61–70 of 77 posts
Makes little sense because trees die and decay, releasing their stored carbon. We released the carbon from liquid fuels and thats how we should reset, back to liquid carbon that wont go anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure that you'd want to plant a bunch of European trees to replace native Australian forests.
Why?
Its when the Samphire starts to die that you know your in shit street.
I really think the answer is to switch to wood fuled biomass generators for electricity. It would be an incentive to plant more trees, and the charcoal waste could be burried as fertilizer, placing excess carbon back in the ground.
I really think the answer is to switch to wood fuled biomass generators for electricity. It would be an incentive to plant more trees, and the charcoal waste could be burried as fertilizer, placing excess carbon back in the ground.
The amount of solid carbon left as waste is inversely proportional to how efficiently the wood is burned. In high-heat combustion, virtually all of the carbon is consumed and released as CO2, rather than remaining in the ashes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of solid carbon left as waste is inversely proportional to how efficiently the wood is burned. In high-heat combustion, virtually all of the carbon is consumed and released as CO2, rather than remaining in the ashes.
What if it were purposely inefficient, and stopped once the wood is reduced to charcoal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it were purposely inefficient, and stopped once the wood is reduced to charcoal?
So we basically go back to using fireplaces for heat.
willismichael pointed out that efficient biomass gasifiers will then burn the resulting charcoal, which releases quite a bit of CO2. I suggested using the charcoal as fertilizer, instead of burning it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we basically go back to using fireplaces for heat.
No. The idea would be to never actually burn the wood, just heat it up enough to release gases, and burn the gases in a generator. These could be (are?) run at power plants. willismichael pointed out that efficient biomass gasifiers will then burn the resulting charcoal, which releases quite a bit of CO2. I suggested using the charcoal as fertilizer, instead of burning it.
> "I wouldn't attempt to teach you what you write about in your office," said he, "and if need arose, I should come to you to ask about it. But you're so positive you know all the lore of the forest. It's difficult. Have you counted the trees?"
> "How count the trees?" said Stepan Arkadyevitch, laughing, still trying to draw his friend out of his ill-temper. "Count the sands of the sea, number the stars. Some higher power might do it."
> "Oh, well, the higher power of Ryabinin can. Not a single merchant ever buys a forest without counting the trees, unless they get it given them for nothing, as you're doing now.
Makes little sense because trees die and decay, releasing their stored carbon. We released the carbon from liquid fuels and thats how we should reset, back to liquid carbon that wont go anywhere.
An article here a couple of weeks ago claimed that sea weed is more effective than tree fighting carbon dioxide, and it seems cheaper to plant and manage... Shouldn't we focus on it instead of trees ?