Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#101

Post by benj111 »

sureshv wrote: post #57
jaclaz wrote: post #39

One of the firms referenced in the Bloomberg article actually offers the plants (and opportunities of investment in them) and has a number of answers to the questions asked in the thread: https://worldtree.info/empress-tree/ Though I have personally never heard about anything actually manufactured with the actual "empress" or "princess" timber. It seems like in Japan it has a number of tradititonal uses, the family i…

The Janka Hardness is 260-290 which is softer than most soft woods. Seems like that could limit its usage.

But its harder than Balsa which is a hardwood...

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#102

Post by soperj »

krastanov wrote: post #3

Any idea whether this is damaging/depleting for the soil because it is so fast-growing? If so, to what extent can the soil be artificially rejuvenated through fertilizers or other tools?

No, it's one of the only nitrogen fixing trees in the world. That's part of the reason it can grow as fast as it can.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#104

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

RaptorJ wrote: post #77
__sy__ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also did a similar back-of-the-envelop calculation the moment I saw this 103 tons per acre figures. Global CO2 emissions: ~40GT/year Area required: ~600K square miles This is approximately the size of the entire state of Alaska. Every year.

well, if you convert it all to biochar (say with a 50% volume fudge factor to account for non-carbon components and packing density), you just have to stack an area the size of pennsylvania with 1 meter of biochar each year to zero emissions.

And the carbon cost of the energy it takes to convert it all to biochar?

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#105

Post by Brain_Thief »

JudgeWapner wrote: post #99
crispyambulance wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down to a fraction of what it was in 2016? I think so, if the people can be convinced to elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. Is it worthwhile to develop artificia…

> elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. honest question: can you point me to any US politician that has stood up to a corporation or corporate interest with laws that effectively say, "No, you can't have what you want, the people need instead." and - most importantly - got those laws passed? I can't think of one. I think obamacare came close (which became one of the most hardfought wins ever), and yet the healt…

I don't know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but Elizabeth Warren was very successful in her efforts to get the CFPB off the ground, much to the displeasure of the financial sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_.... It's true that under the Trump administration the bureau's behavior is being...modified...but it was quite a success when running as originally intended by Warren.

Furthermore, both Warren and Bernie Sanders seem to have genuine convictions w.r.t. climate change, health care, social inequality, etc. Whether or not their particular points of view are desirable is open for debate, but their multi-decade commitments to these issues are beyond question. They seem to have non-trivial support in the electorate as well - I encourage you to check them out, especially if you're feeling cynical or anxious about the future.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#106

Post by jwr »

rgacote wrote: post #58

Not sure planting a "highly invasive tree" is the solution: http://www.ecosystemgardening.com/paulownia-princess-tree-on...

Given what we are doing about the climate crisis (nothing), I would be very happy to plant "highly invasive trees" and have them spread around like crazy. Too many of those trees is a much better problem to have than a cooked planet.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#107

Post by hef19898 »

tim333 wrote: post #96
crispyambulance wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down to a fraction of what it was in 2016? I think so, if the people can be convinced to elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. Is it worthwhile to develop artificia…

It might be done quite quickly with a proper carbon pricing regime. The UK carbon price is about £35/ton. Times 104 tons/acre is about £3500/acre which is probably enough to make a profit. Then just get VC funding for your carbon startup and off it goes. There are political and practical difficulties doing that but there are also difficulties with wrecking the climate that might outweigh those.

Might be a worthwhile start-up idea... I'm wondering...

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#108

Post by cwkoss »

crispyambulance wrote: post #64
tcgv wrote: post #50

> Empress trees (...) absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre. In 2016, U.S. GHG emissions were 20.15 metric tons CO2-equivalent per person[1]. So basically each american would have to cultivate about 0.196 acre of empress trees (792 sq meters, or 8522 sq foot) to become carbon neutral. [1] http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-environmental-footprint-f...

Empress trees certainly have some impressive specs, but no one plant is going to be the silver bullet. Can we eventually take per capita carbon footprint down to a fraction of what it was in 2016? I think so, if the people can be convinced to elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. Can vast regions in the USA and other countries be re-forested? Yes, if the willpower is there. Is it worthwhile to develop artificia…

We need to research what kind of mycorhizal fungi and microbes can be inoculated into the soil to best optimize for tree growth rate.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#109

Post by JudgeWapner »

Brain_Thief wrote: post #105
JudgeWapner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> elect sane leaders in the US and elsewhere. honest question: can you point me to any US politician that has stood up to a corporation or corporate interest with laws that effectively say, "No, you can't have what you want, the people need instead." and - most importantly - got those laws passed? I can't think of one. I think obamacare came close (which became one of the most hardfought wins ever), and yet the healt…

I don't know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but Elizabeth Warren was very successful in her efforts to get the CFPB off the ground, much to the displeasure of the financial sector: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... . It's true that under the Trump administration the bureau's behavior is being...modified...but it was quite a success when running as originally intended…

ok, they created a bureau, not a "rip consumers off and your executives go to jail (viz. wells fargo, HSBC...)" law.

Great convictions are a start. but in order for them to actually pass legislation, they need other congress members to vote for them. and that's where the dirty tricks start (I wont vote for your X unless you vote for my Y, etc).

I guess I'm contradicting myself a bit, because I said "name one" without acknowledging that it takes a majority in congress to pass anything. So yes, Warren and Sanders have the courage to face corporate interests. Thank you. I just yearn for the day where shareholders of XYZ get a 30% haircut because laws were passed that reigned in their company's behavior.

Re: Empress trees absorb about 103 tons of carbon a year per acre

#110

Post by cwkoss »

soulofmischief wrote: post #66
__sy__ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also did a similar back-of-the-envelop calculation the moment I saw this 103 tons per acre figures. Global CO2 emissions: ~40GT/year Area required: ~600K square miles This is approximately the size of the entire state of Alaska. Every year.

The year is 21XX. Multi-story "tree towers" pierce the skyline in every direction, competing for vertical supremacy with even the tallest of skyscrapers. Solar and other renewable energy sources provide the lighting necessary for the unexposed levels.

Grow 100 foot trees, fell them into central points into a teepee like structure. Move soil to the points plant a new tree on top.
Post reply on HN