4 ms·

In the Norwegian engineer paper (TU) from 1960 the main discussions of their time was that they had to get away from burning trees as energy source and use oil/

In the Norwegian engineer paper (TU) from 1960 the main discussions of their time was that they had to get away from burning trees as energy source and use oil/coal or water fall to get the energy to supply the industry. Lot of talks about deforestation with examples that we have not recovered from today (example Røros).

Brakenshire 7y ago
One of the tragedies of our failure to tackle GHG emissions is that now reasonable pathways to stay under 2C of warming require massive negative carbon sequestration after 2040, and at the moment the only way to do that is burning wood and capturing the CO2 emissions. The volume of wood which will have to be burnt each year is more than the volume of all international shipping. That is going to mean covering huge areas of land in industrial plantations which will probably damage wildlife further. Because we’ve delayed action, we’re entering into the teeth of a dilemma which will drive further mass extinctions whatever we do, either remove habitat for wood production for negative carbon, or accept high levels of warming.
- abraae 7y ago
  Why does sequestration involve burning wood? Isn't it easier to leave the carbon in wood form and build e.g furniture, buildings, structures out of wood, and leave the carbon there?
  - Danieru 7y ago
    Now many deck chairs do are you willing to pay for, on a yearly basis? I would bet few people are willing to purchase 100 or so new deck chairs per year. Burning seems a sensible alternative.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    You’re talking about perhaps 10 tonnes of wood each year for each person. It’s an interesting concept, though, I wonder what uses we could find for it if we tried to do that.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      Cross-laminated timber? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171026-the-rise-of-skyscrapers-made-of-wood https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171026-the-rise-of-skys... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber . Though from what I've heard, it's difficult to figure out if they are net negative CO2, and of course the timber needs to come from sustainably managed forests.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    I think you're missing the other element: continued access to fuel and energy sources. Before the switch to coal, wood was the primary thermal energy souce for humans (well, after direct passive solar heat). By the 19th century, and in many parts of the world, centuries or millennia prior, woodfuel burning, directly and as charcoal for kilns and smelters, had deforested vast parts of the globe, transforming many formerly forested parts of the world to desert or scrub (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, Italy). We have the dual problems of 1) replacing coal, oil, and natural gas, and 2) removing CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. Burning wood accomplishes #1, but not #2. There's the additional slight problem that the scale of present energy consumption, let alone increases which would bring another 5-8 billions of souls up to modern European or US standards of living, largely defined by per-capita energy consumption, greatly exceeds total available biomass production in total, not merely wood growth.
  - baq 7y ago
    do you need a thousand chairs? skyscrapers can't be built out of wood, too. the easiest way would be to just bury the wood (we dug it out in the first place, right?) but we need to make sure that it doesn't rot and thus reenter the atmosphere. that's where burning makes sense.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      >skyscrapers can't be built out of wood, too. Skyscrapers can't be built out of concrete either. It's the rebar that is the structural component that makes it possible to build skyscrapers. We can build skyscrapers with mass timber and steel reinforcement nowadays.
highesttide 7y ago
I have to admit, not working at a startup or FAANG-scale company, I'm amazed to see the place I work mentioned, even just as a note, on here. Fun little double-take!

Brakenshire 7y ago

One of the tragedies of our failure to tackle GHG emissions is that now reasonable pathways to stay under 2C of warming require massive negative carbon sequestration after 2040, and at the moment the only way to do that is burning wood and capturing the CO2 emissions. The volume of wood which will have to be burnt each year is more than the volume of all international shipping. That is going to mean covering huge areas of land in industrial plantations which will probably damage wildlife further. Because we’ve delayed action, we’re entering into the teeth of a dilemma which will drive further mass extinctions whatever we do, either remove habitat for wood production for negative carbon, or accept high levels of warming.

abraae 7y ago
Why does sequestration involve burning wood? Isn't it easier to leave the carbon in wood form and build e.g furniture, buildings, structures out of wood, and leave the carbon there?
- Danieru 7y ago
  Now many deck chairs do are you willing to pay for, on a yearly basis? I would bet few people are willing to purchase 100 or so new deck chairs per year. Burning seems a sensible alternative.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  You’re talking about perhaps 10 tonnes of wood each year for each person. It’s an interesting concept, though, I wonder what uses we could find for it if we tried to do that.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Cross-laminated timber? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171026-the-rise-of-skyscrapers-made-of-wood https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171026-the-rise-of-skys... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber . Though from what I've heard, it's difficult to figure out if they are net negative CO2, and of course the timber needs to come from sustainably managed forests.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I think you're missing the other element: continued access to fuel and energy sources. Before the switch to coal, wood was the primary thermal energy souce for humans (well, after direct passive solar heat). By the 19th century, and in many parts of the world, centuries or millennia prior, woodfuel burning, directly and as charcoal for kilns and smelters, had deforested vast parts of the globe, transforming many formerly forested parts of the world to desert or scrub (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, Italy). We have the dual problems of 1) replacing coal, oil, and natural gas, and 2) removing CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. Burning wood accomplishes #1, but not #2. There's the additional slight problem that the scale of present energy consumption, let alone increases which would bring another 5-8 billions of souls up to modern European or US standards of living, largely defined by per-capita energy consumption, greatly exceeds total available biomass production in total, not merely wood growth.
- baq 7y ago
  do you need a thousand chairs? skyscrapers can't be built out of wood, too. the easiest way would be to just bury the wood (we dug it out in the first place, right?) but we need to make sure that it doesn't rot and thus reenter the atmosphere. that's where burning makes sense.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    >skyscrapers can't be built out of wood, too. Skyscrapers can't be built out of concrete either. It's the rebar that is the structural component that makes it possible to build skyscrapers. We can build skyscrapers with mass timber and steel reinforcement nowadays.

highesttide 7y ago

I have to admit, not working at a startup or FAANG-scale company, I'm amazed to see the place I work mentioned, even just as a note, on here. Fun little double-take!