[lvs]

This was my first reaction as well. I think the subtext is that the byproduct is currently being burned as a fuel source, which is common for things like sawdust in mills. So there's one aspect of this calculation that could be waaay off. If the mills that would have burned this byproduct in a boiler are selling it instead, they'll need another energy source for their boilers! If that energy source is a fossil fuel instead of a wood byproduct, then this "upcycling" has inadvertently become carbon positive (or perhaps neutral at best). And it will be a lot easier to retrofit an industrial boiler for natural gas than to convert it to electric. Even if it were electric, most of the world does not remotely have as clean a grid as Norway's. So it would be some decades before any carbon advantage emerges.

[hansarne]

Thanks for the comment. See calculation breakdown added in a few threads above. Some of our thoughts about the carbon negative part:

Paper mills captures CO2 from trees (that are sustainably harvested, more trees planted than harvested p.a.) of which parts of it is released after some of the lignin is burned (inefficiently) for fuel. If they stop burning lignin for fuel, they need other energy sources, and then the question is how the paper mill chooses to do this: - The mills can choose to burn fossil fuels, get a renewable source, or buy electricity from the grid. We will only source lignin from players serious about sustainability and green alternatives (industrial broilers could also use green hydrogen), alongside prioritising maximised energy efficient operations - Even if they get electricity from the grid, the world is moving forward and we’re luckily reaching a point where additional capacity in the grid is coming from renewables, while fossil is decreasing - boosting new renewable buildout more

What’s very important in what you point out is that when we expand our lignin supplier base, we need to be careful in selecting our suppliers, understanding their alternatives and understanding our Scope 3 emission effects to ensure it aligns with our mission of saving the planet :) And that's what we will do - ensure that this ends up on the right side.

[hinkley]

Taken to the other extreme, as the value of sawdust goes up the incentive to reduce sawdust goes down, decreasing the number of board feet per tree, increasing trees cut for lumber.

If you find a better use for sawdust, great. But if you could invent a new saw blade with a smaller kerf, you’d be helping more.

[AtlasBarfed]

"Even if it were electric, most of the world does not remotely have as clean a grid as Norway's. So it would be some decades before any carbon advantage emerges."

So.... you give up? This is stupid all-or-nothing absolutist thinking. I'm not saying OP YC is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but long-term sequestration of tree carbon is a carbon sink.

Solar/Wind is at LCOE parity with natural gas turbine. It will pass it soon, with basic subsidies (as if fossil fuels aren't subsidized) then storage won't be a disadvantage either. If not, emerging economies of scale and tech progress in wind/solar will leave natural gas in the dust.

So even if the grid is dirty now, there is a clear path forward, and the grid will adapt to the changing pattern, and we already have the delivery method solved (the grid). And there are opportunities to possibly scrub carbon from central generation. Not as much as the sociopathic petroleum companies would like you to think so they can go business as usual, but better than an ICE car.

[haakonzen]

We don't think we are the greatest thing since sliced bread either! But thanks for the encouragement and good points, we try and hope we can point the carbon needle a meaningful push the right way with the means at our disposal - and this we will keep on doing, now fed with more inputs & insight