioned as a building material to be used for constructing structures floating homes - from an article about the Seasteading Institute. It has been elusive to find some of this stuff to buy and use at home.

I'd call this concrete with a non-catastrophic failure mode, instead of bendable. Bendable implies that it should return to original shape with little or no loss of its structural properties, or will at least return to its original shape.

We briefly see at the end of the video that it doesn't, as the ram rises off the still deflected slab.

A structure built with this stuff would hang together considerably better during an earthquake, but it'd still be destroyed - and would be far harder to demolish to make way for rebuilding.

Then there's the problem of recycling. Concrete is one of the most recycled materials, up there with metals and asphalt paving. Much of the sand and small aggregate content in concrete is produced by crushing old concrete from demolished structures. You don't see that in the bags of concrete mix you get at Home Depot or Lowes, because people expect 'shiny new' gravel in their bags of concrete.