Comments
giuliomagnifico OP t1_j90zhkv wrote
[deleted] t1_j90zt9k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j910gps wrote
[removed]
happyhalfway t1_j910ptf wrote
Cool science, but scalable seems a bit of stretch.
[deleted] t1_j9113ar wrote
[removed]
Truckerontherun t1_j9116lx wrote
Isn't that called photosynthesis? I believe trees have been doing that since they evolved
ElectionOver4Hours t1_j912b5y wrote
SCIENTISTS have found a NEW WAY to generate PROFIT that justifies a huge COMPANY... Instead of planting trees which is the cheaper, better, more environmental solution.
'Carbon capture', I'm taking about you specifically.
Honestly, so many solutions can be had if we just accept a tiny reduction in economic output and restructure our economies by the tiniest amounts
ruetoesoftodney t1_j91398a wrote
This uses wood as a sorbent to capture CO2 from a gas stream (targeting combustion exhaust) with the CO2 then being released and the sorbent used again. It is not an option for long-term storage.
UniversalMomentum t1_j913sb0 wrote
Come on this headline has to be like a little bit of a joke right... The wood is already trapped carbon.
[deleted] t1_j91452x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j915vvv wrote
[deleted] t1_j915wyd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9173k2 wrote
[removed]
boomerxl t1_j917hpc wrote
But this way can be monetised.
BandComprehensive467 t1_j917qjv wrote
Yes this is what photosynthesis does
[deleted] t1_j9192kn wrote
[removed]
Cyber_Dan t1_j91am1m wrote
Planting more trees/bushes/grass in densely populated areas sounds like would do the same thing and have the added benefit of shade, increased oxygen and air quality.
Professor226 t1_j91avq3 wrote
You might benefit from reading the article.
Rickshmitt t1_j91bug1 wrote
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science!
Not_storkllama t1_j91dsz8 wrote
I thought it was a fancy way of doing what pressure treating already does…
Halas1920 t1_j91dtih wrote
What happens if the house catches fire?
thecowintheroom t1_j91e2nz wrote
Dont feed the hungry. Don’t build houses for the homeless. These are not solutions. They are a marijuana smokers fanciful pipe dreams.
NickDixon37 t1_j91evrc wrote
>so many solutions can be had if we just accept a tiny reduction in economic output
Or it may be even better to change the way we calculate economic value.
[deleted] t1_j91g7z4 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j91gday wrote
[removed]
Smeathy t1_j91h3jh wrote
"scalable", these buildings last decades, how much carbon can it absorb without reaching carrying capacity. How expensive is the material compared to alternatives?
danielravennest t1_j91is1k wrote
As a former tree farmer, it is already monetized. How do you think all that lumber shows up at Home Depot?
monkeychess t1_j91lgjy wrote
It already is via carbon credits for forests
[deleted] t1_j91q2hv wrote
[removed]
ecksate t1_j91qkb4 wrote
The article so much better written and well informed than the comments.
Stronger wood could mean using less concrete, which I think is the number one source of carbon emissions. We stopped using wood for huge buildings because it was flammable and concrete and steel were stronger.
But fire prevention has improved incredibly, in building construction, the work that the Underwriters lab does, fire detection and suppression,
Maybe one day we'll see skyscrapers that are closer to carbon neutral.
ecksate t1_j91qorg wrote
Why what part is industry incapable of doing?
Treating lumber with chemicals?
[deleted] t1_j91qr7i wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j91qtg5 wrote
[removed]
alizenweed t1_j91rr1w wrote
Energy efficient?… Even if you ignore the fact that the wood is washed in NaOH, NaSO3, then boiled in H2O2, then dried in vacuum which have high CO2 footprints, the footprint from making the MOFs is higher than what is captured. Overall, this process increases CO2. This is a gimmick.
alizenweed t1_j91rt7l wrote
Tress die and then decompose. CO2 goes back to atmosphere.
[deleted] t1_j91t9ww wrote
[removed]
DrSmirnoffe t1_j91ty5b wrote
But do you know what they also do?
They spread their seeds and make more trees. Those trees then soak up more CO2, which goes into making more wood and tree-seeds. Gee, it's almost like a cycle! A CARBON cycle!
luthiz t1_j91y08u wrote
Yeah, almost...
Mickey-the-Luxray t1_j91y6nb wrote
You... You can do both. You can do both those things together.
