3 ms·

So how much of earth do we need to cover with forest to have a sustainable production for our buildings at a level that it actually matters? One building works,

So how much of earth do we need to cover with forest to have a sustainable production for our buildings at a level that it actually matters? One building works, sure enough. But is it scalable to a level that it actually helps? I have my doubts. Bringing awareness is still a good thing of course. Which is how I tend to see most of these projects.

jtolmar 9y ago
If I did all my math/googling right, one acre of managed forest can produce about thirty square meters of the 20-inch-thick panels mentioned in the article per year. (A typical wood weighing 0.4 tons per square meter and a managed forest producing about 6 tons per acre per year.) I'll guess it takes around four of those acre-year units to build one person's worth of an apartment building. (Thirty square meters is on the small side for an apartment, and apartments need walls, but they're also not going to be entirely constructed of the thickest panels.) My home city of Seattle is growing at about 20k people per year, which (if we try to fit them all in wooden highrises) works out to 80k acres, which is roughly the size of the city itself. I feel like that'd be entirely reasonable. It's also worth noting that this sequesters a rather appreciable amount of carbon (trees are half carbon, so about 240 kilotons per year).
- mseebach 9y ago
  Also, if we're considering ecological foot print, structural use of wood is near-permanent sequestering (ie. carbon-negative) which is better than most other uses of wood such as burning for fuel which is "only" carbon-neutral.
- pyrale 9y ago
  > one acre of managed forest can produce about thirty square meters of the 20-inch-thick panels mentioned in the article per year. > I'll guess it takes around four of those acre-year units to build one person's worth of an apartment building. France has about 30 million acres of privately held forest. Let's assume that half of this surface produces at your estimated rate, and 20% of that production goes to building: that would be about 3 million acres or 750.000 new individual units per year. With about 775-800k births in recent years, this would be fine.

jtolmar 9y ago

If I did all my math/googling right, one acre of managed forest can produce about thirty square meters of the 20-inch-thick panels mentioned in the article per year. (A typical wood weighing 0.4 tons per square meter and a managed forest producing about 6 tons per acre per year.) I'll guess it takes around four of those acre-year units to build one person's worth of an apartment building. (Thirty square meters is on the small side for an apartment, and apartments need walls, but they're also not going to be entirely constructed of the thickest panels.) My home city of Seattle is growing at about 20k people per year, which (if we try to fit them all in wooden highrises) works out to 80k acres, which is roughly the size of the city itself. I feel like that'd be entirely reasonable. It's also worth noting that this sequesters a rather appreciable amount of carbon (trees are half carbon, so about 240 kilotons per year).

mseebach 9y ago
Also, if we're considering ecological foot print, structural use of wood is near-permanent sequestering (ie. carbon-negative) which is better than most other uses of wood such as burning for fuel which is "only" carbon-neutral.
pyrale 9y ago
> one acre of managed forest can produce about thirty square meters of the 20-inch-thick panels mentioned in the article per year. > I'll guess it takes around four of those acre-year units to build one person's worth of an apartment building. France has about 30 million acres of privately held forest. Let's assume that half of this surface produces at your estimated rate, and 20% of that production goes to building: that would be about 3 million acres or 750.000 new individual units per year. With about 775-800k births in recent years, this would be fine.