Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Meythia]

What am I missing?

Maybe the process of burrowing already costs as much energy as the trapping of the carbon would save, making it a net loss of time for nothing.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe the process of burrowing already costs as much energy as the trapping of the carbon would save, making it a net loss of time for nothing.

It looks like it doesn't. What I've seen from sources like this are that it can very much be a net gain:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Forest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf

I guess the problem is that there is an adjacent issue of just using the lumber instead of putting it in a pit. If the lumber is in the beams of your house or something that lumber is stored away even more efficiently because it helped you in the process. The problem is when it gets thrown away it will decompose.

But dead trees don't necessarily make the best lumber. They would make the best carbon capture trees though, because they're no longer pumping out O2, and they're ready to catch fire and burn the entire forest down. It's a bit of a win-win to throw them in a pit. I wonder if dead tree sawdust can mix well with concrete or something.

 

[Tommy_D]

I wonder if dead tree sawdust can mix well with concrete or something.

Maybe, but a dead tree can also be good for the overall ecosystem of a forest. It can provide a home to animals and as it decomposes it adds nutrients to the soil to help promote more growth within the forest. There's no "outsmarting" the earth's natural ways.

The Benefits of Downed Wood - Heritage Conservancy

A guide to the benefits of downed wood, including its impact on wildlife habitats, forest regeneration, and soil health.

heritageconservancy.org

The problem is us. Plain and simple.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe, but a dead tree can also be good for the overall ecosystem of a forest. It can provide a home to animals and as it decomposes it adds nutrients to the soil to help promote more growth within the forest. There's no "outsmarting" the earth's natural ways.

The Benefits of Downed Wood - Heritage Conservancy

A guide to the benefits of downed wood, including its impact on wildlife habitats, forest regeneration, and soil health.

heritageconservancy.org

The problem is us. Plain and simple.

I'm not suggesting that the problem is anything but us. But I am suggesting that we should be using trees to remove carbon from the air. Prior to the evolution of fungi, dead trees just piled up. Those trees ultimately became coal. Earth's natural ways did exactly what I'm talking about - burying trees and removing carbon from the atmosphere, until we dug them up and started burning them to release that carbon.

We've pulled a bunch of trees out of the ground, and we need to put them back. I'm not at all convinced that we can't do this in a way that prevents the mass destruction of critters that need homes or soil nutrients. One dead tree is literally tons of pre-extracted carbon that will be re-released when some mushrooms or wildfire get to it.

 

[Tommy_D]

I'm not suggesting that the problem is anything but us. But I am suggesting that we should be using trees to remove carbon from the air. Prior to the evolution of fungi, dead trees just piled up. Those trees ultimately became coal. Earth's natural ways did exactly what I'm talking about - burying trees and removing carbon from the atmosphere, until we dug them up and started burning them to release that carbon.

We've pulled a bunch of trees out of the ground, and we need to put them back. I'm not at all convinced that we can't do this in a way that prevents the mass destruction of critters that need homes or soil nutrients. One dead tree is literally tons of pre-extracted carbon that will be re-released when some mushrooms or wildfire get to it.

You are referring to the Carboniferous period of the planet when trees were abundant and had no “predators” (humans) trying to remove/harvest them. That natural growth/death/decay/burial process took millions of years to happen. Could we speed that process up by burying them ourselves? Maybe, but how much energy would be required to do it?

How much carbon capture (burial) mass is there vs how much CO2 mass is put in the air from the process? And where would we bury these logs? Forests are full of living tree roots, so you don’t want to dig through all those live tree roots to bury a dead tree. Probably would hurt the forest more by doing that. Do you ship the tree to a location where its burial is easier to do? Maybe the desert or some grasslands? Do you shred it up and mix it in with concrete, as you mentioned? How much energy is required to do all this? You wouldn’t bury them one by one. It would likely be done on a near industrial level similar to digging a large mining quarry. That’s a massive operation that likely would require millions of tons of CO2 to do. If I were to guess, it is likely marginal to net zero trade off in CO2 to carbon capture.

 

[Danoff]

You are referring to the Carboniferous period of the planet when trees were abundant and had no “predators” (humans) trying to remove/harvest them. That natural growth/death/decay/burial process took millions of years to happen. Could we speed that process up by burying them ourselves? Maybe, but how much energy would be required to do it?

How much carbon capture (burial) mass is there vs how much CO2 mass is put in the air from the process? And where would we bury these logs? Forests are full of living tree roots, so you don’t want to dig through all those live tree roots to bury a dead tree. Probably would hurt the forest more by doing that. Do you ship the tree to a location where its burial is easier to do? Maybe the desert or some grasslands? Do you shred it up and mix it in with concrete, as you mentioned? How much energy is required to do all this? You wouldn’t bury them one by one. It would likely be done on a near industrial level similar to digging a large mining quarry. That’s a massive operation that likely would require millions of tons of CO2 to do. If I were to guess, it is likely marginal to net zero trade off in CO2 to carbon capture.

Wow, with only guesswork and pessimism you've made up your mind. The link I posted suggests otherwise - that even harvested lumber represents some carbon offset. And that's not likely as good as dead trees because it involves cutting down live ones.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It looks like it doesn't. What I've seen from sources like this are that it can very much be a net gain:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Forest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf

I guess the problem is that there is an adjacent issue of just using the lumber instead of putting it in a pit. If the lumber is in the beams of your house or something that lumber is stored away even more efficiently because it helped you in the process. The problem is when it gets thrown away it will decompose.

But dead trees don't necessarily make the best lumber. They would make the best carbon capture trees though, because they're no longer pumping out O2, and they're ready to catch fire and burn the entire forest down. It's a bit of a win-win to throw them in a pit. I wonder if dead tree sawdust can mix well with concrete or something.

