tomsyouruncle (u/tomsyouruncle)

tomsyouruncle commented on Launch HN: Carbon Crusher (YC W22) – Carbon Negative Roads · Posted by u/haakonzen

hansarne · 3 years ago

This is a very fair question. We need to be mindful going forward in how we communicate. We can say that our Scope 3 emissions are negative, but scope 1 we are slightly positive (but still much lower than competition) Just to clarify; we go from 7-10kg CO2 positive for traditional methods, to 5 kg negative in two steps; Step one is we reduce emissions from transport, extraction etc because we have a better Crusher which recycles the road better, which takes us to just above 1kg pr m2 - massive savings already from the traditional method, and this could be counted mostly in Scope 1 or 2, some of it in 3 (reduced extraction). The remaining ca -6 kg is the effect of lignin - here debated in the thread and that we are saying is carbon negative. This is a scope 3 effect.

Thanks for pointing out! We are still a young company and need to work on our Scope 1-3 accounting :)

tomsyouruncle · 3 years ago

Thanks a lot for adding these details about scoping[0]. I’ve definitely learned something there.

So my scope 1 emissions can be your scope 3 emissions if I emit carbon to make something that I sell to you… but the “real” emissions are always _somebody’s_ scope 1. Interesting stuff!

[0]: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/briefing-what-are-scop...

tomsyouruncle commented on Launch HN: Carbon Crusher (YC W22) – Carbon Negative Roads · Posted by u/haakonzen

anamax · 3 years ago

You're switching contexts.

When you switched from burning lignin to solar, you reduced your carbon usage.

However, what happened to the lignin that you stopped using?

If it was burned somewhere else, the total carbon usage remained the same even though you changed your usage.

If it was stockpiled and is now decomposing over three years, the carbon usage was time-shifted and will be back where it was in three years. (However, total carbon usage will be reduced the first and second year.)

This is supposedly a usage of lignin that results in no release, so it actually is carbon-negative (assuming that the processing doesn't use more carbon), regardless of what other folks think that they did. That said, it's probably actually just time-shifted, albeit on a long time-scale.

Note that both coal and diamonds are actually time-shifted carbon usage, on the scale of millions of years.

tomsyouruncle · 3 years ago

> When you switched from burning lignin to solar, you reduced your carbon usage. However, what happened to the lignin that you stopped using?

In my scenario, CarbonCruncher bought the lignin I stopped using and made a road out of it. Crucially, in doing so they claim to have a negative carbon impact because they'd trapped that carbon in the ground. But I already claimed that impact when I stopped buying and burning it myself and switched to a zero-emission energy source.

So my (genuine) question remains: we can't _both_ claim the benefit, so who's right?

tomsyouruncle commented on Launch HN: Carbon Crusher (YC W22) – Carbon Negative Roads · Posted by u/haakonzen

haakonzen · 3 years ago

Yes exactly, that's how we think about it. We are using nature's own capture machine, trees... thanks for this clear explanation :)

tomsyouruncle · 3 years ago

Maybe the concern others are expressing here can be thought of as the risk of double counting of carbon.

If I run an industrial plant that's currently fuelled by burning waste lignin from the paper industry, and I decide to stop that and install some solar panels instead, it seems reasonable for me to claim that change is carbon negative (i.e. I've reduced carbon emissions).

Now if CarbonCrusher comes along and buys the lignin I no longer need, uses it to build a road, and claims the same carbon saving as I did, we end up double counting.

Which of us is wrong?

tomsyouruncle commented on DevSkiller IT skills report 2021: Demand and hiring trends devskiller.com/it-skills-... · Posted by u/gru232

tomsyouruncle · 4 years ago

This statistic actually says nothing at all about 90% of the people who took the test so the headline is pretty misleading.

You can’t really talk about “Australian developers” (or indeed any other nation’s) and ignore 90% of the distribution !

It’s a bit absurd to say you’re not using the mean because you’re worried about the effect of outliers and then instead choose a statistic that largely focuses on outliers! Why not use the median?