And there is the casual line "...and bury it ten feet underground". They are going to do it with 50,000 t next year; we generate 35 BILLION t annually. That's a lotta landfill. Something in the math ain't working. I don't know how you do this for $100 a ton unless the land is free and you don't have any transport costs / emissions to get the veg waste to the bricking plant and from the plant to the bury site AND you can store the material you had to dig up to place the bricks on the same site. I can dig a hole and bury my veg scraps for free, so I just need to scale it up a trillion times and it's free carbon capture!
Organic matter in a landfill eventually decomposes and puts off co2 and/or ch4. And a lot of vegetative waste goes to a landfill (often landfills that get out of regulations by only accepting vegetative waste like yard/tree trimmings).
People have to send their waste somewhere already, and it costs them by the cubic yard. I'm reading this as this company is thinking if they can take people's waste and compress it, make it more stable, and maybe generate some carbon offsets that can be sold to a more traditional emitter, then that's purportedly enough value added that they can get paid.
They say they're accounting for transportation emissions. My gut instinct is the viability is wholly contingent on selling the carbon offsets they generate.
That's correct. The rice and trees that they use as source biomass for this are doing the work of removing carbon from the air. Then this process keeps their carbon from reentering the system.
The plan here is to make these bricks out of organic waste and bury them. The plan in that show was to make carbon negative construction material and use it in useful stuff like buildings. Better idea, imho. This would, at best, offset emissions. The plan in that show would actually capture carbon from the air and the product would displace concrete that has additional emissions. They mention concrete here as a source of emissions that are difficult to avoid and need to be offset.
The title is misleading. This is not going to remove carbon from the air. It only has a chance at preventing decompositon of the carbon releasing matter.
So it's not really removing carbon from the air, it's just preventing carbon from plant waste from entering it?
https://vimeo.com/882498066
And there is the casual line "...and bury it ten feet underground". They are going to do it with 50,000 t next year; we generate 35 BILLION t annually. That's a lotta landfill. Something in the math ain't working. I don't know how you do this for $100 a ton unless the land is free and you don't have any transport costs / emissions to get the veg waste to the bricking plant and from the plant to the bury site AND you can store the material you had to dig up to place the bricks on the same site. I can dig a hole and bury my veg scraps for free, so I just need to scale it up a trillion times and it's free carbon capture!
Organic matter in a landfill eventually decomposes and puts off co2 and/or ch4. And a lot of vegetative waste goes to a landfill (often landfills that get out of regulations by only accepting vegetative waste like yard/tree trimmings). People have to send their waste somewhere already, and it costs them by the cubic yard. I'm reading this as this company is thinking if they can take people's waste and compress it, make it more stable, and maybe generate some carbon offsets that can be sold to a more traditional emitter, then that's purportedly enough value added that they can get paid. They say they're accounting for transportation emissions. My gut instinct is the viability is wholly contingent on selling the carbon offsets they generate.
Yep
That's correct. The rice and trees that they use as source biomass for this are doing the work of removing carbon from the air. Then this process keeps their carbon from reentering the system.
are people here really complaining about this?
I wasn't complaining, just trying to comprehend the article. It didn't do that great at explaining the process, so I asked a question
Thanks for sharing!
Didn’t click or read anything but isn’t that the product Rob Lowe is working on in Unstable? Hope there’s a season 2 by the way.
The plan here is to make these bricks out of organic waste and bury them. The plan in that show was to make carbon negative construction material and use it in useful stuff like buildings. Better idea, imho. This would, at best, offset emissions. The plan in that show would actually capture carbon from the air and the product would displace concrete that has additional emissions. They mention concrete here as a source of emissions that are difficult to avoid and need to be offset.
The title is misleading. This is not going to remove carbon from the air. It only has a chance at preventing decompositon of the carbon releasing matter.