Ag residue and carbon removal

Latitude Media, covering the new frontiers of the energy transition. I'm Shale Khan, and this is Catalyst. If you looked at for example at our wood chips that we process in Colorado where we're getting in these forest fire prevention thinnings, if we if we were to stand there and look at it, you'd be like, This is pretty consistent material. Like visually it's not like, oh, this is all over the place.

But nonetheless, you can still get edge cases. You can get a rock that was like, you know, randomly stuck in a branch. Or you can get, you know, people talk about like a bale that had a handgun in it. Coming up, we're talking ag residue, wood chips, and carbon removal with Peter Reinhardt.

Catalyst is supported by Fishtank PR, an award-winning PR firm focused on climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability. Fishtank is known for generating prominent and effective media coverage for the brands they work with. If you want a PR partner that's thoughtful, shoots straight, and gets results, you'll like Fishtank PR. To learn more about Fishtank's approach, visit fishtankpr.com. That's f I-s-c-h fishtankpr.com.

When utilities need flexible capacity they can count on, they turn to energy hubs. Energy Hub works with more than one hundred and seventy utilities, coordinating over two point five million devices to manage three point four gigawatts of flexibility built for the moments when utilities can't afford uncertainty.

Energy Hub builds and operates virtual power plants that utilities actually stake their grid planning on, coordinating EVs, batteries, thermostats, and more through a single platform built for utility scale, predictive, verifiable, and designed to perform when it counts. Learn more at energyhub.com.

I'm Shale Khan. I invest in early stage companies at Energy Impact Partners. Welcome. So here's the cycle. We humans grow crops, a lot of them, because there are a lot of us. Those crops contain carbon that has been sucked up from the atmosphere. Mostly they're either consumed or burned to produce energy, but along the way, a lot, like really a lot of them, parts of most of every plant that we grow actually are wasted, so to speak.

There was a DOE study a couple of years ago that estimated the amount of ag residue alone, that's a subset of this category, at around two hundred million dry tons per year. So those ones generally decompose, of course, releasing greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere. But what if they didn't?

There's a whole class of ideas around utilizing that so-called waste biomass, either to displace something else that might generate greenhouse gases like fuels, or just locking it up so that the CO2 is never released into the atmosphere in the first place. The latter category is what Charm Industrial has focused on. Charm turns waste biomass into what they call bioil and then injects it back underground to be stored for thousands of years.

Peter Reinhardt, who is the founder and CEO of Charm, is a friend of mine, and I've always thought came into this space with a refreshing perspective. Prior to charm, he was a wildly successful software founder. He founded the company Segment, which was acquired for over three billion dollars by Twilio in 2020. So he has this startup experience and actually carbon removal buyer's experience.

But this was his first foray, a charm, into hard tech, into carbon markets as a producer, into the realities of waste biomass. So that's what I wanted to talk to him about, what he's learned out there in the fields, what works, what's hard, and where we are in the carbon removal markets. Here's Peter. Welcome. Thanks for having me. All right, give me a tour of ag waste to start. Like Where is it? What is it? How much of it is there? Just give me the give me the

Yeah, I think many people would maybe push back first on on the word waste there. Uh for the most part when you have ag residues, it's mostly things that are unutilized or very underutilized. Uh and so in some sense there's waste there, but uh really I would think of it as sort of extremely underutilized uh and has a lot of value, maybe that is is going to waste or getting lost.

Um, but you know, there's there's an enormous amount in in the United States, which maybe is where we can focus for now. Um in just corn stover, for example, obviously concentrated in the mid in the Midwest and particularly the the northern part of the Midwest. There's about ninety, ninety five million acres of corn grown in the US every year.

Just order magnitude four dry tons of stover per year on each of those uh on each of those acres. And so, you know, you're you're just on corn stover. You're looking at four hundred megatons of of ag residues that don't really get used. They just rot on the field and and return to the atmosphere.

what is stover actually like on this corn stalk what is the stover and then i think you just answered this question but in a default scenario corn is harvested the stover just continues to sit on the field and eventually decomposes that's what happens to it That's right. And there's there's some geographical diversity to that. So we can get further into the nuance here, but the stover itself is the stalks, the leaves.

