3 ms·

Carbon capture devices otherwise known as trees... sigh...

by crypro1952 3y ago

realusername 3y ago
Trees only prove the concept can work, not that they are the most efficient system to do it.
arcticbull 3y ago
Yes, but also no. If we were still burning fuels derived entirely from plants that we re-grew, it would be a closed loop. But we're digging oil out of the ground and burning it, and also not planting trees, so we're kinda burning the candle at both ends there. You couldn't plant enough trees to make up for digging coal and oil out of the ground and burning it -- especially since mature forests aren't just carbon sinks. They reach an equilibrium where they're carbon neutral as the decay of wood and leaves releases carbon into the atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, trees are good, and reforestation helps, but it's more of an umbrella in a hurricane type thing. You'd have to plant trees, chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink. [1] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink. And I suspect if you did that at vast scales, you'd soon start running out of other elements like phosphorus that trees need to grow.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Charcoal doesn't really decay and leaves the soil fertile. So it seems like it should work. Making charcoal is a lot of pollution though.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      > Charcoal doesn't really decay I've often wondered why not... Charcoal must have existed for millennia, and is effectively 'free energy', yet no bacteria have learned how to break it down.
elbasti 3y ago
Only if they don't decompose, and only while they are growing.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Do you have a few million square miles of land spare to put the trees on? If not then stop sighing, it's not that simple.
- eropple 3y ago
  I'm not saying that the grandparent poster has the right of it, but this is a bizarre objection. Brazil had about a million more square miles of rainforest just four years ago. I'm sure that across the entire planet we could, yanno. Scrounge something up.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    We can and should plant lots of trees. But it's not going to grab very much carbon in the long run unless we find some new empty continents.
MilStdJunkie 3y ago
The genesplitters need to brew up some skyscraper-sized bamboo, toot sweet, and grow it everywhere. Seriously man, make low income housing in that s#!t. Although, <disappointed_sound/>, it's more likely to be gigantic gengineered algae in tanks, recirculating constantly. Imagine the smell. "Welcome to Saviour Pit Number 1,232". Maybe it can make tasty goop. I have a bad feeling the Overlords will just keep on keepin' on 'til thirsty countries start hawkin' nukes at each other. Eventually some bright spark Snowpiercers the whole joint trying to stabilize it. Nuclear winter doesn't solve warming any better than jumping in an ice bath cures you of the flu . . but it does knock out a good chunk of your photosynthetic surface. Please, please someone tell Musk and the rest of the techno-aryans to do the space parasol thing, and not the "eternal fog cloud" thing. One you can turn off, which seems like a nice feature. Notice how much I bring up "unproved future technology" here. Aside from the nukes. It's not really my style, but here we all are. It's a little sad, but Prager U got mad funds. The only solace is that their ex-Blackwater/Xe/Academi security will waste zero time putting a round in the backs of their heads and claiming the Bunker Fiefdom for themselves. What? You think a frickin' ex-Delta guy isn't going to see the writing on the wall? Ever seen Dark Knight Returns? Remember Tom Hardy in that? Yeah. That.

Carbon capture devices otherwise known as trees... sigh...

Trees only prove the concept can work, not that they are the most efficient system to do it.

Yes, but also no. If we were still burning fuels derived entirely from plants that we re-grew, it would be a closed loop. But we're digging oil out of the ground and burning it, and also not planting trees, so we're kinda burning the candle at both ends there. You couldn't plant enough trees to make up for digging coal and oil out of the ground and burning it -- especially since mature forests aren't just carbon sinks. They reach an equilibrium where they're carbon neutral as the decay of wood and leaves releases carbon into the atmosphere. Don't get me wrong, trees are good, and reforestation helps, but it's more of an umbrella in a hurricane type thing. You'd have to plant trees, chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink. [1] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-trees https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-dont-we-just-plant-lot-t...

londons_explore 3y ago
> chop them down then sequester them geologically somehow to actually make a carbon sink. And I suspect if you did that at vast scales, you'd soon start running out of other elements like phosphorus that trees need to grow.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Charcoal doesn't really decay and leaves the soil fertile. So it seems like it should work. Making charcoal is a lot of pollution though.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    > Charcoal doesn't really decay I've often wondered why not... Charcoal must have existed for millennia, and is effectively 'free energy', yet no bacteria have learned how to break it down.

elbasti 3y ago

Only if they don't decompose, and only while they are growing.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Do you have a few million square miles of land spare to put the trees on? If not then stop sighing, it's not that simple.

eropple 3y ago
I'm not saying that the grandparent poster has the right of it, but this is a bizarre objection. Brazil had about a million more square miles of rainforest just four years ago. I'm sure that across the entire planet we could, yanno. Scrounge something up.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  We can and should plant lots of trees. But it's not going to grab very much carbon in the long run unless we find some new empty continents.

MilStdJunkie 3y ago

The genesplitters need to brew up some skyscraper-sized bamboo, toot sweet, and grow it everywhere. Seriously man, make low income housing in that s#!t. Although, <disappointed_sound/>, it's more likely to be gigantic gengineered algae in tanks, recirculating constantly. Imagine the smell. "Welcome to Saviour Pit Number 1,232". Maybe it can make tasty goop. I have a bad feeling the Overlords will just keep on keepin' on 'til thirsty countries start hawkin' nukes at each other. Eventually some bright spark Snowpiercers the whole joint trying to stabilize it. Nuclear winter doesn't solve warming any better than jumping in an ice bath cures you of the flu . . but it does knock out a good chunk of your photosynthetic surface. Please, please someone tell Musk and the rest of the techno-aryans to do the space parasol thing, and not the "eternal fog cloud" thing. One you can turn off, which seems like a nice feature. Notice how much I bring up "unproved future technology" here. Aside from the nukes. It's not really my style, but here we all are. It's a little sad, but Prager U got mad funds. The only solace is that their ex-Blackwater/Xe/Academi security will waste zero time putting a round in the backs of their heads and claiming the Bunker Fiefdom for themselves. What? You think a frickin' ex-Delta guy isn't going to see the writing on the wall? Ever seen Dark Knight Returns? Remember Tom Hardy in that? Yeah. That.