3 ms·

How quickly is each consumed tree replaced, how quickly is the CO2 from the entire supply chain recaptured, and how quickly does the other pollutants degrade?

How quickly is each consumed tree replaced, how quickly is the CO2 from the entire supply chain recaptured, and how quickly does the other pollutants degrade? If it takes years to recreate the resources or recapture the CO2 from what is burnt in the course of days, then it is pretty grotesque to call it sustainable, but maybe the numbers show otherwise? If everybody shares burners for highly processed pelletized wood that lives up to power-plant like smoke processing requirements (how many would you say do? 90%? 20%?), then indeed you might be able to just being as bad as coal... Which is horrible. Air-to-water heatpumps are also an option, no need to compare to the heating solution with the highest installation cost.

sharpneli 4y ago
Depends on the surface area of the forest. A single tree takes tens of years to grow but a certain area of forest contains enough growing trees that by the time you cut down the last the one you planted first has grown to full. Do note that a tree that dies in forest also produces CO2. Exactly the amount it does if it’s burned (unless it’s a peat bog or whatnot). So not burning it doesn’t really change things.
- arghwhat 4y ago
  > Do note that a tree that dies in forest also produces CO2. Exactly the amount it does if it’s burned (unless it’s a peat bog or whatnot). So not burning it doesn’t really change things. Growing trees require more than just CO2, and I imagine there are limits to how much this process can be accelerated without environmental impact. Depending on the tree sort and location they may naturally live for long enough to be considered immortal for all practical purposes, so felling the tree after only 10 years presents a very significant increase in tree turnover, and as the tree is taken away it does not fertilize the soil again, so there's a significant increase in soil nutrient and water requirements in the area. Plus, the felling operation, timber processing and pellet production require large amounts of energy. There is a significant environmental load even if the pellets are never burnt to release the stored CO2. So yes, it changes things a whole lot.

sharpneli 4y ago

Depends on the surface area of the forest. A single tree takes tens of years to grow but a certain area of forest contains enough growing trees that by the time you cut down the last the one you planted first has grown to full. Do note that a tree that dies in forest also produces CO2. Exactly the amount it does if it’s burned (unless it’s a peat bog or whatnot). So not burning it doesn’t really change things.

arghwhat 4y ago
> Do note that a tree that dies in forest also produces CO2. Exactly the amount it does if it’s burned (unless it’s a peat bog or whatnot). So not burning it doesn’t really change things. Growing trees require more than just CO2, and I imagine there are limits to how much this process can be accelerated without environmental impact. Depending on the tree sort and location they may naturally live for long enough to be considered immortal for all practical purposes, so felling the tree after only 10 years presents a very significant increase in tree turnover, and as the tree is taken away it does not fertilize the soil again, so there's a significant increase in soil nutrient and water requirements in the area. Plus, the felling operation, timber processing and pellet production require large amounts of energy. There is a significant environmental load even if the pellets are never burnt to release the stored CO2. So yes, it changes things a whole lot.