Depending on the harvest method, you may actually have cobs in the mix too. So it's it's everything basically kind of minus the kernels. Uh'cause the kernels are really where the value lies, whether it's, you know, animal feedstock or human consumption or high fructose corn syrup or ethanol. It's the the kernels is really what we grow corn for today.

Um, but the the actual practices around what happens to that stover vary pretty wild wild widely. Um there are a few places where it's used for cellulosic ethanol production, but it's really tiny and that's never really taken off. And You know, in in as you get sort of farther north, you can have very moist soils that

hold a lot of water. And as you get farther north, those will sometimes stay frozen, you know, deep into the spring when they actually need to plant it. So depending on the place, there can be qu quite different practices actually around weather. Uh, you know, you need to remove it so that you can actually plant in the spring and not be dealing with frozen soil.

Or in other places where actually m say like the the Great Plains and western Kansas and and Colorado where you actually wanna keep it on'cause it's more of it on'cause it's gonna help retain the the soil moisture, which is which is a huge problem there. So There's geographic diversity to that.

Yeah, I mean I I have a feeling a lot of this part of the conversation is gonna be like there is no uniformity in general and that's one of the challenges with doing anything at scale with ag residue. I'll stop saying waste. Um So then because you're even just talking about specifically corn stover, right? And like that's gonna be different from almond shells in California, from whatever whatever soybean husks or whatever else it is.

From a practical standpoint, I mean, okay, so let's let's view ag residue as a resource. It should be a resource, right? Like it it has value, it has various things you could do with it. And we're gonna talk about like highest and best use, but One of the things that you and I have talked about a little bit that I think you have insight into that people don't often appreciate is like just the practical challenge of

Aggregation and utilization of that resource. Like talk me through what does it take? Say you wanted to do something. Forget what you're doing with it. Say you want to do something with it. um at scale. Like what does that actually entail? There is again some diversity depending on the on the residue, but if we stick with corn stover for a second and say you want to use the corn stover somewhere, um

typically you're not gonna be able to use it on the field, right? Typically if you're gonna take some portion of it, whether that's seventy percent or thirty percent, depending on the sort of agricultural zone that you're in. uh you know, you need to get it off the field. And so there's actually a lot of steps to get the biomass off the field in a sort of usable format at a usable distance where typically people are building centralized plants.

And so, you know, that actually dominates the cost of the biomass, which is, you know, something that we're trying to we're trying to inverse invert this at charm by eventually operating on field to cut this all out. But, you know, you have let's say you have a field, it's all laid flat. You know, a forage harvester came through and and cut it all down. Now you need to first windrow it into a pile, then you're going to bale it.

Then once you have bales, you're gonna have uh you know, you're gonna bring a machine that's gonna stack the bales and bring'em over to the edge of the field where put them in piles. And then you're gonna need something like telehandler to load it onto a load it onto a truck. And then you need to drive the truck and then you need to unload the truck. And so every one of those pieces of equipment is a big CapEx uh piece and an OpEx to run.

Uh, you need people to actually do every step of that labor. So it's a huge portion of the cost structure, right? So if you're looking at getting corn stover, say delivered to, you know, like Abengoa Hugueton was a huge cellulystic ethanol plant that failed in western Kansas.

because they were trans transporting their biomass fifty to a hundred miles, they expected to pay maybe sixty dollars a ton. They found in fact that they were paying like north of a hundred and twenty dollars a ton. And, you know, the actual dollars that were getting delivered to the farmer for the stover that they had was maybe in the low tens of dollars.

And all the rest of it was bundled up in the in the consolidation and transport of the biomass. So uh it's quite an operation to to do it and requires sort of like specialized equipment for each different type of feedstock as well. Um so it's it's quite complicated. And there's some companies that that do an incredible job of this, like Pacific Ag um has a large operation in the in the text in the in the panhandle uh kind of region. And but yeah, it's tough.

Isn't it also when you talk about dollars per ton, like things in a delivered biomass world get priced in dollars per bone dry ton, right? But actually the part of the problem also is that what you're getting off the field is not like one ton is not one bone dry ton. And so there's more material. It gets priced both ways. Yeah, it gets priced both ways. But like Like there's no standard there.

