5 ms·
Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but als
by d_theorist 10y ago
Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but also releasing it through the death of trees and through the soil. Trees can temporarily capture carbon, but ultimately it will be released again unless they are burned.
They also take up a lot of space.
[EDIT] I should probably clarify that I have nothing against trees, and they definitely can help with sequestration, and they have lots nice properties. I was mainly reacting against "the ultimate carbon-capture devices", which they really are not.
- likelynew 10y ago> Unless they are burned Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?
- DennisP 10y agoHe's probably referring to biochar. Turning biomass into charcoal, grinding it into powder, and working it into soil is known to sequester carbon for at least a thousand years.
- d_theorist 10y agoExactly.
- jonstewart 10y agoI would love to see engineered wood, like Cross-laminated timber, replace concrete as a structural building material.
- Neliquat 10y agoWhy? And laminates are typically petro products.
- jonstewart 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_laminated_timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_laminated_timber There's some glue involved, but it removes the carbon stored in the wood from the normal carbon cycle of trees and it would also displace cement/concrete, whose production emits loads of carbon dioxide.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- zebrafish 10y agoI've been thinking about economical carbon sequestration uses for the heliostat molten salt reactors. Desalinate sea water (sell fresh water) -> power a generator with steam (sell excess energy) -> grow trees in the desert (sell the trees to a mill) -> go back to start.