51–60 of 96 posts
What happens to the lignin when cars drive along it?
Does any of it end up as airborne particulates?
What about the run-off after rains?
How is it in cold climates where they put salt on the roads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes exactly, that's how we think about it. We are using nature's own capture machine, trees... thanks for this clear explanation :)
Except the current use of the byproduct is not just flaring it off pointlessly as waste. The byproduct is being burned as a fuel, which in that usage is already (nearly) neutral. If an alternative fuel has to be used instead, that fuel is more than likely going to be natural gas or coal.
Simple.
For warming we can use electricity generated by wind, solar, tides etc.
Do not move the goalposts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes exactly, that's how we think about it. We are using nature's own capture machine, trees... thanks for this clear explanation :)
Except the current use of the byproduct is not just flaring it off pointlessly as waste. The byproduct is being burned as a fuel, which in that usage is already (nearly) neutral. If an alternative fuel has to be used instead, that fuel is more than likely going to be natural gas or coal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the current use of the byproduct is not just flaring it off pointlessly as waste. The byproduct is being burned as a fuel, which in that usage is already (nearly) neutral. If an alternative fuel has to be used instead, that fuel is more than likely going to be natural gas or coal.
This is how we lose the war against global warming. The process here is simple: 1. Tree captures carbon 2. Carbon gets buried in a road. Simple. For warming we can use electricity generated by wind, solar, tides etc. Do not move the goalposts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the current use of the byproduct is not just flaring it off pointlessly as waste. The byproduct is being burned as a fuel, which in that usage is already (nearly) neutral. If an alternative fuel has to be used instead, that fuel is more than likely going to be natural gas or coal.
Do you have a source that the binder is currently being used as a fuel source? I'm missing where that's implied by the OP.
How are you saying this is carbon negative? Don't get me wrong the process is impressive and very cool, but the marketing around it just feels scammy. -5kg of carbon per m2? How? The lignin based binder absorbs more carbon from the air after it is placed into the road? I may be misreading but it seems like these numbers are based on the amount of carbon in the lignin itself (i.e. since it isn't burned which would be…
I'm sure there's a definition out there of carbon negative that means what you say it means, but if we're being honest carbon negative means that doing more of something reduces the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. You can't claim that not burning lignin is carbon negative since this product already exists as a byproduct in the paper industry (as you said). By repairing roads you're still emitting more carbon than removing from the atmosphere.
Further, we are working on new complementary road tech that can enhance and add to the carbon potential from our solution. This includes ... capturing and dissemination of energy captured by the roads.
I'm very interested in this part. Do you have any more details to share?
How are you saying this is carbon negative? Don't get me wrong the process is impressive and very cool, but the marketing around it just feels scammy. -5kg of carbon per m2? How? The lignin based binder absorbs more carbon from the air after it is placed into the road? I may be misreading but it seems like these numbers are based on the amount of carbon in the lignin itself (i.e. since it isn't burned which would be…
This was my first reaction as well. I think the subtext is that the byproduct is currently being burned as a fuel source, which is common for things like sawdust in mills. So there's one aspect of this calculation that could be waaay off. If the mills that would have burned this byproduct in a boiler are selling it instead, they'll need another energy source for their boilers! If that energy source is a fossil fuel i…
So.... you give up? This is stupid all-or-nothing absolutist thinking. I'm not saying OP YC is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but long-term sequestration of tree carbon is a carbon sink.
Solar/Wind is at LCOE parity with natural gas turbine. It will pass it soon, with basic subsidies (as if fossil fuels aren't subsidized) then storage won't be a disadvantage either. If not, emerging economies of scale and tech progress in wind/solar will leave natural gas in the dust.
So even if the grid is dirty now, there is a clear path forward, and the grid will adapt to the changing pattern, and we already have the delivery method solved (the grid). And there are opportunities to possibly scrub carbon from central generation. Not as much as the sociopathic petroleum companies would like you to think so they can go business as usual, but better than an ICE car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Nor is buying a bunch of stuff at the store that you don’t need just because it’s 35% off retail price “saving money”. Cash flow positive is not losing money slower, it’s making more than you spend. Carbon negative absorbs more carbon than you spend. Including in chopping up an old road and recycling it, which is going to take a lot of power. If I had a box that you plugged in that was actually carbon negative…
You don't think something that reduces net carbon in the atmosphere is carbon negative, then you're just making up your own definitions of things. Why waste everyone else's time? Seems like a hell of way to go about life.
Making something takes energy, as you will recall if you weren’t asleep that entire semester in physics class. If the bit at the end cancels out some of the problems created earlier, you still have some of the problems created earlier.