ExtantPlant t1_j91yy46 wrote
You're on the wrong sub to be posting that nonsense. First of all, the root system of a tree is usually about as big as the tree is above ground. The carbon stored there should mostly remain in the soil. Second, "used in construction" would store that carbon semi-permanently. Third, even if they were left to decompose, that's not how the decomposition process works at all.
heyheyhey27 t1_j921nj4 wrote
Same thing that happens when a regular-wood house catches fire?
[deleted] t1_j923593 wrote
[removed]
sillypicture t1_j924ogg wrote
Reddit needs to remember that microbes in the ocean store several orders of magnitude more carbon and also generate that much more oxygen than all the trees.
[deleted] t1_j925a01 wrote
[removed]
P1xelHunter78 t1_j927klm wrote
Or, stronger wood in traditional stick built houses wouldn’t be awful
Fantastic_Fox_9497 t1_j927v3g wrote
Now scientists just have to figure out how much wood a wood engineer would engineer if a wood engineer could engineer wood that traps carbon dioxide through a potentially scalable, energy-efficient process that also makes the material stronger for use in construction.
zero0n3 t1_j928bw3 wrote
I wonder if this is a materials process (coating the wood then injecting the co2 or something like that) or genetic modification to have it absorb more co2?
Because genetically modified trees that:
- absorb more co2
- use less nutrients & water / co2 captured
- grows and works faster
- produces wood that is an order of magnitude better than current wood
Is probably like some golden chalice in green carbon capture
noldshit t1_j928lkt wrote
Forgive my forgetfulness, didn't they teach us something about plants and trees turning CO2 into oxygen back in grade school science class?
ATaintedPanda t1_j929gzt wrote
So if there’s more carbon in the wood would it not release more when burned?
CompromisedCEO t1_j92a6ix wrote
That's not as easy as it sounds.
Significance work is needed for even 1 tree to survive in a dense urban environment. You can't just stick them in the ground because they won't survive.
squanchingonreddit t1_j92aoj7 wrote
That will rot eventually and re-release the CO² this is sequestration of carbon over the long term.
squanchingonreddit t1_j92axo6 wrote
As someone with a degree in forestry, you're right. Sorry they're down dootin.
squanchingonreddit t1_j92b96f wrote
Mass timber buildings. They're the future. All wood or mostly wood. The large timber actually burn very slowly and give ample time to escape the building. It's much better than steel that just collapses when heated.
[deleted] t1_j92cjug wrote
squanchingonreddit t1_j92clre wrote
Just planting trees won't help. They need to actually survive, and once they die, they release the lions share of CO² back into the air. We need long term sequestration like this. We actually have to if we want to prevent a +2°C world.
regalrecaller t1_j92cxr5 wrote
So you're telling me that we spent all that time and money drilling and pumping oil out of the earth in order to refine it into gasoline, so it could be used by a very large number of internal combustion engines to be vaporized into atmospheric carbon, only to then be extracted from the atmosphere using factory-size large fans in response to global warming, and then inserted into wood as a building material?
squanchingonreddit t1_j92czxf wrote
Yeah, this actually seems quite promising, especially for large scale production and that would be taking lots of carbon from the air. A win in my book.
regalrecaller t1_j92d1iy wrote
>accept a tiny reduction in economic output
How dare you.
squanchingonreddit t1_j92daa5 wrote
Definitely. But it would be sequestered in the buildings while they are standing.
[deleted] t1_j92e015 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j92e1ki wrote
[removed]
All_Usernames_Tooken t1_j92e1ou wrote
This process looks promising. I’ve always thought there would be a process of just reversing the process of of global warming. It should be possible to create fossil fuels. The time scale of their creation seems to be the biggest problem to overcome. Creating new coal for instance by putting wood under immense pressures without decay for long periods of time. I ponder what depth the wood would have to be buried at and compacted to attain a result similar to how we find coal today. Using geothermal energy to do much of the hard work. We’d probably need forest the size of entire states to sequester enough carbon to make any real mark on the amount of carbon in our atmosphere.
alizenweed t1_j92e7rv wrote
Scaling this would release more co2 than sequester. Absolute rubbish science.
Halas1920 t1_j92eavx wrote
Doesn't it release all the sucked up carbon?
