3 ms·

The tricky thing about wood is that it's carbon neutral but still (often) a bad material to use. It's carbon neutral because when you burn it, all the CO2 rele

The tricky thing about wood is that it's carbon neutral but still (often) a bad material to use. It's carbon neutral because when you burn it, all the CO2 released from the combustion reaction originally came from the air. But it's often a bad material to use because many forests aren't harvested in a sustainable manner. The situation is better in Europe and North America, but in many parts of the world, far more trees are cut down than are planted which is clearly a bad thing. Using it as a building material is certainly a good "sequestration" technique.

ch 14y ago
With laminated woods you also have to take into account the glues used in the lamination process. While there might be some carbon-neutral glues out there, how many laminated wood products actually make use of them?
etiennebr 14y ago
Could you suggest better alternatives to shelter ourselves ?
Devilboy 14y ago
Old growth forests are not suitable for building material. All of these wood panels came from plantations that are re-planted immediately after harvesting, often from places where there was no forest before.
- ajross 14y ago
  Exactly, that's why engineered wood products are so appealing. Where old style construction would require long, single timbers from 80+ year old trees, products like MDF, OSB and this thing can be done with much younger trees, which yield more net wood volume per acre of farmland per year.
  - J3L2404 14y ago
    True. But MDO and CDX can both be made from younger trees and although they are more expensive they are much more durable due to being layers of wood as opposed to glued fibers. LVLs are another good example. Edit: For DIY projects never use MDF or OSB. These products are for production building and are very unforgiving for weekend projects. And dustier.
sneak 14y ago
> It's carbon neutral because when you burn it, all the CO2 released from the combustion reaction originally came from the air. By that logic, so are gas and oil. Earth itself is carbon-neutral.
- anusinha 14y ago
  Gas and oil are very slow to be regenerated. wood takes significantly less time. I wasn't clear enough originally; I really meant neutral with a short cycle duration.
- ktizo 14y ago
  But your atmospheric concentration can vary. We could get back to the same atmospheric concentration of CO2 as it was when the oldest oil was laid down, but that doesn't mean we would like it. The earth itself would probably be fine though, and on a long enough timeline it might give a chance to some giant intelligent spiders, or something.
  - sneak 14y ago
    > The earth itself would probably be fine though I giggle at your ethnocentrism and hubris.
    - ktizo 14y ago
      Why, thank you. If I can manage to be ethnocentric and hubristic, while simultaneously putting forward the idea that we are unimportant on a long timescale and that giant intelligent spiders might eventually be the dominant form, then I must be doing especially well, even by the exceptional standards of our particular group of apes.
      - sneak 14y ago
        It was the "probably". :)
        14y ago
nosse 14y ago
Hello from Finland. Our country produces more wood than we cut. With paper industry going down, I'm sure we are happy to export.
planetguy 14y ago
The amount of carbon which could be sequestered, or otherwise, in all the buildings of all of the world is a miniscule portion of the Earth's total carbon budget.
- reitzensteinm 14y ago
  You're being disingenous here. Human emissions are also a miniscule proportion of the Earth's total carbon cycle. In the United States in 2008, CO2 emissions per capita were 17.5 tonnes. That equates to roughly 4.76 tonnes of carbon, which requires 9.53 tonnes of wood to capture (wood is about 50% carbon). If the US could grow 9.53 tonnes of wood per capita per year, and sequester it, it would be carbon neutral. For comparison, US wheat production in 2008 was 218kg. The US has 190 million acres of forests, which according to the EPA grow about 2 tonnes per year until they mature at ~200 tonnes (probably not linearly). This is only 1.22 tonnes per person per year, even if you devoted all the current US forests to the task. However, tree farming could likely grow a significantly higher tonnage of wood per year with the same land. Using 9.53 tonnes of wood per year, if you've got access to it, is actually not that hard. A decent sized house can easily weigh 100-200 tonnes, and current home builds are trying to minimize weight (and thus cost). It's not a silver bullet, but it would make a noticeable difference to the bottom line. I haven't listed references here (I'm on my laptop and it's quite cumbersome), but I urge you to do back of the envelope calculations before you talk about this stuff. There's already way too much misinformation flying around.

ch 14y ago

With laminated woods you also have to take into account the glues used in the lamination process. While there might be some carbon-neutral glues out there, how many laminated wood products actually make use of them?

etiennebr 14y ago

Could you suggest better alternatives to shelter ourselves ?

Devilboy 14y ago

Old growth forests are not suitable for building material. All of these wood panels came from plantations that are re-planted immediately after harvesting, often from places where there was no forest before.

ajross 14y ago
Exactly, that's why engineered wood products are so appealing. Where old style construction would require long, single timbers from 80+ year old trees, products like MDF, OSB and this thing can be done with much younger trees, which yield more net wood volume per acre of farmland per year.
- J3L2404 14y ago
  True. But MDO and CDX can both be made from younger trees and although they are more expensive they are much more durable due to being layers of wood as opposed to glued fibers. LVLs are another good example. Edit: For DIY projects never use MDF or OSB. These products are for production building and are very unforgiving for weekend projects. And dustier.

sneak 14y ago

> It's carbon neutral because when you burn it, all the CO2 released from the combustion reaction originally came from the air. By that logic, so are gas and oil. Earth itself is carbon-neutral.

anusinha 14y ago
Gas and oil are very slow to be regenerated. wood takes significantly less time. I wasn't clear enough originally; I really meant neutral with a short cycle duration.
ktizo 14y ago
But your atmospheric concentration can vary. We could get back to the same atmospheric concentration of CO2 as it was when the oldest oil was laid down, but that doesn't mean we would like it. The earth itself would probably be fine though, and on a long enough timeline it might give a chance to some giant intelligent spiders, or something.
- sneak 14y ago
  > The earth itself would probably be fine though I giggle at your ethnocentrism and hubris.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Why, thank you. If I can manage to be ethnocentric and hubristic, while simultaneously putting forward the idea that we are unimportant on a long timescale and that giant intelligent spiders might eventually be the dominant form, then I must be doing especially well, even by the exceptional standards of our particular group of apes.
    - sneak 14y ago
      It was the "probably". :)
      - 14y ago

nosse 14y ago

Hello from Finland. Our country produces more wood than we cut. With paper industry going down, I'm sure we are happy to export.

planetguy 14y ago

The amount of carbon which could be sequestered, or otherwise, in all the buildings of all of the world is a miniscule portion of the Earth's total carbon budget.

reitzensteinm 14y ago
You're being disingenous here. Human emissions are also a miniscule proportion of the Earth's total carbon cycle. In the United States in 2008, CO2 emissions per capita were 17.5 tonnes. That equates to roughly 4.76 tonnes of carbon, which requires 9.53 tonnes of wood to capture (wood is about 50% carbon). If the US could grow 9.53 tonnes of wood per capita per year, and sequester it, it would be carbon neutral. For comparison, US wheat production in 2008 was 218kg. The US has 190 million acres of forests, which according to the EPA grow about 2 tonnes per year until they mature at ~200 tonnes (probably not linearly). This is only 1.22 tonnes per person per year, even if you devoted all the current US forests to the task. However, tree farming could likely grow a significantly higher tonnage of wood per year with the same land. Using 9.53 tonnes of wood per year, if you've got access to it, is actually not that hard. A decent sized house can easily weigh 100-200 tonnes, and current home builds are trying to minimize weight (and thus cost). It's not a silver bullet, but it would make a noticeable difference to the bottom line. I haven't listed references here (I'm on my laptop and it's quite cumbersome), but I urge you to do back of the envelope calculations before you talk about this stuff. There's already way too much misinformation flying around.