428
the plan (quokk.au)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago (15 children)

Question:

How much CO2 does this produce?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

    A little less than 17 million pounds each block

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 23 hours ago (7 children)

    Ooh, it's shitty math time!

    Alright, so let's assume it's seven 17-ton bricks with an average THC of 20% - that's what most legal states use to decide flower/concentrate equivalencies, and it's easy to work with.

    According to Google, burning one ton of industrial hemp produces 1.6 tons of CO2. Let's assume that this industrial hemp contains no THC, and is fully converted into CO2 when it burns.

    For fun, let's also calculate how much THC comes out the other end of this. In the plant, THC forms as non-psychoactive THCa, which breaks down into psychoactive THC. In the process, it gets about 12% lighter.

    So, seven 17-ton bricks of weed start out as about 24 tons of THCa and 95 tons of industrial hemp equivalent. When burned, this would become about 152 tons of CO2, but only 21 tons of THC.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 21 hours ago (6 children)

    When you say "according to google" you're not referring to the AI are you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago (5 children)

    ...Sort of?

    Ngl, I checked the AI answer hoping that it would be wrong when I started opening links. Unfortunately, the first handful of actual search results all gave about the same number.

    Mostly though, I just meant "I checked like three websites that Google brought me to, but I'm not going to bother listing them" :P

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (4 children)

    You have no credibility with me, slopper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    I mean... A. I said it was shitty math.

    And B. I glanced at a number as I scrolled past, said "I'm not satisfied with a number that AI pulled out of nowhere," and checked the actual search results. There's a heavy emphasis on sustainability with hemp farming, so every source dealt with how much carbon it sequestered and "CO2 equivalent," which I guess includes other greenhouse gasses. I didn't feel like diving into how much of that was actually CO2, so I treated it all as CO2 for the sake of the (again, shitty) math.

    If it makes you feel better, I'll close my eyes next time while I scroll past the AI crap on my way to the search results.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (2 children)

    ... But they did the good thing and didn't slop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago* (1 child)

    "Ngl, I checked the AI answer"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago*

    I interpreted that to mean that they checked the AI answer that google sticks at the top of every search, which is unfortunately best practice if you're not tech-savvy enough to use DDG + a pile of Firefox extensions to help filter out the mass produced slop websites.

    What with the absolute hamstringing of search engines, going to the sources of the AI suggested answer is often the only way to get directly relevant information to your question out of google. It's for sure slopper behavior to just accept the answer without checking, but that didn't sound like what happened. Maybe I'm just projecting my own behavior onto them, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago

    The plant grows pretty quickly as I understand it, and pulls CO2 from the atmosphere as it does so, using the carbon in its structure, and releasing the oxygen. This carbon will bond with oxygen from the air as it burns high in the atmosphere, so there's probably no net release beyond what is needed in the process of growing the plants, making the blocks, transporting them to altitude, and feeding everyone who gets the munchies afterwards, but it would "move" the CO2 higher up. I've no idea what the implications of that are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent