4 ms·
Wood is not dense enough for this to be cost effective.
by thinkcontext 8y ago
Wood is not dense enough for this to be cost effective.
- adwn 8y agoYou could burn it – the ash from burning a tree takes up only a fraction of the original volume.
- sudhirj 8y agoDon’t know if this is sarcasm, but burning the wood releases most of the carbon dioxide back into the air. The ash is just the unburnt carbon residue and other leftovers.
- adwn 8y agoYes, it was a joke. Sorry for that.
- logfromblammo 8y agoJokes aside, you could partially burn it, into charcoal, then grind down the charcoal, soak it in urea, and mix it with soil. The charcoal bits remain stable in soil for quite a long time, and helps retain plant nutrients.
- milcron 8y agoIf a woodpile isn't dense enough, then surely building homes and furniture out of wood isn't dense enough either. Can you think of a better way to store carbon!
- thinkcontext 8y agoNot very dense compared to the cost of digging a big hole in the ground with Caterpillars and the number of truck loads of pellets you would need to bring in. This is all assuming that just covering the wood over with dirt is enough to keep it sequestered, a big pile of biomass could start emitting methane. > Can you think of a better way to store carbon! BECCS like they referred to in the article.