[throwawaylinux]

> -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 positive, you can count it as negative as it is not burned)

Replace the lignin with some fantastical material that contains no carbon and requires no carbon to produce, and after it is laid on the road it quickly absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere equivalent to the amount of carbon that lignin contains.

Would you say that is carbon negative?

[hinkley]

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 and I forgot I left it running while I was on vacation, I would not feel guilty. If doing nothing results in less carbon emissions than doing something, it’s not negative.

[throwawaylinux]

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.

[hinkley]

No, you’re making up things. You think you’re asking if we think a net negative is a net negative, but that’s not what you asked. Not even close.

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.

[throwawaylinux]

No that's just your reading comprehension problem.

[hinkley]

You're having a petri dish problem. Taken out of an environment, a lot of experiments and math look very good. It's interesting, might even be new knowledge, but it's not applicable.

That giant machine in their PR materials didn't just appear out of nowhere. It doesn't run on rainbows. It has a considerable embodied carbon footprint. It has an operational footprint, and a transportation footprint. It assuredly produces lots of pm2.5 and not just from the tailpipe.

Undoubtedly less that the process it replaces, but negative is an extraordinary claim, and I don't see any extraordinary evidence here.

[throwawaylinux]

You're shifting the goal posts because you badly misunderstood my initial post.