[deleted] t1_j92ew0x wrote
Nah the amount of vegetation required would be way more than could fit to do anything significant. Plants don't use that much CO2, and I don't think CO2 levels change the structural properties of the plants, it just accelerates growth rate in general.
maximusen007 t1_j92gzlx wrote
It's called a tree, no?
Fearlessleader85 t1_j92ha3z wrote
That would be pretty cool, provided they didn't become crazy invasive.
From my livingroom window, i can see a few thousand trees. Probably 75% of them are Russian Olive trees, which stink and have large spines that will punch through a leather glove.
I do not live in Russia. These were brought in a few decades ago and planted as decoration. They're EVERYWHERE now.
And they're kinda dangerous. They get to 30-35' tall, then just randomly fall over.
Tdanger78 t1_j92i7ob wrote
Awesome. Now let’s convince the majority of people to reduce their production of carbon emissions along with this.
TheGreatDalmuti1 t1_j92iyow wrote
Where do you think they find the carbon they need to grow?
heyheyhey27 t1_j92kr13 wrote
Yes, resulting in a net-0 change -- the CO2 that went into it is equal to the CO2 that is released from burning it.
ecksate t1_j92lwdz wrote
Applying some fancy co2 absorbing material to wood makes the material work 8 times better and also makes it more stable or something.
BandComprehensive467 t1_j92n1xf wrote
Okay later, too busy reinventing ways to describe photosynthesis
TheArcticFox444 t1_j92th7v wrote
>And they're kinda dangerous. They get to 30-35' tall, then just randomly fall over.
The soil probably isn't right. Russian olives are banned in my community because of this. They blow over in wind. But, in some parts of the country, they are used as wind breaks! They need rocky soil for their roots to wrap around and get a grip.
fleebleganger t1_j92uo06 wrote
A mature oak tree weighs somewhere around 2,000 tons.
The average American generates 16 tons of carbon a year. That’s 125 years of emissions covered.
So each tree does quite a bit
[deleted] t1_j92vd0y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j92vpwd wrote
[removed]
MartianActual t1_j92vuej wrote
A unicorn with a woodie.
[deleted] t1_j92w4hp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j92wd2i wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j92zbbe wrote
Most of that weight is not carbon though, it's mostly water. And I don't know how you think you're going to get mature oak trees in urban densely populated areas anytime soon.
Fearlessleader85 t1_j930n9t wrote
Yeah, we're ancient lake bottom. The only rocks i can find on my property were brought in.
[deleted] t1_j932i1l wrote
[removed]
zenzukai t1_j933wvs wrote
Using MOF (Metal Organic Framework) to bind it. Scaling this would be very expensive. Hydrogen fuel production uses MOFs, building a house out of them economically would be quite the feat.
There have been significant advances in advanced wood materials. Treated and compressed wood can now get as strong as kevlar and steel.
ApparentlyABot t1_j9349ju wrote
There are a LOT of other factors as to why we use concrete over wood, strength, toughness and all those other attributes.
Also how is concrete the NUMBER one source of carbon emissions exactly?
zenzukai t1_j9350ug wrote
Impregnating wood with MOFs to bind the CO2. They want to utilize MOFs to produce hydrogen. Building a house out of them would be ridiculous.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319921042385
rebregnagol t1_j9369ny wrote
As much as 50% of a tree is carbon.
Viking_Genetics t1_j936n58 wrote
Almost all plants you can breed to be sterile, paulownia (Empress) trees grow insanely fast, some of the hybrid clones that have been bred are 100% sterile and it can only be propagated through clones, so stuff like that could potentially be a way to help decrease the risk of something like that happening
bergserker t1_j936zbb wrote
Filled with carbon dioxide, would they be more flame retardant?
grat_is_not_nice t1_j93barq wrote
Because to make cement for concrete, you heat calcium carbonate (limestone) to drive off carbon dioxide to make lime (calcuim oxide). This process is energy intensive, requiring quarrying equipment, crushers, heating, cooling and grinding, as well as emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide as waste product.
ApparentlyABot t1_j93brip wrote
Okay, but how does that make it number one? I feel like there are many other I dustries, such as rare earth mining and iron working that requires the same amount of energy if not more.
What makes the concrete industry the worst as you put it?
