• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I fail to see where those bricks are “LEGO like” in any way. They are rough bricks, not even sufficiently molded to appear regular.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    taking plant waste from timber companies and farmers, drying it, compressing it, and wrapping it “into Lego-like bricks,” and storing it 10 feet underground.

    So it’s effectively the astronaut ice cream version permafrost?

    Immediately I wonder how much the process of transport -> drying -> compressing, wrapping, transporting, and storing + storage site prep and maintenance eats into savings.

    • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      the astronaut ice cream version permafrost?

      Yeah, that’s what it sounds like. I do wonder if 10 feet is deep enough to prevent decomposition in the long term. I seems like converting the plant material to biochar would be a more stable form to trap the carbon in.

      transport -> drying -> compressing, wrapping, transporting, and storing + storage site prep and maintenance

      I think the key aspect here is that all of these steps are easier to decarbonize than the aviation (difficult) and cement production (almost impossible) processes these bricks are intended to offset.

  • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah, I am skeptical. What would be the energy expenditure of actually storing CO2 into those blocks and what about transporting them? I have a feeling this is like carbon capture plants, great for the headlines, but not really a practical solution.