11–20 of 125 posts
Every time one of these articles come up I wonder about the price per tonne of CO2 removed by simply growing wood and not burning it. I'm not really sure what that price is, but it seems to be around $20-$40 per tonne? Does anyone have a more accurate number?
If the purpose is carbon sequestration, you'll have to include the cost of storing that wood. Indefinitely. Won't be cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll also need to store it in a way that does not release the wood's CO2 back to the atmosphere by biodegradation.
If you turn it into charcoal you keep most of the carbon locked up in a non-biodegradable form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you turn it into charcoal you keep most of the carbon locked up in a non-biodegradable form.
If you use it to build homes you provide shelter for more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the purpose is carbon sequestration, you'll have to include the cost of storing that wood. Indefinitely. Won't be cheap.
You could sell it, maybe trick people into doing stuff with it, like making buildings or durable goods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the purpose is carbon sequestration, you'll have to include the cost of storing that wood. Indefinitely. Won't be cheap.
Burn them for their energy and keep more coal in the ground seems like a good first step.
The problem is energy (or lack thereof) - and so why not solve it directly by adding ever larger sources of renewables, which eventually will becomes enough that there's no need to burn any fossil fuels!
Every time one of these articles come up I wonder about the price per tonne of CO2 removed by simply growing wood and not burning it. I'm not really sure what that price is, but it seems to be around $20-$40 per tonne? Does anyone have a more accurate number?
If the purpose is carbon sequestration, you'll have to include the cost of storing that wood. Indefinitely. Won't be cheap.
Every time one of these articles come up I wonder about the price per tonne of CO2 removed by simply growing wood and not burning it. I'm not really sure what that price is, but it seems to be around $20-$40 per tonne? Does anyone have a more accurate number?
Every time one of these articles come up I wonder about the price per tonne of CO2 removed by simply growing wood and not burning it. I'm not really sure what that price is, but it seems to be around $20-$40 per tonne? Does anyone have a more accurate number?
If the purpose is carbon sequestration, you'll have to include the cost of storing that wood. Indefinitely. Won't be cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you use it to build homes you provide shelter for more people.
Building houses is great, but if you're growing the trees in order to sequestrate carbon , you'd better be reasonably sure a decent proportion of the wood doesn't release it's carbon within the next fifty years. I don't live in a country where wood is a major building material, but I'm imagining that most wood that goes into building gets discarded within a few decades and ends up decomposing or being burnt.
Every time one of these articles come up I wonder about the price per tonne of CO2 removed by simply growing wood and not burning it. I'm not really sure what that price is, but it seems to be around $20-$40 per tonne? Does anyone have a more accurate number?
That's just dumping more carbon into one of our natural sinks, I think, rather than trying to create a new artificial sink. Even just using it as fertilizer has got to be an improvement over using inorganic fertilizers.