But I guess isn't the well the the bigger point is part of the cost that's loaded in there is that either you're transporting something that it has Partial value, right? Some comp some piece of the stuff that you're transporting is actually valuable, and another piece of it is not. And so you're carrying dead weight.

along with you, or you have to go process it before you transport it, in which case there's a different piece of capital equipment that you need at the site in order to avoid transporting this stuff that is waterlogged or has whatever other stuff in it. Yeah, that's true. The the water content of stover stover dries on the field pretty effectively into the like fifteen to twenty percent range.

Um, so you're not carrying that much water. I mean, there is water in there, but the thing that kills you on the transport less than the or more than the dead weight there is actually the volume. So you when you're trying to transport stover, you cube out, meaning volumetrically, you run out of space.

uh a lot faster than you than you weigh out. Um and I mean that's why you see these like insane trailers where it's like coming out all over the place uh trying to trying to haul the biomass because like the volume just literally you can't you can't fit it all in there'cause it's so fluffy. So from a cost perspective, at least for corn stover that dominates, but for wood

It's di quite different actually. Wood can easily be fifty percent water, uh, if it's if it's young growth and, you know, hasn't aged for a year m uh post cutting. So when you look at like wildfire thinnings, for example. Um, oftentimes we get wood that's in the fifty percent range. Uh and there it yeah, it sucks because you're half what you're transporting is useless. Right.

What about heterogeneity? I mean, I think it d also this probably depends what you want to do with it. There's probably some things that you can do with it that are gonna be super sensitive to heterogeneity in the actual feedstock and other things that won't be, but how big an issue is that in general?

It's it's an issue, but it's an issue because you encounter edge cases at volume as opposed to it being like, you know, like if you looked at for example at our wood chips that we process in uh in in Colorado where we're getting in these

Taking this stuff from forest fire prevention thinnings that the Colorado State Forest Service and US Forest Service are running. And we work with the forestry contractors. They would power burn this stuff otherwise. They send this sort of thinning material to us, which nominally should have a lot of heterogeneity to it because it's.

Uh it's it's effective effectively a waste product that they would have to burn. Um if we if we were to stand there and look at it, you'd be like, This is pretty consistent material. Like visually it's not like, oh, this is all over the place. Um But nonetheless, you can still get edge cases. You can get a rock that was like, you know, randomly stuck in a branch, or you can get, you know, people talk about like a bale that had a handgun in it, you know, like it happens.

And so if you're processing it at scale, you do have to have things in place to ensure that that doesn't happen, but it's the exception. Like the the heterogeneity is problematic in in its exceptions as opposed to like some sort of like continuous variability.

Variability in moisture content is interesting. That can that can really affect processes and so having strong controls around drying or measurement of moisture content. Um Or depending on your process, the form factor of the actual material going into a biomass processing system can matter a lot.

Right. Like um aspect ratio, like a long twig often is way more problematic than the same amount of mass in in like a well rounded chip, just'cause you can create bridges and other things like that in equipment.

So okay, if if we wanna let's just assume that we as a society or as entrepreneurs or whoever wanna wanna utilize this. This residue. Let's focus on ag residue here, though we could talk about wood chips or whatever else too. Um, let's assume that we want to use it, it has some use. What are the like

the things that you think then need to be true to make it work. In other words, I assume that basically the trade-off here is you can either do what the ethanol plant you described failed was trying to do, which is Aggregate, centralized, build a big centralized processing facility to go make something with it. And that you get the economies of scale on the processing facility. So that's good because you want that. But you have to source from a wider

Aperture geographically. And so you end up paying these transport costs and logistics costs that kind of kill you. Or you do something at the edge, which I think is closer to what you're doing. Because you then don't have to deal with the transport costs, but it you trade off the economies of scale on the processing side. So how do you think about that better?

In some sense this is the fundamental thesis of charm, which is you can't bring biomass to market in its broadly heterogeneous, like uh highly distributed, fluffy current existing capacity, right? You just can't do it. Um, it doesn't work. People have tried it so many times and it just doesn't work.

