4 ms·

I have that technology. Do plenty useful job in my backyard. We call it 'Tree'. Elon can go head and call it 'Treesla"

JoshuaDavid 6y ago
You joke, but if you have a solid idea of how to permanently¹ sequester carbon from trees in a cheap and scalable fashion, it might be worth submitting that proposal. If nothing else, it can serve as a baseline against which other proposals are judged (as in X tones more cost effective than the "plant some trees" approach). ¹ Some uses for wood, like as fuel, release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Likewise anything where the wood decomposes.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Heating up the wood in an inert atmosphere until it decomposes to pure carbon would work. Where should I submit such a proposal?
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    What would be the point of that? Why not just cut down the trees, bury them and grow new ones?
    - babesh 6y ago
      Why bury them? Build more things from wood instead of plastic.
      - guerrilla 6y ago
        That would be nice wouldn't it.
    - Kaibeezy 6y ago
      I think the point is that by removing the water, empty space and non-carbon it would be physically much smaller. Now, compress it under great pressure and heat and enter the Diamond Age.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        Then we can pour diamonds into our cars and burn them...
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you simply bury them, there is a good chance the wood will be decomposed anaerobically, producing methane then carbon dioxide.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Per the article, the details of that will be released next week. Seems like a cool idea.
dimitar 6y ago
This is true in the short to medium run. Trees and plants are net consumers of CO2 when they grow, but become neutral when they reach maturity, so they are more of a carbon buffer. The buffer can be freed when they burn or rot, both of which happen naturally. The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape (and to free space for new trees to grow). Some of the carbon from dead plants is stored in the soils, but this takes a lot of time to do. In the long run biofuels + carbon capture can be carbon negative.
- bnegreve 6y ago
  > The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape I really don't understand this logic. The oil industry spends billions every year to extract oil (= fossilized biomass) buried deep underground, because burning biomass gives you cheap energy. If you cut down and store enough trees to compensate for the current CO2 emissions, you will have access to an immense volume of biomass, much easier to "extract" than oil is. What do you think is going to happen with this biomass? People are going to burn it to make cheap energy again.. Actually, why would you even go through the trouble of cutting down the trees in the first place? You could just, not extract the oil and end up with the exact same amount of energy you will have at the end of this complex process.
  - dimitar 6y ago
    One way to to store that carbon by burning the trees is and storing the CO2 underground - it will be costly to extract and worthless to do so and you will get some energy out of it.
    - bnegreve 6y ago
      To burn the trees, you need oxygen. You want to use oxygen from the atmosphere, and bury it underground?
- nuodag 6y ago
mlindner 6y ago
A tree is actually a very poor method of carbon capture. It's not durable and doesn't last ages. It can catch fire. And it takes decades. If you're gonna do organic methods then blue-green algae is way better. But I think the idea here is to come up with a technology that's even better than that.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Decades are not very long, in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that the first step would be to combat deforestation.

You joke, but if you have a solid idea of how to permanently¹ sequester carbon from trees in a cheap and scalable fashion, it might be worth submitting that proposal. If nothing else, it can serve as a baseline against which other proposals are judged (as in X tones more cost effective than the "plant some trees" approach). ¹ Some uses for wood, like as fuel, release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Likewise anything where the wood decomposes.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Heating up the wood in an inert atmosphere until it decomposes to pure carbon would work. Where should I submit such a proposal?
- guerrilla 6y ago
  What would be the point of that? Why not just cut down the trees, bury them and grow new ones?
  - babesh 6y ago
    Why bury them? Build more things from wood instead of plastic.
    - guerrilla 6y ago
      That would be nice wouldn't it.
  - Kaibeezy 6y ago
    I think the point is that by removing the water, empty space and non-carbon it would be physically much smaller. Now, compress it under great pressure and heat and enter the Diamond Age.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      Then we can pour diamonds into our cars and burn them...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    If you simply bury them, there is a good chance the wood will be decomposed anaerobically, producing methane then carbon dioxide.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Per the article, the details of that will be released next week. Seems like a cool idea.

dimitar 6y ago

This is true in the short to medium run. Trees and plants are net consumers of CO2 when they grow, but become neutral when they reach maturity, so they are more of a carbon buffer. The buffer can be freed when they burn or rot, both of which happen naturally. The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape (and to free space for new trees to grow). Some of the carbon from dead plants is stored in the soils, but this takes a lot of time to do. In the long run biofuels + carbon capture can be carbon negative.

bnegreve 6y ago
> The best way to permanently take away CO2 from the atmosphere is to cut off the trees and somehow store them where the CO2 cannot escape I really don't understand this logic. The oil industry spends billions every year to extract oil (= fossilized biomass) buried deep underground, because burning biomass gives you cheap energy. If you cut down and store enough trees to compensate for the current CO2 emissions, you will have access to an immense volume of biomass, much easier to "extract" than oil is. What do you think is going to happen with this biomass? People are going to burn it to make cheap energy again.. Actually, why would you even go through the trouble of cutting down the trees in the first place? You could just, not extract the oil and end up with the exact same amount of energy you will have at the end of this complex process.
- dimitar 6y ago
  One way to to store that carbon by burning the trees is and storing the CO2 underground - it will be costly to extract and worthless to do so and you will get some energy out of it.
  - bnegreve 6y ago
    To burn the trees, you need oxygen. You want to use oxygen from the atmosphere, and bury it underground?
nuodag 6y ago

mlindner 6y ago

A tree is actually a very poor method of carbon capture. It's not durable and doesn't last ages. It can catch fire. And it takes decades. If you're gonna do organic methods then blue-green algae is way better. But I think the idea here is to come up with a technology that's even better than that.

totalZero 6y ago
Decades are not very long, in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that the first step would be to combat deforestation.