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

Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 332 posts

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#241

Post by mobilefriendly »

gpm wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD That's FUD. What are you proposing is going to happen that would be worse? You can't get a nuclear explosion; the fuel isn't weapons grade. You can get a meltdown and a hydrogen explosion, but that is what happened at Chernobyl. It leaves behind a hot mess and a large cleanup bill but hardly anybody dies. Especially if y…

The soviet response to Chernobyl was in many respects phenomenal. They mobilized hundreds of thousands of people to risk their lives to mitigate it. One effort that stands out as "preventing something much worse" is that there was a risk of a potentially larger secondary explosion from steam buildup. They tunneled under the reactor and injected ~25 tons of liquid nitrogen a day (the tunnel started 6 days after the ex…

There were personal heroics but the Soviet response was a catastrophe, it was Sweden that sounded the alarm and the Soviets allowed a May Day parade of children to march through the cloud in Kiev...

"For 36 hours after the explosion, people were given no reliable information about it and left virtually on their own. They never received instructions on how to protect themselves and their children. Radiation levels that according to Soviet laws were supposed to trigger an automatic public warning about the dangers of radiation exposure had already been recorded in the early hours of April 26—but were ignored by one official after another. Finally, people were asked to gather their belongings and wait on the street..." https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-disaster-coverup

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/remembering-soviet-res...

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#242

Post by chrisco255 »

Retra wrote: post #192
ToBeBannedSoon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Livestock actually enriches the soil by their poop.

Livestock eat to extract nutrients. Their waste is not more nutrient rich than the stuff they eat. That would be impossible.

Manure is fertilizer.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/composting/manures/cow-manu...

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#243

Post by Tade0 »

ajuc wrote: post #195
strainer wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just comparing them with coal to sound great. The three major nuclear accidents do not represent the worst which nuclear plants are capable of. For example we have yet to see what can happen if a nuclear plant is sabotaged - that's not FUD its a real vulnerably of the technology and is a reason why they incur constant exceptional security as well as safety costs. They consume alot of water resource as well, fo…

Normal operation of coal powerplants is more dangerous than the worst accidents we had with nuclear powerplants. Modern nuclear powerplants are much safer than these that had accidents. Yes you have to include the possibility of new accidents - being sabotaged or not. But that possibility needs to be weighed with the probability of it. And it's very low. Meanwhile we completely ignore the 100% sure deaths and radiati…

Yes you have to include the possibility of new accidents - being sabotaged or not. But that possibility needs to be weighed with the probability of it. And it's very low.

This is not a case of of risk but uncertainty - very different strategies apply here.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#244

Post by chrisco255 »

strainer wrote: post #21
781 wrote: post #6

Noob question here: what is stopping nature doing this, seeds and all that?

Most often its grazing livestock, they like to eat seedlings.

It's pretty easy to mitigate this on a farm by roping or fencing off a patch of seedlings.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#245

Post by Nasrudith »

mrec wrote: post #226
duxup wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fortunate enough to have a pond and some marshy area bordering my house. My neighbors sometimes wondered why I don't trim it up and make it look "nice" right up to the water like some folks do. I like it wild, lots of trees and wildlife. I even let the wildness take a bit more of the yard than when i moved in. A few big trees quickly sprung up, no maintenance (compared to a yard) it looks great wild. Perhaps if o…

> We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time It's funny how urban adaptation affects perceptions of rarity. I live in fairly-central London and you can hardly set foot outside after dark without tripping over a red fox or three. Out in the countryside they're still pretty wary (with reason, since farmers will shoot them). Are urban foxes a thing in the US too, or is this still a UK phenomenon?

There are some suburban ones but they tend to be pretty skittish - you generally see them through windows or cameras. I had one funny experience where they apparently moved stealthily enough that the motion activation mode on a security camera had them appear to teleport - it showed up for a few frames, appeared elsewhere in frame and then disappeared.