Langola t1_j93cn5j wrote
We produce concrete more than anything else on this earth
nosaneoneleft t1_j93dfqi wrote
good idea. nice..
however, what I see is just gymnastics so people can continue to add to the population growth. in the end whatever gain will be made by a technology like this will be eaten up by the increase on population. maybe it is supposedly slowing but I don't see it coming in time.
still a good idea. doubt it catches on
ApparentlyABot t1_j93drp9 wrote
From my quick google aearch I can see that's the consensus, but it still isn't the worst emmiter for being the most produced resource which is pretty surprising. It's thrid.
Halas1920 t1_j93f8eh wrote
Doesn't that mean that all the captured C02 is then released into the atmosphere?
heyheyhey27 t1_j93g881 wrote
Yes, but most man-made wooden structures do not catch on fire. They just sit around, sequestering CO2 for a long period of time.
thenoaf t1_j93h611 wrote
I mean yeah but environmentalists will oppose it because the word "GMO" is scary. I was just reading about the opposition to this exact thing the other day
eboeard-game-gom3 t1_j93h7ua wrote
Really figures that even Russian trees don't work right.
[deleted] t1_j93hws7 wrote
masterofshadows t1_j93ijfz wrote
They've already invented carbon negative concrete. They just don't use it due to cost. Is this process going to be cheaper than traditional concrete/steel? Probably not, so it will not be used as well unless we start mandating it.
Morthra t1_j93in97 wrote
One other thing about concrete that gets glossed over a lot is that it requires sand dredged up from riverbeds and other places where it is water tumbled. Wind tumbled sand, like what you find in deserts such as the Sahara, is unsuitable due to its smooth shape.
Demand for concrete in construction is contributing to erosion of riverbanks and other habitat destruction in this way.
[deleted] t1_j93j0hb wrote
Halas1920 t1_j93j84r wrote
Cool. Thanks for taking the time. God speed.
[deleted] t1_j93jdxw wrote
[removed]
Dry-Conference4530 t1_j93knyt wrote
Do you know how long it takes to grow an oak tree?
[deleted] t1_j93l8e2 wrote
[removed]
stateescapes t1_j93pi28 wrote
Check out Plantd. Made of hemp and from Asheville, NC. Founder Josh is great guy too
DGrey10 t1_j93t4gb wrote
Last time I looked at I believe it was something on the scale of 1 cubic meter of concrete per person per year on the planet. Mindbogglingly huge amount.
[deleted] t1_j93uwo2 wrote
[removed]
dosetoyevsky t1_j93v4t5 wrote
OK. So what's your point then? Is this not a problem, except for the semantics?
BigPickleKAM t1_j93vjdc wrote
Depending on the size of the building wood can have a better fire survivability rating than steel as wood beams take a long long time to burn through to a point of failure. While a correspondingly strong steel beam would lose its ability to remain rigid.
​
>A fire test conducted in 1961 at the Southwest Research Institute compared the fire endurance of a 7x21-inch glulam timber with a W16x40 steel beam. Both beams spanned approximately 43.5 feet and were loaded to full design load (approximately 12,450 lb.). After about 30 minutes, the steel beam deflected more than 35 inches and collapsed into the test furnace, ending the test. The wood beam deflected 2 1/4 inches with more than 75% of the original wood section undamaged. Calculation procedures provided in a new publication available from the American Wood Council, entitled Technical Report 10: Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed Wood Members, estimates that the failure time of the 7x21-inch wood beam would have exceeded 65 minutes if the test had not ended at 30 minutes.
​
Of course wooden beams large enough to build a modern sky scraper would be so large they would eliminate all interior volume making them a non practical choice. But for low rise apartments it can be a good choice.
[deleted] t1_j93we6j wrote
[deleted]
gbushprogs t1_j93xkqf wrote
NASA astronauts get to the ISS via Russian rocket launches. Wonder what that says about us.
bremergorst t1_j93yq8g wrote
That just sounds like a convenient way to engineer an invasive species that will ultimately consume the earth
Yeah I have no idea, sorry about that.
darga89 t1_j93zhjp wrote
> Or, stronger wood in traditional stick built houses wouldn’t be awful
yeah right, they'll just increase stud spacing and reduce sheathing thickness with any new tech advances.
eboeard-game-gom3 t1_j93zsdv wrote
Had no idea.
darga89 t1_j93zz14 wrote
They used to a few years ago but now that has changed with SpaceX and in a few months Boeing's crewed vehicles.
