Carbon negative, you say? Easy solution to climate change then: Let's just put millions of your trucks on the roads and have them drive around all the time. /s
This is just a clever way to get trucks and farms to do the work with the infrastructure we have (mostly) in place, rather than a radical reimagining of our energy infrastructure.
Not that I've seen proof this process would work, but I think that's the proposal.
It just doesn't make sense to emit all the CO2 to then recapture and sell it to someone. First, it's awefully inefficient, and second, do you think there's an infinite amount of demand for CO2 at a high enough price that it makes sense to jump through all these hoops?
Unfortunately, the best solution for climate change is the least sexy, and therefore techies, VCs and the media don't jump on it. 1) Reduce emissions by "boring" things like solar power and less livestock agriculture, 2) increase the existing CO2 sinks that already exist in nature (forests and coastal areas).
Biofuels like corn to ethanol might take too much land area, but the potential to get biofuels from algae or poop (yes poop is a great biofuel) require no additional land area and are very efficient. A biofuel research study at U of Michigan showed a biofuel process that produces -1 g/ gallon burned GHG emission effect. We don't pretend to know exactly how to scale up biofuels but luckily there is a lot of research in progress on this!
The other thing we could potentially do is convert the CO2 directly back into a fuel, so the offload and fueling station is completely done at the same truck stop!
Lastly we also agree that our technology does not allow society to exist exactly as it is now, we will always support reducing energy consumption where possible and better land use to let nature sink tons of CO2.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's good that people are working on CO2 sequestration, but I just get triggered if I read something like "carbon negative trucks" which just is 101 greenwashing and gaslighting.
I'm pretty interest how carbon negative is greenwashing when there could actually be less carbon in the atmosphere, will be verified with a life cycle analysis, especially since we can fit on a truck that already exists so the truck manufacturing CO2 is already something that's been spent.
My trigger is when things are called zero emissions, because no electric car, solar panel, or windmill are zero emissions.
Managed grazing has some good points, but it's mixed with a lot of pseudoscience and cult also. In the end, we need to get rid of almost all livestock agriculture if we are serious about tackling climate change.
> I'm pretty interest how carbon negative is greenwashing when there could actually be less carbon in the atmosphere, will be verified with a life cycle analysis, especially since we can fit on a truck that already exists so the truck manufacturing CO2 is already something that's been spent.
It's just a bit out there. There are better and more efficient ways to reduce GHG emissions than what you're proposing. Again, it's good that people are working on new tech to sequestrate CO2, but let's talk again about selling this "carbon negative" vision once we get CO2 sequestration working on a large scale at a low enough cost.
Until then, I sincerely wish you all the best! We're all in this together :-)
We will support independent sustainability research on our solution's life cycle analysis to verify if we can be carbon negative, and if not what changes can we make to get there.