Really it is tameness that does it as they don't scatter before we even see them. The woods being quiet is because we scare the hell out of nearly everything, constantly walking on two legs like a bear ready to fight. Leave cameras behind and it gets noiser and more active.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#246

Post by kasey_junk »

chrisco255 wrote: post #239
mrec wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We even get visited by some beautiful red foxes from time to time It's funny how urban adaptation affects perceptions of rarity. I live in fairly-central London and you can hardly set foot outside after dark without tripping over a red fox or three. Out in the countryside they're still pretty wary (with reason, since farmers will shoot them). Are urban foxes a thing in the US too, or is this still a UK phenomenon?

We have coyotes in many suburban areas.

Chicago at least has many _urban_ coyotes. I see them at least once a month walking my dog & I live in a pretty dense area.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#247

Post by ncmncm »

yathern wrote: post #234
ChuckMcM wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you how I reason to it. According to many sources, but I will cite this one[1] a single tree converts about 50 lbs of CO2 in a year. There are three trees on my property, a city tree (planted by the city) and two Birch trees planed by the original developer. All are deciduous so lose leaves in the winter but we'll give them full credit anyway, so call it 150 lbs of CO2 a year. My rooftop solar system nomin…

Good reasoning! I agree with the basic premise - but I don't think you can ignore the CO2 cost to make a solar panel, vs to use one. A tree reduces CO2 as it's being 'built'. A solar panel requires many materials that are refined through various industrial processes - likely some of which produce CO2 - not withstanding the transportation CO2 cost. That all being said, I don't mean to disparage anyone who uses solar p…

The CO2 cost to make a panel has to be much less than the amount saved by using the panel for a shortish while, because making CO2 isn't free, and would figure into the price of the panel.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#248

Post by ncmncm »

Robotbeat wrote: post #214
jweir wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you prove that or back that up with some facts?

It can be shown both bottom-up and top-down, but I prefer the bottom-up: Photosynthesis is usually an order of magnitude more efficient than photovoltaics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency ...an individual leaf might be peak out at 3% efficient, but it is operating just a portion of the year (maybe about a third to a half at full performance) and also much light gets reflected, absorbed by bran…

Your first paragraph contradicts the rest, I assume by accident.

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#249

Post by plainOldText »

d33 wrote: post #4

This makes me wonder - could trees be modified genetically to handle more CO2 in order to make this number lower? Could we, instead of trees, have huge walls made of plants that would consume our CO2?

An incredibly short sighted solution to an incredibly complex problem.

Trees have been around for a very, very long time; much longer than we have. Complex evolutionary forces have shaped trees and forests into their current robust configurations.

Trees are intimately connected with their ecosystems, and interact with their surroundings in both known and unknown ways. For example, it has been discovered recently that trees communicate with one another through chemical, hormonal and slow-pulsing electrical signals, including through the air, using pheromones and other scent signals [1][2]

Mother nature is complex. We do not have enough understanding of her complexity, and neither enough computational power to reliably model and subsequently change diverse ecosystems.

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01C9116AK

Re: Planting 1.2T Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions

#250

Post by ncmncm »

dfuego wrote: post #144
jweir wrote: post #57

But, wait... some places are clearing forest for solar farms. Georgetown https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetow... Rhode Island https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190414/proposed-ri-... Prineville Oregon(I dont' know how many trees will be cleared for this, maybe it will be on existing farmland) https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2018/07/massive_so...

This is total non-sense. There are so many deserted areas in the US and all over the planet -where radiance is actually a lot higher- where to install solar panels.

Transmission losses are not negligible, so power generation generally needs to be near people.

If the power could be used to create and concentrate ammonia, much of needed generation could be shifted to farms. Of course farms have other uses for sunlight, so wind is a better choice there.

Generating ammonia with wind power eliminates the problem of intermittent availability. You only produce ammonia when there is power for it.

Post reply on HN