7 ms·
> Empress trees (...) absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre. In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person[1]. So bas
by tcgv 7y ago
> Empress trees (...) absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre.
In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person[1].
So basically each american would have to cultivate about 0.196 acre of empress trees (792 sq meters, or 8522 sq foot) to become carbon neutral.
[1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-f...
- __sy__ 7y agoI also did a similar back-of-the-envelop calculation the moment I saw this 103 tons per acre figures. Global CO2 emissions: ~40GT/year Area required: ~600K square miles This is approximately the size of the entire state of Alaska. Every year.
- RaptorJ 7y agowell, if you convert it all to biochar (say with a 50% volume fudge factor to account for non-carbon components and packing density), you just have to stack an area the size of pennsylvania with 1 meter of biochar each year to zero emissions.
- RosanaAnaDana 7y agoAnd the carbon cost of the energy it takes to convert it all to biochar?
- VBprogrammer 7y agoThe energy and carbon come from burning off the volatile organics from the wood. It impacts the amount of carbon sequestered but it's still a net positive.
- soulofmischief 7y agoThe year is 21XX. Multi-story "tree towers" pierce the skyline in every direction, competing for vertical supremacy with even the tallest of skyscrapers. Solar and other renewable energy sources provide the lighting necessary for the unexposed levels.
- cwkoss 7y agoGrow 100 foot trees, fell them into central points into a teepee like structure. Move soil to the points plant a new tree on top.
- bwanab 7y agoNot every year. Given the article's assertion of the 103 tons per acre per year, your Alaska of Empress trees would do it until they all die and presumably those forests will be maintained into perpetuity.
- _rpd 7y agoWhen the tree dies, it will release 99% of the stored carbon back to the atmosphere. Unless you bury the tree in an anaerobic environment or treat it in some other way, the tree is just a time-delayed release mechanism. New forest can store a buffer in perpetuity, e.g., a new trillion trees can store 133 Gt. But current emissions are > 40 Gt/year, so this is < 4 years worth of emissions.
- duckymcduckface 7y agoMakes me wonder if in the future the solution will be to create synthetic crude and pump it back into the ground.
- tim333 7y agoOr just: >Once the trees reach maturity, farmers harvest their wood for use in houses or musical instruments as in the article. You could make chunky log cabin type buildings to use more. I'd quite like a log mansion.
- plutonorm 7y agoMaybe this is where the oil came from In the first place. A desperate attempt to dump co2 by a doomed civilisation in the deep past. Obviously not, but could make a good short story :)
- youngtaff 7y agoMake charcoal and then bury it
- marcusverus 7y agoIt definitely seems like the ideal solution is bacterial sequestration of carbon into some inert, non-toxic, storable chemical.
- egdod 7y agoPresumably you don’t have to harvest and replant them every year though. I’m guessing it takes them several years to get to the point that they’re full grown.
- JudgeWapner 7y agoand even if this were possible, it requires a significant amount of freshwater to supply that many trees.
- Fargren 7y agoThere is not one solution for Global Warming and CO2 emissions. No silver bullet, just as in software. This is one more tool, which needs to be used when appropriate. But we also need better legislation, technological improvements, and changes in consumption behavior, locally and worldwide. If we look at each of those things and do the math, the answer will be "it's not enough" or "it's too expensive". We mustn't let that be a showstopper. Of course some solutions are really not viable at all and should be ignored in favor of others, but every solution that helps enough (for some definition of enough) needs to be pursued.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- crispyambulance 7y agoEmpress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down to a fraction of what it was in 2016? I think so, if the people can be convinced to elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. Is it worthwhile to develop artificial carbon sequestration facilities that operate on vast scales? Yep.
- bwb 7y agowell said :), i vote for you!
- tim333 7y agoIt might be done quite quickly with a proper carbon pricing regime. The UK carbon price is about £35/ton. Times 104 tons/acre is about £3500/acre which is probably enough to make a profit. Then just get VC funding for your carbon startup and off it goes. There are political and practical difficulties doing that but there are also difficulties with wrecking the climate that might outweigh those.
- hef19898 7y agoMight be a worthwhile start-up idea... I'm wondering...
- nathantotten 7y agoPresumably, some of that 103 tons are taken care of already by existing plants/trees.
- chrisco255 7y agoAbsolutely, not to mention the ocean. A third of existing emissions are already absorbed by the oceans: https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sea-carb-bish.html https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sea-carb-bish....
- thinkcontext 7y agoYou can't count all 103 tons. The Empress wood is really just substituting for other wood that grows more slowly and less efficiently. So, if you grew Empress trees that yielded 10M board feet, there would be less of some other tree grown. Since the Empress is so efficient you could use less land to grow those 10M board feet worth of trees. And if that land which you wind up not needing to grow plantation trees on instead becomes undisturbed forest, then you could count that portion as a net reduction in carbon emissions. It also possible that Empress is so efficient that the market for wood expands more than it would otherwise. Say you use more wood to replace concrete in buildings [1]. That would also count as a reduction. But in neither scenario would you be able to count all 103 tons per acre per year. A confounding factor, can it really compete on a mass scale with existing lumber? > Paulownia trees take a lot of work to manage. They require pruning twice a year to establish a clear timber trunk. They need particular growing conditions, and don’t like wet feet or strong winds. [2] Is this why the industry is not already growing the tree? [1] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190717-climate-change-wooden-architecture-concrete-global-warming http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190717-climate-change-wood... [2] https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-the-power-of-paulownia-the-fastest-growing-tree-in-the-world/ https://thisnzlife.co.nz/how-a-small-waikato-farm-harnesses-...
- olliej 7y agoNo one is suggesting we cut down other trees though, there are large expanses of deforested land and the goal here would be rapid reforestation. Replacing a complete lack of tree with any other tree is an improvement.
- quixoticelixer- 7y agoMaybe not replacing lack of tree with exotic invasives trees
- olliej 7y agoThe principle reason for favoring this tree (not arguing whether it's good or bad) is the vastly superior rate of carbon sequestration. Most trees are (apparently, just according to the article) only capable of sequestering 1.1-9.5 tonnes of carbon per acre per year, this type can apparently take up more than 100 tonnes per acre per year.
- markdown 7y ago> In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person Is that per year or per average lifetime?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]