Utter_Rube t1_j94011p wrote
Article very clearly explains that this is a materials process. I'd recommend giving it a read.
[deleted] t1_j940djx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j940iym wrote
[removed]
zaetchaos t1_j940jtv wrote
This is really nice. Maybe one day we can reverse all this damage
BodSmith54321 t1_j940suk wrote
Even if it saved life on earth, people would still protest anything GM.
cix6cix t1_j941l6k wrote
Does anyone know if the C02 capturing materials ever saturate?
dmattox10 t1_j941sz1 wrote
This person is correct, simulations allow for much more accurate information on how to build, which has made boats for example more fragile in the same way. They used to use much much more fiberglass than they do now that we fully understand it’s strength.
bigdaddyborg t1_j943zbv wrote
Increasing stud spacing (without compromising structural strength) would actually help with getting residential buildings closer to a carbon neutral life-cycle. As it would reduce thermal bridging and make homes easier/cheaper to maintain a healthy internal temperature.
A_R_K_S t1_j9446je wrote
There’s a company in Portland, Oregon already doing this called Aspire.
feeltheglee t1_j9456r0 wrote
cries in invasive honeysuckle
poplafuse t1_j9467ud wrote
The more studs the hotter it gets if ya know what I mean
[deleted] t1_j9476v2 wrote
[removed]
DigiTrailz t1_j948qcu wrote
Its not like once one new idea is made the other is shot, dumped in the ocean, and said to have "gone on life finding journey". You can two ideas and do them together or even independently.
[deleted] t1_j9495cb wrote
[removed]
nigeltuffnell t1_j949qas wrote
Yeah, I've noticed a small problem with this. Lignin (which their process will remove) provides much of the woods rigidity. Not sure how you would get something with as predictable properties as the natural wood itself.
[deleted] t1_j94b6q8 wrote
[removed]
SuperGameTheory t1_j94cea2 wrote
"Right now, there is no biodegradable, sustainable substrate for deploying carbon dioxide-sorbent materials"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but growing vegetation in and of itself is a biodegradable, sustainable, carbon dioxide-sorbent process. Maybe we should look at fast growing, strong plants to harvest for building materials. Also, plant growth is solar powered...so that's neat.
The delignification process they describe sounds like the first steps of paper making, which isn't a pretty process when we're talking about wood prep and digestion. After all that, is this product going to be a net carbon sink? I really doubt it.
Can't we just genetically engineer bamboo for better viability?
SuperGameTheory t1_j94d3fs wrote
Goddamnit, I demand my 40 m^3 of concrete. I have some steps to build.
[deleted] t1_j94dev3 wrote
SuperGameTheory t1_j94dow9 wrote
Who cares? It's solar-powered CO2 sequestration.
SuperGameTheory t1_j94e1v0 wrote
God damn, I'm glad someone else is saying it.
[deleted] t1_j94en0e wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j94fdxl wrote
[removed]
ForensicApplesauce t1_j94j098 wrote
That’s interesting - where do you live?
[deleted] t1_j94j2nx wrote
pyrolizard11 t1_j94k3eh wrote
Do you have a problem with superwood? It's enhanced with the power of ancient forests.
I expect royalties if you use this, marketers.
[deleted] t1_j94lnap wrote
[removed]
Tobias_Atwood t1_j94m2kx wrote
I'm calling it now. We're gonna get jackasses demanding "non-GMO wood" for their homes.
tired_hillbilly t1_j94oizl wrote
Creating concrete takes a lot of energy, which is one source of CO2, but creating cement releases CO2 in one step of the process. Even if you had a 100% carbon-free source of energy, creating cement still produces CO2.
jackzander t1_j94qrtm wrote
Luckily, we're doing neither!
jackzander t1_j94r9bs wrote
A mature oak tree does not weigh 4,000,000 pounds.
You fucked up some math.
Wrathwilde t1_j94rlr3 wrote
They call me…….. Tim?
[deleted] t1_j94rnht wrote
[removed]
BigRedSpoon2 t1_j94w9fn wrote
So, okay
I've worked my way through the article
And... I don't know.
First, potentially is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Lots of things are potentially energy-effecient, but a quick 'command+f' shows no mention of 'carbon neutral' or 'carbon negative'. But, hey, if its more environmentally friendly than alternatives, that's great too, and an easier bar to reach. From my reading, it sounds like that's not the goal either, this isn't attempting to be the future of carbon capture, but rather to reduce emissions concerning construction, which, great.
