I wonder how they can write with a straight face this:
> we’re pioneering a way to make iron that’s cleaner, more cost-effective, and American-made.
when the very next sentence is
> Our near-term focus remains coming down the bio-oil production cost curve, making affordable and high-quality carbon removals.
So that "more cost-effective" part in the first sentence is contingent on their huge assumption that they'll be able to "come down the production cost curve" of bio-oil. But then we can make everything more cost-effective in America, if only we come down the cost curve of this and that.
nothing in hardware is cheap until it scales up. in fact, the cost vs. scale dynamics are well understood, see Wright's Law.
the "huge assumption" is our entire roadmap... and the major things that drive cost-down are: (1) increased carbon yield by integrating existing pyrolysis technology, (2) shrinking transport distances by operating pyrolysis near injection wells, and (3) increased throughput by making our pyrolyzers larger. these take time, but are hardly shooting for the moon.
Bio-oil production itself has a small amount of net positive emissions associated with it. We also purchase renewable electricity, renewable diesel, etc. to minimize those emissions. The net carbon negativity comes from the balance of the biomass/bio-oil carbon content ending up permanently sequestered deep underground.
I wonder how they can write with a straight face this:
> we’re pioneering a way to make iron that’s cleaner, more cost-effective, and American-made.
when the very next sentence is
> Our near-term focus remains coming down the bio-oil production cost curve, making affordable and high-quality carbon removals.
So that "more cost-effective" part in the first sentence is contingent on their huge assumption that they'll be able to "come down the production cost curve" of bio-oil. But then we can make everything more cost-effective in America, if only we come down the cost curve of this and that.
nothing in hardware is cheap until it scales up. in fact, the cost vs. scale dynamics are well understood, see Wright's Law.
the "huge assumption" is our entire roadmap... and the major things that drive cost-down are: (1) increased carbon yield by integrating existing pyrolysis technology, (2) shrinking transport distances by operating pyrolysis near injection wells, and (3) increased throughput by making our pyrolyzers larger. these take time, but are hardly shooting for the moon.
Is bio-oil production carbon-negative? How much of bio-oil production uses petroleum oils? I suspect it's non-zero.
Bio-oil production itself has a small amount of net positive emissions associated with it. We also purchase renewable electricity, renewable diesel, etc. to minimize those emissions. The net carbon negativity comes from the balance of the biomass/bio-oil carbon content ending up permanently sequestered deep underground.
> a small amount of net positive emissions associated with it.
I'm very confused. Does that means CO2 capture or CO2 release?
CO₂ is captured from the atmosphere in biomass as C
C in biomass is converted to C in bio-oil, with relatively small release of CO₂
C in bio-oil is injected deep underground for permanent storage/sequestration
If this process had not happened, the C in the biomass would have been entirely emitted as CO₂ through rotting or burning.