So the things that do work today are when people have large centralized sources of biomass. That could be rice holes coming out of a plant, or it could be sawdust coming out of a plant. Like those are the places where it works. Um and so, but that's a tiny fraction. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total biomass. And so to your point, if you want to get it to scale, you do have to be able to go out into the field and convert it into some kind of format.

that actually is more homogeneous and transportable. And so that is basically the thesis of of of charm, which is can we take that material and instead of people have tried pelleting, people have tried like all these things. But the problem is you your density, your starting density is maybe like a hundred to two hundred kilograms per meter cubed.

And even if you get that up via pelleting to like four or five hundred, six hundred, you're still it's still really, really hard. And so our fundamental thesis is can we go out into the field with pyrolysis equipment?

And consolidate that biomass by removing a bunch of stuff that isn't useful. So sort of reducing the total mass to what is the useful component in bio oil and biochar. And can we increase the density dramatically? So like the density of bio oil is twelve hundred kilograms per meter cubed. So, you know, almost more than a ten X uh in in terms of consolidation.

And so now actually you're weighing out your tanker uh and you have a pumpable fluid instead of having to deal with moving around bales that are, you know, super fluffy. And so the the sort of fundamental thesis there is like, can you make it transportable and can you densify it?

uh such that the economics fundamentally change around your ability to centralize it for further processing or for consumption. So that's our fundamental thesis with with pyrolysis. And people have tried a lot of other ways to do it, but we think this one will work. How much do economies of scale matter on paralysis?

Like would it be just you the trade you're making is you're saying I'll do a small pyrolysis unit, but in exchange for that, I will get this high density, I will drive down logistics costs and transportation costs and all these things that blow up the economics of every other use of waste biomass. Or I'm sorry, ag residue or whatever it is. Um

Presumably you believe that to be the tr the right trade to make, but how much of a trade-off is it really? Like if you were doing paralysis at a ten X scale relative to what you are doing it at, would it be notably cheaper? Bye. It can get notably cheaper up to a point. So, you know, like we today operate two ton per day systems.

it is significantly cheaper to operate like a twenty ton per day system, right? You can and and that's what we're working towards. It's like you'll have the same basically the same amount of labor operating something with 10 times the throughput. um, maybe fifteen times the throughput and you you get a lot of leverage out of that.

You start to see some diseconomies on top of that when you go beyond, we think that sort of equipment, farm equipment form factor. When you start moving away from a mobile piece of equipment into a fixed facility. You do get some economies of the construction, but you actually take on a lot more risk in every facility that you build. You have all the balance of plant, you have permitting, you have

uh just more risk because you're gonna build many fewer of them and each one is gonna be uniquely sized. And so there there's actually a I think there's a there's a You actually break the unit the unity economics in some sense break and jump uh beyond that mobile form factor. Um And that's part of our thesis, is like how much throughput can we jam into a large combine kind of form factor is is what we're ultimately going to be shooting for.

Uh and we think that there's great economics and cons in continuing to push that push that throughput. But like if we look at the capex, for example, of our system today on a per t uh dollars capex per ton basis. and compare it to say like state of the art paralysis facilities. we are already less than half of that cost on a on a dollar per capek. basis. And that will decline drastically as we as we increase the throughput.

So That's where you would expect to see the most economy, there in labor. And we already are realizing an economy relative to where you would expect to see an economy and sort of through this concept of mass production. The other place where you'd expect to see economy is is on the labor side. And I think we won't beat that ex aside from sort of through through automation and

uh reliability that just requires fewer people over time per machine. Um but uh the capex thing is surprising to me actually. When I went and ran those numbers, I was I was surprised that we were already under the CapEx per ton. Is that a function of like the paralysis market is not? enormous and it's not like the most mature in the world? Like, is it just in part there has been room for innovation because it's not like totally optimized?

Yeah, it's it it's also the case that there are some processes that benefit drastically from sort of a surface area to volume uh change, right? Like uh a lot of these world scale chemical plants have like massive volumes inside their reactors. And so as they scale up the sort of like metal cost, physical metal cost of the reactor vessel. uh is declining because the surface area to volume ratio is is is uh declining. I think that there are some process I think pyrolysis in some senses is

uh less influenced by that because you're sort of putting heat in and taking heat out. And so you're you almost have like a surface area to surface area scaling law. So it may be that also that pyrolysis is somewhat unique relative to other chemical processes. Are you tired of overpaying for big name PR firms but not really knowing what they're delivering? Is your comms team wasting time reviewing lengthy messaging briefs and decks?

