2 ms·

There's a problem with biomass approaches to either fuel production or carbon drawdown, namely the land/water/fertilizer problem. Agriculture is a huge consume

There's a problem with biomass approaches to either fuel production or carbon drawdown, namely the land/water/fertilizer problem. Agriculture is a huge consumer of fresh water, and in many places drought is the new normal, so reserving agricultural land for food production makes sense in drier regions. Similarly, achieving maximum growth rates for carbon-removing trees requires fertilizer application, which can have a lot of fossil fuel costs. Introducing industrial-scale non-fossil ammonia production (using water instead of natural gas as the hydrogen source to convert atmospheric N2 to ammonia/nitrate) could reduce demand for natural gas by something like 5% globally. However, these kinds of projects have potential for cleaning up brownfield zones, around mine sites, industrial sites etc. where metal tolerance is a useful trait. The atmospheric carbon reduction claims are not so plausible. The whole business of using forestry as an 'offset' to continue fossil fuel production has a very poor record (see Canadian forests, Alberta tar sands, and pine beetle outbreaks for example).

mbreese 5y ago
Trees aren’t planted in areas typically used for agricultural (food crop) use. That land is better put to use growing traditional food crops. Managed forests aren’t irrigated or fertilized like corn or wheat. The areas are too large, too remote, and not flat enough to make that remotely feasible. Once the trees are large enough, forests are pretty much plant and forget operations (with some regular maintenance for clearing brush or pruning). No one will be trying to get the optimal amount of CO2 collection from each tree. That just isn’t practical. Instead, you do what you can to make the whole work as best as you can, but cover a large area. Engineering a better growing tree for carbon capture makes a lot of sense.

mbreese 5y ago

Trees aren’t planted in areas typically used for agricultural (food crop) use. That land is better put to use growing traditional food crops. Managed forests aren’t irrigated or fertilized like corn or wheat. The areas are too large, too remote, and not flat enough to make that remotely feasible. Once the trees are large enough, forests are pretty much plant and forget operations (with some regular maintenance for clearing brush or pruning). No one will be trying to get the optimal amount of CO2 collection from each tree. That just isn’t practical. Instead, you do what you can to make the whole work as best as you can, but cover a large area. Engineering a better growing tree for carbon capture makes a lot of sense.