Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chfp t1_j93213r wrote

It takes energy to manufacture said wood. The amount of energy needed is likely much, much more than the CO2 captured in the wood. Unless the bulk of that energy comes from renewables, they are doing nothing to fight climate change. Natural growing trees have a much better net effect on carbon capture.

The reason they're unlikely to be using renewables is industrial processes require lots of heat. There aren't many renewable thermal energy systems today. There could be more, but it's a nascent industry.

18

SilverNicktail t1_j94g3c5 wrote

> Unless the bulk of that energy comes from renewables, they are doing nothing to fight climate change.

The exact same refrain we hear from naysayers for any new technology. The electricity grids are already rapidly changing, why would we wait for them to be fully changed before trying to replace our other technologies?

You're also incorrect, because this isn't to replace regular wood - it's to replace concrete, which is CO2-intensive to produce.

11

chfp t1_j94r13n wrote

Since when is presenting facts naysaying? Just because you don't understand the facts doesn't mean they disappear.

The synthetic wood manufacturing requires high amounts of heat, impractical to deliver through electricity. The transmission lines would have to be enormous, not to mention actually generating enough of it. The more efficient and practical way to use renewables would be to use concentrated solar thermal, but that's still under development for industrial use. Fusion sounds great in theory too. Question is will it be economically viable.

I am curious where you read that it's to replace concrete. The treated wood still contains cellulose which is vulnerable to water. Most concrete applications are exposed to water.

0