Instead of engaging journalists or producing content, are you wondering why your competitors are getting pressed and you aren't? Fishtink PR is an award-winning climate and energy tech, renewables, and sustainability focused PR firm

Dedicated to elevating the work of both early stage and established companies. Whether you need to position yourself as a thought leader in between project announcements or translate complex ideas and technologies into tangible, compelling stories that resonate with the media, Fishtank can help. Check out fishtankpr.com. That's f-i-s-c-h fishtankpr.com.

Virtual power plants are becoming a reliable way for utilities to manage capacity, but enrolling devices is just the start. What really matters is confidence, knowing those resources will perform when dispatched, and being able to prove it. From the control room to the living room, Energy Hub's platform handles the full picture, from near real time forecasting, locational dispatch, and the kind of rigorous verification that holds up when regulators, grid operators, or leadership asks.

Did it deliver? Easy enrollment creates momentum, proven performance builds trust. That's why more than 170 utilities rely on EnergyHub to manage over 2.5 million devices, delivering 3.4 gigawatts of flexible capacity. See what that looks like at energyhub.com.

Let's assume you can get your your ag residue, you can get your biomass off the field, you can do it in a manner that is sufficiently dense and that is economic to do something with. And the next question then is, okay, so what should we do with it? Like what's the highest and best use?

So I know you have opinions on this, but talk me through the I guess to start the suite of options. Like what are the things you think of as being potential uses for that that biomass once you get it off the field? Historically, biomass has been primarily used for industrial heat, uh, you know, sort of alongside an existing plant, uh, or for electricity production in some cases, or for uh like car fuel production, like ethanol.

These are not actually very good uses for biomass. Uh they don't really take advantage of the best properties that biomass has. Um, what really distinguishes biomass is not necessarily its energy content, which is actually quite low, right? So like on a per kilogram basis, like the energy content of biomass is about one third that of crude oil. So it's pretty energy poor. What's interesting about it is that relative to almost everything else, it's very carbon rich.

And so the use cases that rely either on the chemical availability of carbon or on uh the sort of physical availability of carbon, those or like in the case of carbon removal, like literally on the amount of carbon in there. Um, those are the use cases actually that have the highest and best use over time. So carbon removal is obviously the market that we have gone into first where we can do bioil sequestration and and pump the carbon underground in a liquid form.

Uh that's actually a pretty high value use case for it because you're directly monetizing the the carbon embedded in the biomass. Um, there are other use cases where the carbon is really critical from a chemical perspective. So these is things like iron making. When you reduce iron oxide to iron

You need carbon monoxide. And you can use hydrogen, but it's it's endothermic. So if you really if you want to make it sort of work on a reliable basis, you probably need carbon monoxide. You need that carbon. Well, great. We have a carbon source. So iron making is a pretty compelling use case. Um another one actually is SAF, um is Jeff Fuel. We don't have a lot of great dense energy carriers that can actually do long haul flights. Um and there it is. So

uh, you know, we're gonna need probably for a long time gonna need carbon there. So those are some of the cases maybe like asphalt, plastics. There's a bunch of these places where the carbon is an integral part either of the being an energy carrier or being chemically involved in the process or

Structurally involved as an atomic element. Those are the places where and World Resources Institute would agree with this in their analysis, I think, which is like that's where we need the carbon. And other other use cases like car fuel are like Pretty uh poor economic fits. Is your view on why historically we've used uh biomass as an energy source rather than a carbon source predominantly just a function of like the market has been there for energy? The market has not really been there for for

the carbon stuff, certainly not for carbon removal historically. SAF is a relatively new thing. Um, is it is it just like a market maturity thing, or is there some other reason why we we've gone down the wrong road historically? Yeah, I think it's a market maturity thing. I think also for the industrial heat and electricity use cases, often that's when like you have a concentrated flow of biomass. And now we're And you just want to co fire with something else and That's like.

as well. It's like buying down your total cost. Yes, a facility owner is like, Well, I have this thing, why don't I use it? Right. Um whereas the sort of biomass that we're talking about maybe is all is like a different type of biomass, which is like, okay, but then there's like five gigatons of this stuff all over the world and like, you know, it it rots or burns today. Um, which is a different Yeah, maybe they're more

Right. Probably the more accurate way to put it is that like a lot of the stuff has not been used actually historically. It's not that it's been used for this other stuff to the extent that it has, like if it's being used to produce ethanol. we've sort of distorted a market of into existence for ethanol that is tax credit driven predominantly. And so there's an economic reason to do that that doesn't speak to the underlying uh rationality of like leveraging it for energy.