Rather than simply burying a useful resource, I'd suggest we net out the energy required to do that by instead tax incentivizing type IV CLT construction, which can be used for almost every building type and lasts a very very long time. I'm not sure there is much use of sawdust in concrete...it will probably just make it worse concrete, whereas you can make a whole building out of CLT. The problem is that basically zero contractors in the USA are comfortable with it at this point, and developers don't want to take the risk hence why I think a tax incentive could make it more attractive. A bonus of this approach is that it could offset significant amounts of cement production, which represents about 10% of worldwide C02 emissions and if we go all-in on Type IV, probably reduce steel needs in construction too, another 10% of worldwide C02 emissions (though, steel is used so widely that I reckon you wouldn't be able to drop that number all that much).

Also, you can sink logs in the ocean and they stop degrading at a certain point. I believe Japan stores some lumber like this, but that could be false.

 

[Danoff]

Rather than simply burying a useful resource, I'd suggest we net out the energy required to do that by instead tax incentivizing type IV CLT construction, which can be used for almost every building type and lasts a very very long time. I'm not sure there is much use of sawdust in concrete...it will probably just make it worse concrete, whereas you can make a whole building out of CLT. The problem is that basically zero contractors in the USA are comfortable with it at this point, and developers don't want to take the risk hence why I think a tax incentive could make it more attractive. A bonus of this approach is that it could offset significant amounts of cement production, which represents about 10% of worldwide C02 emissions and if we go all-in on Type IV, probably reduce steel needs in construction too, another 10% of worldwide C02 emissions (though, steel is used so widely that I reckon you wouldn't be able to drop that number all that much).

Also, you can sink logs in the ocean and they stop degrading at a certain point. I believe Japan stores some lumber like this, but that could be false.

Can you do it in a lake if the ocean is too far?

Tell me a little more about type IV CLT. Can you make it from dead wood or does it need to be created from cut live trees? The biggest gains would be from harvesting fallen trees.

 

[Joey D]

Tell me a little more about type IV CLT. Can you make it from dead wood or does it need to be created from cut live trees? The biggest gains would be from harvesting fallen trees.

@Eunos_Cosmo can probably tell you more, but it's something we've looked into for various construction projects.

Here's a good article on it:

Cross-laminated timber could ‘forge new links between lands and people’

UW Magazine | University of Washington

magazine.washington.edu

While dead trees can be used, I'm not entirely sure if they can use timbers that have already fallen. The benefit to CLT is that you can use smaller-diameter trees, which allows you to thin out forests more, so wildfires aren't as common. The regrowth process also takes less time and energy to get to a suitable diameter. There's also less waste since damaged trees can be used, especially trees that pests have damaged.

 

[Meythia]

I wonder how many years ITER has to run before becoming c02 neutral taking - if it ever starts.

 

[Danoff]

Rather than simply burying a useful resource, I'd suggest we net out the energy required to do that by instead tax incentivizing type IV CLT construction, which can be used for almost every building type and lasts a very very long time. I'm not sure there is much use of sawdust in concrete...it will probably just make it worse concrete, whereas you can make a whole building out of CLT. The problem is that basically zero contractors in the USA are comfortable with it at this point, and developers don't want to take the risk hence why I think a tax incentive could make it more attractive. A bonus of this approach is that it could offset significant amounts of cement production, which represents about 10% of worldwide C02 emissions and if we go all-in on Type IV, probably reduce steel needs in construction too, another 10% of worldwide C02 emissions (though, steel is used so widely that I reckon you wouldn't be able to drop that number all that much).

Also, you can sink logs in the ocean and they stop degrading at a certain point. I believe Japan stores some lumber like this, but that could be false.

@Eunos_Cosmo can probably tell you more, but it's something we've looked into for various construction projects.

Here's a good article on it:

Cross-laminated timber could ‘forge new links between lands and people’

UW Magazine | University of Washington

magazine.washington.edu

While dead trees can be used, I'm not entirely sure if they can use timbers that have already fallen. The benefit to CLT is that you can use smaller-diameter trees, which allows you to thin out forests more, so wildfires aren't as common. The regrowth process also takes less time and energy to get to a suitable diameter. There's also less waste since damaged trees can be used, especially trees that pests have damaged.

The problem with trying to actually use the wood is that it'll eventually end up in a circumstance where it can decompose - unless somehow CLT materials render the wood into a state where it would not burn or decompose if left in a landfill somewhere. The goal would be to isolate the carbon out of the atmosphere for good.

For example:

"A building built with CLT “locks up” carbon for the life of the building. "

Climate Smart Buildings Ahead | USDA Climate Hubs

Leer en español: Futuros edificios climáticamente inteligentes

climatehubs.usda.gov

For the life of the building isn't what I was hoping for. Seems like "permanently" ought to be on the table.

 

[UKMikey]

Meet the man with the world's lowest carbon footprint:

Man wins $1.6 million for 'hidden' invention from the 1980s

Few people have ever heard of the tiny plastic-coated device, but now that could be about to change. Find out more.

au.news.yahoo.com

 

[Shaun]

Meet the man with the world's lowest carbon footprint:

Man wins $1.6 million for 'hidden' invention from the 1980s

Few people have ever heard of the tiny plastic-coated device, but now that could be about to change. Find out more.

au.news.yahoo.com

I thought it was an IGBT from the picture in your link but wasn't certain until I clicked on it and read the article.

Man, I'd hate to think how many of those little (and big) suckers I've replaced in my work life.
Nice to see him get some recognition. 👍