3 ms·

Huh! I guess it depends on whether those trees will actually end up being repopulated. I'm still not sure I'd put it in the same class as solar energy for that

Huh! I guess it depends on whether those trees will actually end up being repopulated. I'm still not sure I'd put it in the same class as solar energy for that reason (not arguing against it as a power source), although perhaps solar generates so little the distinction is meaningless?

reincarnate0x14 5y ago
Solar and wind and hydro and nuclear aren't carbon neutral though, they're zero carbon (again excluding external costs of production, etc). With carbon-neutral the amount of biosphere C stays constant, with carbon zero is may potentially go back down as natural or artificial carbon capture processes happen. It's not a distinction that is made in public discourse commonly but matters if, for example, it's powering a carbon capture system or producing methane from atmospheric gasses. Doing that via a carbon-neutral system would be a net negative energy relatively to carbon usage case, whereas using a nuclear reactor or solar plant to do it when it's overproducing relative to immediate grid load would work out.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > With carbon-neutral the amount of biosphere C stays constant, with carbon zero is may potentially go back down as natural or artificial carbon capture processes happen The net effect is the same. A country running on biofuels and a country running on solar will have the same net production irrespective of carbon capture. One emits and absorbs while the other never emits.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    Assuming a totally steady-state biosphere, and that zero-carbon energy and carbon capture are mutually exclusive, which are not a valid assumptions. Almost every first-world country's biosphere is limited by human action, so a country running on "zero carbon" energy can allow the biosphere to capture carbon at effectively the same rate as the biofuel country, and not release the carbon back into the atmosphere.
dahfizz 5y ago
Tree farming is pretty common, both for lumber and biomass fuel. NY state has over 300,000 acres of tree farms. https://www.nytreefarm.org/about/ https://www.nytreefarm.org/about/

reincarnate0x14 5y ago

Solar and wind and hydro and nuclear aren't carbon neutral though, they're zero carbon (again excluding external costs of production, etc). With carbon-neutral the amount of biosphere C stays constant, with carbon zero is may potentially go back down as natural or artificial carbon capture processes happen. It's not a distinction that is made in public discourse commonly but matters if, for example, it's powering a carbon capture system or producing methane from atmospheric gasses. Doing that via a carbon-neutral system would be a net negative energy relatively to carbon usage case, whereas using a nuclear reactor or solar plant to do it when it's overproducing relative to immediate grid load would work out.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> With carbon-neutral the amount of biosphere C stays constant, with carbon zero is may potentially go back down as natural or artificial carbon capture processes happen The net effect is the same. A country running on biofuels and a country running on solar will have the same net production irrespective of carbon capture. One emits and absorbs while the other never emits.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  Assuming a totally steady-state biosphere, and that zero-carbon energy and carbon capture are mutually exclusive, which are not a valid assumptions. Almost every first-world country's biosphere is limited by human action, so a country running on "zero carbon" energy can allow the biosphere to capture carbon at effectively the same rate as the biofuel country, and not release the carbon back into the atmosphere.

dahfizz 5y ago

Tree farming is pretty common, both for lumber and biomass fuel. NY state has over 300,000 acres of tree farms. https://www.nytreefarm.org/about/ https://www.nytreefarm.org/about/