Yeah, and to be clear, there's like geopolitical reasons also to ensure that we have massive amounts of corn and food grown in the United States. So, like right. It's maybe m gets more complicated than just what's the highest and best use of biomass, but um

Okay, so I I've seen the analyses too that basically suggest that like look the From a okay, so let's let's just assume we care about um CO two emissions. Let's assume we care about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in general. Then and then if you look at biomass, if you look at waste biomass, um

Clearly, if you could do it cheaply enough, the highest and best use of it is is carbon removal. Like you just you just get the most bang for your buck, even over the other things that leverage the carbon, saff or whatever else, which is where you guys have started. The question then is like Uh it is less, I think in my mind, what

What is the highest bet and best use of the material? And rather, what is the market for that? Right. Which is the sort of underlying question in CDR. So I wanna transfer to talking about that a little bit because you've been a kind of I think you've delivered more tons of permanent CDR than anybody else in the world, or at least that was true at one point.

And the other thing that I think you've done that has been interesting to me is that you've found a more diverse set of buyers for CDR than most other folks. I think listeners to this podcast probably know that if you just look at like overall tons purchased in the CDR market, it's basically Microsoft followed by like an order of magnitude lower frontier, which is the Stripe Coalition.

followed by a bunch of little minnows, you know, in in relative terms. And so a lot of the CDR market, to the extent that they have actually generally pre-sold tons as opposed to selling tons, which as you've done. Um, that's the buyer universe for them, essentially. But you know, you have found some some others on that list. So just give me your overall take on like how the CDR uh demand side has evolved and what your approach has been to to finding those buyers.

I think I have a little bit of a unique perspective here also as an ex buyer. The reason that I'm in this market at all is'cause previously built a software company called Segment, um, which I sold in twenty twenty and along the way. we were trying to figure out how to, you know, offset our carbon or remove our carbon. And I was really pissed off at the quality of what was there. And so I I come from like a perspective of sitting in the buyer's seat.

uh, you know, beyond the folks that have gotten really excited and have driven forward the carbon removal industry, you know, the the stripes and Shopify's and Microsoft's and Google's and Facebook, like, you know, sort of like core tech uh group. Beyond that, like I I feel a little bit of some of the pain that the broader market has has encountered in trying to buy offsets historically because I went through it. And specifically my experience was.

I went and bought some like offsets in Indonesian Rainforest and the Amazon Rainforest. And it was like 20K or something. And then I came back a year later and I was like, wait a second, like what happened? What happened when I bought those offsets? Like is there any clarity of, you know, can I look up like which acres exactly did I protect?

And like did it did it have an impact? Is it still there? You know, then you see in in the news like the Amazon's on fire and you're like, Oh shoot, like maybe I need to go rebuy something. Like, you know, did my protection totally fail here? And so the the deeper that I got into that, the more I was like, This is bad. This is really bad. There's no clarity on it. There's no trail of evidence. There's no like FedEx style delivery history of like what happened there.

And so I think there's a few things that um have differentiated charm in sort of appealing to a broader set of buyers. The first is extreme transparency. So like you can go to the website and this comes from that experience, but you can go to the website, traumindustrial.com slash ledger, and you can see a complete history of every delivery. You can click in and you can see where the biomass came from, you can and so on.

I still think it's a really crappy V0. Like I want to get to a point where you can like when the DoorDash deliverer takes a picture of the food on your doorstep, like every picture, every step of the process, I want to have photo evidence of what happened and make that public.

