31–40 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?
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?
I think all these comments about wood eventually releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere are missing the point. We don't need to capture it forever, we just need to get the ratio between carbon output and input under control in the next couple of decades. That should give us enough time to come up with longer term and sustainable ways of our planet... until we encounter the next problem, and so on. "Solutions"…
I wish more people realized the concrete thing is snake oil. When you make cement, you heat up natural CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2. The heat itself also requires combustion, so more CO2. Some cements have perhaps 10% CaCO3 added to their mix. It’s not so much desirable as cheap filler. What the media fails to realize is pumping CO2 into curing cement reverses the CaO reaction. In other words, every CO2 molecule you capture re…
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?
I think all these comments about wood eventually releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere are missing the point. We don't need to capture it forever, we just need to get the ratio between carbon output and input under control in the next couple of decades. That should give us enough time to come up with longer term and sustainable ways of our planet... until we encounter the next problem, and so on. "Solutions"…
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?
Carbon in trees is still part of the carbon cycle, it will eventually be released again though it may be buffered for a time. That's merely neutral as opposed to negative that you get with sequestration.
But, major tree growing operations are already being done, lots of companies are into the CO2 trading business where growing trees = an X amount of CO2 emission rights they can sell to CO2 producing companies / factories.
I wouldn’t go that far. Sure it’s making it less hospitable for us and much of the complex life here. But life will go on without us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burn them for their energy and keep more coal in the ground seems like a good first step.
but wood burns so much more dirtier than coal, and leaves much more uncombusted remains that then have to clean. 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?
To offset 5GT of carbon dioxide emissions per year, you'd need 110 million hectares, or 1.1 million square km, that is 13 times the surface of Kansas. Then of course every year you'd have to cut down something like 1/7th of the trees, throw them in a big hole, and replant them. Just about doable, I'd say. :)