6 ms·
Depending on the tree(s), it could be consuming CO2 24 hours a day, year round, solar is just part of the day and only reaches capacity for a brief moment. I do
by jweir 7y ago
Depending on the tree(s), it could be consuming CO2 24 hours a day, year round, solar is just part of the day and only reaches capacity for a brief moment. I don't know the numbers to show the difference. That is why I asked for some facts which the OP seems to know.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoTrees consume CO2 because it's part of photosynthesis, so that's actually on the same schedule as a solar panel's electricity production. At night they're actually continuing to release some of that CO2.
- village-idiot 7y agoA single average fully grown tree can sequester about 88lbs of CO2 per year according to the Center for Urban Forest Research, which is part of the US Forest Service. The average electricity service in the US produces about 1lb of CO2 per kWh, meaning that your solar panel needs to reduce your consumption by only 88 kWh per year below what your shaded house cost would be to be a net positive over a shade tree.
- VBprogrammer 7y agoDon't quote me on this but from memory a tree is able to sequester a lot more in the first couple of years than as a fully grown tree. Intuitively that makes sense.
- village-idiot 7y agoYes, that is true. The carbon sequestration is greatest when the tree is turning CO2 into more tree (e.g. when it’s growing). This process largely stops as a tree hits maturity, and the CO2 is mostly returned when the tree burns or rots. I’m making the explicit assumption that a shade tree will probably be fully grown.
- CydeWeys 7y agoTrees don't really continuously "consume" CO2 in this manner. The only CO2 removed by a tree is the carbon that ends up permanently Incorporated in the wood itself. And if you burn that wood, it's all released back into the air. Even if it just dies and decays, some of it ends up being released.
- zitterbewegung 7y agoYea, so to sequester the carbon either build something out of it or dump it into the ocean. Maybe build a boat?
- CydeWeys 7y agoRather than sequestering all this carbon into wood and then trying to figure out what to do with the wood so that it doesn't decompose over time and release the CO2 back into the air, it'd make more sense to stop digging up lots of carbon from underground (where it's been stable for hundreds of millions of years in the form of coal and oil) and burning it to release the CO2 into the air. We already have amazing reserves of CO2, and we're digging them up and releasing them by burning them! Trees are just a tiny band-aid on top of this massive harm we're self-inflicting.
- zitterbewegung 7y agoWhy can’t we do both ?
- CydeWeys 7y agoWe can and should, but there's more impact to be had from ceasing to dig up the buried carbon and burning it. That's the equivalent of not punching holes in the hull, whereas planting trees is like bailing out the boat -- you'd rather it just didn't leak!