4 ms·

How does this compare to the most ancient carbon capture tech: Trees ? I know this sounds boring, but a single $M would allow to plant as much trees and they w

• jsantos511 6y ago
  To put it plainly: we need more trees. However, trees cannot get us all the way there. Trees are great for drawing down atmospheric carbon emissions in the short-term, but when trees decompose, they just release that carbon back into the atmosphere. Additionally, the landmass and water needed to sustain all these trees will require another solution to get all of the way to where we need to be with carbon removal.
  • breck 6y ago
    Since its towers we're talking about, what about an ivy/clonal plant? And can't you just bury the dead trees? I also don't understand what the equation is. Is it something like this: CarbonCaptureRateToStopGlobalWarming = growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes(...params) + newTech(...params) If so, what is the order of term 1 and the order of term 2? It seems to me that at the end of the day only 1 of these terms will matter (or maybe it's a hybrid?)
    • ip26 6y ago
      Nobody has figured out a roadmap to get to done using only term 1. But we know it will help, and make other things better in the meantime, so it's always worth doing. Meanwhile, term 2 is unsolved but probably the only way to get back to 350ppm.
  • ping_pong 6y ago
    > when trees decompose, they just release that carbon back into the atmosphere This is false and extremely deceptive. When trees die they don't just release all the CO2 they collected back into the atmosphere over the course of their lifetime. How much CO2 and pollution will your towers produce during its production, while it is being run (it must use some sort of electricity) and when it is eventually dismantled? I assume you, it will be a lot more pollution than anything that a tree would create. Trees are the answer to CO2 capture. Period. End of sentence. It's cheaper and far more effective to plant trees and pay to stop deforestation than these ludicrous plans to supposedly capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
    • martincolorado 6y ago
      Agree this is mostly false, and likely not deceptive but fast/sloppy writing. For example, depending on the landscape and forest ecosystem composition, a wildfire could result in the ecosystem becoming a net carbon source. Examples include Ponderosa, Jeffery, and Lodgepole Pine and Douglas fir landscapes in California and Arizona. In a high intensity burn fire where the stand is replaced, it is possible to degrade the soil and emitted soil Carbon through both burning of soil organic matter and subsequent erosion[1][2]. With degraded soil and increasing temperatures the conditions won't be available for Ponderosa, Jeffery, and Lodgepole Pine and Douglas fir to regenerate and the species that succeed them likely don't have the same carbon sequestering potential. This phenomena can be extremely site specific in which former south facing pine stands might not regenerate pine and instead regenerate as chaparral and manzanita (for example, west side Sierra 5000-7000 feet above sea level). Dying trees and wildfire is especially problematic in Boreal forests in Alaska and Canada[3]. Managing Boreal forests as a carbon sinks is going to be difficult with climate change. In Canada million acre fires are normal as the species composition is susceptible to stand clearing fires and fire intensity can be high resulting in the ecosystem being an atmospheric carbon producing source. Conversely, Redwood forests even at maturity increase their capacity as carbon sinks and are highly resistant to catastrophic fire.[4] So, species composition, soil, and fire influence on whether or not decomposing trees are a carbon sink or source. Building on the model presented earlier: CarbonCaptureRateToStopGlobalWarming = growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes(...params) + newTech(...params) Replace growTreesPlantsAndBuryDeadOnes with growing fire resistant species that sequester carbon in the soil/biomass at high rates. For example, Redwoods in coastal CA and Oregon. [1] https://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/03-1-1-06_fsbrief86.pdf https://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/03-1-1-06_fsbrie... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706111002710 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167... [3] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3638-5_21 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3638-5_... [4] https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107 https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107
• colonelcanoe 6y ago
  While this does not answer your question, which I find interesting, it seems pretty sensible that you'd want to explore this option even if you are planting lots of trees. Doubly so if it's viable as a business venture, since that's a strong signal that it's cost effective. As jsantos511 said many times, we need more shots on goal!
  • Fiahil 6y ago
    We see a lot of companies "planting trees " or "offsetting their carbon footprint" in their marketing material. However, they're not -actually- doing anything. They're just giving money to someone else that will "plant trees". If I want to go ahead, and plant trees, there's no way for me, as an individual, to claim a bit of that money. I think that's an issue.
• tekstar 6y ago
  Trees capture co2 into the biosphere, and when they do so it is temporary (~100 years by the time they've decomposed and released it back in to the atmosphere). Still, planting trees helps hold more co2 from the atmosphere and needs to be part of the solution. Especially if we can re-green areas that are currently barren, like deserts. Proper sequestering, which I agree doesn't really exist yet, is to capture co2 back into the geosphere.
  • luplex 6y ago
    Building and sustaining a forest on the other hand does bind carbon, because there are always new trees to take up the carbon from the dead ones. It just takes land.
• imtringued 6y ago
  I don't know about trees but bamboo sounds like a good candidate.