So that's one thing that still is extremely differentiated. We've made a big point of it over the years and I've like tried to push push other suppliers to do that and um for whatever reason it's still still differentiated. And so from a risk perspective, right, if you're a buyer and you've been feeling all this risk of these like junky offsets that you maybe got burned by, um, that's a pretty different feel in the sort of broader market.

And the other is just all the co-benefits associated with Charms Process. There are many other processes that are sort of arbitrage of like, you know, delivering tons in a in a cheap fashion that are real but probably can't get to climate scale.

Um, what's different is not only can Trump kind of get to a very large scale due to the feedstocks that we're going and getting access to, but um the potential wildfire impact, the potential um like orphaned well cleanup. You know, there's a bunch of things along the chain that I think are big co-benefits to human health and and communities that uh buyers want to pr you know help support.

So is your view that there's Like a significant volume of latent, I don't know whether this is the right way to put it, but latent demand for CDR that has not been unlocked largely because one, a sort of lack of trust in the market, which I 100% agree with you. I I lived I I worked in the carbon market world, the voluntary carbon market world, like w uh geez, fifteen years ago now. And it's the legacy carbon offset world is a disaster in my opinion.

So there's definitely some repair that needs to be done there. But so your view is that uh combination of trust. and co-benefits deliver this like big wave of demand that we haven't seen fully show up yet outside of just that core group you said the tech companies, et cetera. I think so. And like and like why? What are they what are they driving toward? Is it net zero commitments that they're trying to meet? Is it like what's the underlying motivation for corporates at least, do you think?

I think our underlying motivation for corporates is impact. And they wanna trust that that impact is actually happening in like a measurable way. And climate impact is great. But they also if they can double dip simultaneously into having climate impact as well as health impact because there isn't particulate coming out of a wildfire.

And into, you know, community impact because homes aren't getting burnt down and into community impact'cause a well is getting cleaned up and like it's not spewing radioactive brine at the surface anymore or methane. Like You know, it's just it's just m their if their goal is is is having a positive impact with with these kinds of purchases, that's like

that's a lot more, right? There's just more there on the bone. Um as opposed to, you know, some some other approaches often have trade offs uh in this sense, whether that's like, you know, consuming a lot of power or or other kinds of things, right? Where it's like, That can be less appealing.

Are there other categories of buyers that you think are likely to scale? I mean, I guess the way I think about it is right now it's been the tech industry first and foremost, followed maybe by the financial sector. Where there have been a few buyers who have stepped like some of the big banks have made some larger volume purchases. Is that the next big beach head for C DR? Yeah, I'd say certainly we started in high tech uh or technology, um, big software companies, AI hyperscalers.

Uh we see a lot of activity in banking, financial services. We see a lot of activity in consulting. Um, have a lot of consulting companies as customers. We're starting to see more activity in advanced manufacturing. Um sets, you know, like uh aircraft, chips, pharmaceuticals, like It you know, if you look at a sort of chart of like profitability per ton or e bit dot per ton, like it's it's the companies that have a lot of ebit dot per ton that are gonna lead the way on helping things down.

Ton of emissions in this case. Not removal, right? It's like, yeah, how much money do they make real but it's basically saying like how hard is it for them to afford to purchase credits to offset a significant chunk of their emissions. Yeah. I will say though that there are

Some companies that um, you know, have done the analysis, right, of like they've reduced all their obvious emissions in terms of just buying clean electricity and so on. And they're getting down to the point where they're like, hold on, like It's gonna cost like two thousand dollars a ton for me to go like tear down a building and rebuild it with like a proper HVAC system that does like heat pumps, you know it's like

and have clean concrete. Like, you know, y at some point you get down to this like baseload of like amortized embodied emissions and things that are like in the built structures and it's really hard and really expensive. Um and as they get down there, it's like, well, maybe this is just cheaper to remove. All right, Peter, this was fun. Thanks for talking through ag residue and carbon removal with me, but appreciate the time. Thanks for having me.

Peter Reinhard is the co-founder and CEO of Charm Industrial. This show is a production of Latitude Media. You can head over to latitudemedia.com for links to today's topics. Latitude is supported by Prelude Ventures. This episode was produced by Daniel Waldorf. Mixing and theme song by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor. I'm Shail Khan, and this is Catalyst.