[HardEric]

some great points! We agree why let the CO2 out into the atmosphere and then try to grab it, lets grab it right at the source.

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.

[shafyy]

Well, livestock agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to climate change, so taking their poop also doesn't make sense since we need to do away with livestock completely.

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.

[HardEric]

I encourage you to check out the draw down project ( https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions ), sort the list from largest impact and you will see " Managed Grazing" has the potential to have a 27% to 40% larger CO2 reduction than electric cars (scenario 1 - scenario 2 percentages). So keep the cattle just update the farming practices, ditch the electric car? Haha obviously not, we need a multi prong solution.

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.

[shafyy]

I agree that we need a plethora of solutions, there's not one silver bullet. Project Drawdown is great, but a little too cuddly for my taste. We're at a point where we need more aggressive solutions.

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 :-)