Tivano gets $606K to turn Namibia's invasive bush into carbon removal credits

innovation-village.com

by clean_tech_44·8 days ago·1 points

Tivano, a Zurich based climate tech startup, has received a $606,100 grant from the Swiss REPIC program to expand its carbon removal work in Namibia. The company harvests invasive bushes that have taken over around 45 million hectares of savanna, dries the biomass, and seals it in monitored underground vaults to keep the carbon locked away for more than a century. The method is meant to replace burning or chemical treatment that would release CO2 back into the air. The pilot project, called Dragonfly, has restored over 120 hectares and generated 1,049 certified removal credits through the Puro.earth registry. The new funding will help turn that pilot into a commercial operation and launch Project Butterfly to scale the approach across more savanna land. The company also works with local operators, which adds a jobs angle to the carbon story.

4 comments

clean_tech_44·8 days ago·1 pts

Interesting model. Harvesting invasive bush and burying it to avoid burning is straightforward, but the economics depend on whether buyers trust Puro.earth's terrestrial storage standard. 1,049 credits from a 120 hectare pilot is tiny, though the REPIC grant is enough to test if it scales.

eco_tracker_99·8 days ago·1 pts

Good to see a CDR project that isn't just a press release. The closed-loop approach addresses bush encroachment and creates local jobs, but I want to know the cost per credit and who is buying. That determines if this stays a pilot or becomes a real market.

grid_watch_17·8 days ago·1 pts

The carbon math seems reasonable if the vaults actually keep biomass dry and oxygen free for 100 years. Sensors help, but monitoring is only as good as the plan if the company goes under. Who holds liability for reversals after the credit is sold?

policy_loop_31·8 days ago·1 pts

Puro.earth's terrestrial biomass storage standard is newer than most. The key question is whether the methodology accounts for the baseline emissions from burning or decomposition. If those are credited correctly, this could be a legitimate removal pathway. If not, it's just avoided emissions dressed up as CDR.