- Paulownia plantation business plan
- Turning wood from Empress Tree (Paulownia)
- 10 Most Profitable Trees To Grow
- Royal Paulownia
Say you use more wood to replace concrete in buildings . That would also count as a reduction. But in neither scenario would you be able to count all tons per acre per year. A confounding factor, can it really compete on a mass scale with existing lumber?
They require pruning twice a year to establish a clear timber trunk. No one is suggesting we cut down other trees though, there are large expanses of deforested land and the goal here would be rapid reforestation.
Paulownia plantation business plan
Replacing a complete lack of tree with any other tree is an improvement. Not quite true with regards to local and downstream environments. The best case here is probably to identify deforested areas that are geographically constrained - ie difficult for seeds to be blown or washed away, and plant there - noting that iot's now a sacrificial area for decarbonising forestation. Maybe not replacing lack of tree with exotic invasives trees. The principle reason for favoring this tree not arguing whether it's good or bad is the vastly superior rate of carbon sequestration.
Most trees are apparently, just according to the article only capable of sequestering 1. I also did a similar back-of-the-envelop calculation the moment I saw this tons per acre figures. Every year. Fargren 65 days ago. There is not one solution for Global Warming and CO2 emissions. No silver bullet, just as in software. This is one more tool, which needs to be used when appropriate.
But we also need better legislation, technological improvements, and changes in consumption behavior, locally and worldwide. If we look at each of those things and do the math, the answer will be "it's not enough" or "it's too expensive".
We mustn't let that be a showstopper. Of course some solutions are really not viable at all and should be ignored in favor of others, but every solution that helps enough for some definition of enough needs to be pursued.
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 foot trees, fell them into central points into a teepee like structure. Move soil to the points plant a new tree on top. Not every year. Given the article's assertion of the tons per acre per year, your Alaska of Empress trees would do it until they all die and presumably those forests will be maintained into perpetuity.
Unless you bury the tree in an anaerobic environment or treat it in some other way, the tree is just a time-delayed release mechanism. New forest can store a buffer in perpetuity, e. It's not the tree which does that.
Turning wood from Empress Tree (Paulownia)
It's the organisms consuming the tree during the decomposition process which do that. And that doesn't happen all at once. Indeed, if you grow another tree then you're likely to still be net-positive. If you use the tree for other purposes -- construction, for example. Or burning for energy production -- then it becomes a useful part of the lifecycle. Construction purposes might help, or any other way of sequestering. Yes, but its net-zero carbon, so still an improvement over using fossil fuels.
Net-zero CO2. Probably other factors are small, but hard to predict particulates, volatile chemicals, other effects of growth.
10 Most Profitable Trees To Grow
Might be positive or negative. Fair, so that implies it doesn't really help, but at least isn't actively making things worse. Makes me wonder if in the future the solution will be to create synthetic crude and pump it back into the ground. You could make chunky log cabin type buildings to use more. I'd quite like a log mansion.
Maybe this is where the oil came from In the first place. A desperate attempt to dump co2 by a doomed civilisation in the deep past. Obviously not, but could make a good short story :. It definitely seems like the ideal solution is bacterial sequestration of carbon into some inert, non-toxic, storable chemical. Make charcoal and then bury it. There is a guy here who cuts them down and regrows them from the stumps, selling the timber and feeding stock with the leaves and small branches. Presumably this increases the carbon capture. Ironically the stored CO2 destroyed the 'civilisation' that fixed it in the first place.
Also in all those discussions of processes! I find people even here seem to be looking at points in time only, and usually at the start of the process. That also includes the issue of looking at just one tree instead of a forest. When you look at the whole system individual tree life cycle doesn't matter any more. Some trees grow old and die or are harvested what happens? Unless you find trees that keep growing for miles and miles higher for thousands of years. Look at total biomass, not at tree life cycles!
The equations at that point of a mature forest are balanced.
The whole forest stores a fixed amount and that's it. As long as we keep bringing carbon from very ancient forests back out of the earth, it does not matter how many forests there are. You will only get a temporary dip. This whole thing is ridiculous: Even if we decided to bury grown trees deep underground to remove their carbon from the surface forever - why not save the huge effort and the energy that process needs which again has to be fed somehow - with even more fossil fuels for quite some time to come and simply leave the ancient forests where they are deep underground?
You can plant trees as much as you like, as long as we continue to bring up carbon from underground it is useless - apart from a temporary small dip.
The above-ground forests will never be big enough to compensate for the below-ground forests being brought back up. A quick search shows links and links of opinion and "studies" all about "we can store carbon underground! I don't get it.
- Australia's biggest scam comes crashing down.
- How to A Business Idea To Get Rich Man.
- Some Feet Smell: A 15-Minute Book (15-Minute Books 702).
- Planting, Growing, and Marketing Royal Paulownia.
Earth did just that a long time ago! Just stop bringing it up, then you don't need to find ways to get it back down, which according to the laws of physics is a net-negative process. For the same amount somehow stored underground we need far more for the energy to do so, as long as we rely on carbon for energy which won't change any time soon at scale across the world.
And if we don't need the carbon for energy we won't bring it up any more about three quarters of oil is used for energy or heating, an even higher share of natural gas and coal. I really don't understand the discussion at all. It seems like a great distraction, all those studies and headlines and discussions about storing CO2 underground? For the reason mentioned. After you get it out and burn it i. However, the attention it gets as some sort of "solution" for global CO2 levels amazes me in combination with the fact I just linked even more - stopping what we are doing would be soooo much more impactful, both destruction of current and previous forests above as well as underground.
You don't bury the trees underground to store their carbon. You bury them in buildings.