Graphyte, a new company incubated by Bill Gates’s investment group Breakthrough Energy Ventures, announced Monday that it has created a method for turning bits of wood chips and rice hulls into low-cost, dehydrated chunks of plant matter. Those blocks of carbon-laden plant matter — which look a bit like shoe-box sized Lego blocks — can then be buried deep underground for hundreds of years.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    151 year ago

    This isn’t really a method for extracting CO2 from the air so much as a method to make sure that plant matter which has already extracted it from the air doesn’t return it via burning or decomposition. It makes plants carbon negative instead of carbon neutral.

    I don’t really see the point of burying it when turning it into building materials would be much more effective, by replacing carbon-generating building materials (and being a great insulator). It might be a bit more expensive but building materials have value so it would be more cost-effective? Wood chip is already used to insulate buildings. I don’t get why they just want to bury this stuff instead of making good use of it.

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      If you’ve ever been around a logging operation, you’d see how much (half?) of the plant matter extracted doesn’t make it into a logging truck, but is instead piled unto 3-story high heaps and then burned. Being able to sequester that material instead would be amazing

        • @[email protected]OPM
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          Be nice, but we’re talking about remote locations with a high cost of transport. It’s unlikely to be cost-effective

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Even when it is bury for no value vs sell to replace carbon-producing materials? I don’t buy it. Very few places are so remote that there is zero local-ish demand for building materials and they have to build facilities and support workers in those remote places instead.

          • @theluckyone
            link
            11 year ago

            Burying it deep underground instead is likely to impose a high cost of transport as well.

              • @theluckyone
                link
                31 year ago

                Agreed. However, burying it ten foot underground in a remote location, sealing it to keep moisture out, and then continuing to monitor it for hundreds of years is not trivial.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Sounds like the blocks are sealed to stop decomposition… so I guess the bricks would rot if the seal is compromised? That wouldn’t be good for a building. And it would let the carbon out.