3 ms·
You’ve just described trees. And forestry in general, except with a different endpoint for the felled trees. This has been proposed many times for as long as I
by mdorazio 4y ago
You’ve just described trees. And forestry in general, except with a different endpoint for the felled trees. This has been proposed many times for as long as I can remember, but the bottom line is the same as other sequestration methods: someone has to pay for it and no one is willing to.
- saalweachter 4y agoI feel like this proposal (from the article) is a little novel. We usually see biofuels for carbon-neutral power (the plants get the carbon from the air, we release it back) or carbon-capture from fossil fuels (we dig up coal and capture the CO2 rather than releasing it into the atmosphere), and we've previously seen "bury a bunch of trees" as a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This proposal is biofuels + carbon-capture to both generate power and remove carbon from the atmosphere. The advantage of this solution is that -- while it's still more costly than biofuels alone or carbon-capture alone or just digging up oil and burning it into the atmosphere -- it should at least be an energy/money-generating operation, just less profitable than many of the competitors.