But the second, arguably bigger hurdle, is affordability, and that, I can't find any mention of. There's no price comparison between this method, vs contemporary materials.
Corporations would jump on this like nothing else if it were cheaper than present methods.
Scalability would definitely help towards this end, yes. But would it achieve it is still up in the air. And I've no reason to believe a construction company would want this, instead of, say, normal wood. Yes, its more durable than regular wood, but so are a lot of things. What in the normal construction process is this aiming to replace?
And as the news article says, thats not even something they've figured out, yet. That's their 'next step'. The primary article just outlines how they made it.
So I frankly, don't have a lot of hope for this project. The science behind it, great. But its real world applicability? That's not something they've figured out.
CinephileJeff t1_j94x978 wrote
The suburbs would beg to differ
Otiman t1_j94zihq wrote
Pine plantations already work this way and are a huge part of sustainable building.
bernyzilla t1_j950hfz wrote
That's what they said about the dinosaurs! and yet here we are 47 movies in and they are still wreaking havoc!
Life, uh, finds away.
[deleted] t1_j950xdz wrote
[removed]
Kaeny t1_j951w5a wrote
I want to live in one of those japanese traditional towers. Like for the nobles
EnkiduOdinson t1_j954418 wrote
AFAIK they even stop burning altogether after a certain point. A charred layer forms that won’t burn. As long as the remaining wood inside this layer is strong enough it won’t fail at all
EnkiduOdinson t1_j954b8e wrote
In fact if you treated concrete like a country it would be third on the list of countries that emit the most CO2, right after China and the US. So concrete production produces more CO2 than India with its population of a billion people
EnkiduOdinson t1_j954mw3 wrote
Build houses out of them and plant more trees in their stead. Rinse and repeat. According to climate scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber we have to build 2 billion residential spaces (be it houses or flats) from wood to get CO2 levels down to where they should be
Ok_Fox_1770 t1_j958fle wrote
Imagine being too lazy to mow your trees for a couple weeks and then You got a redwood forest. Future sounds cool, just hope we don’t mess up nature
iinavpov t1_j95a6gm wrote
First or third is not semantics.
Prioritisation of efforts is important, and the wrong ranking means bad environmental consequences.
iinavpov t1_j95a91h wrote
Yes, except that it's a low energy process (compared to steel, or even making CLT).
The volumes are gigantic, however.
iinavpov t1_j95acpf wrote
No, it's not used because it's BS greenwashing, has durability issues, and is expensive (because of transport, which also adds carbon)
iinavpov t1_j95aho0 wrote
More like 4 tonnes.
Also takes a century to grow.
Person012345 t1_j95g0mp wrote
Scientists have discovered how to plant a tree.
[deleted] t1_j95gh72 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95gm4s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95grn6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j95h6l5 wrote
[removed]
ErlAskwyer t1_j95k5ia wrote
They call them castles I believe
NoStranger6 t1_j95p69k wrote
One thing to consider about fire security is that steel gradually loses it’s structural integrity as it gets hotter. Wood doesn’t until it literally burns away.
GarmeerGirl t1_j95p9rr wrote
This sounds more like fantasy revisionist science we’ve been getting for decades. Trees job is to convert carbon dioxide with their leaves and turn it into oxygen. Why should they instead hoard poisonous carbon dioxide?? Don’t forget the part trees are being prevented from converting carbon dioxide into oxygen because 90% or rain forests have been chopped down. So the remaining 10% will be hoarding carbon dioxide instead of turning it into oxygen. Um ok yeah makes a lot of sense.
SilentHackerDoc t1_j95qot9 wrote
Somehow despite your error with saying "finds a way", it actually came across as even more accurate.
littleendian256 t1_j95rhfv wrote
I doubt it's more efficient than planting a seed and taking care of the small plant while it's growing
mangotrees777 t1_j95uj9p wrote
Hold up. Wait until we finish arguing before we attempt either one.
altiuscitiusfortius t1_j963s8r wrote
My house was built in 1929 using old growth lumber by somebody who didn't know how how strong to build things, and it was overbuilt so much I could park a tank in my living room.
Literal tree trunks for beams that are so dense I can't pound a nail in to them. The "2x4s" for framing walls measure 3inches x6 inches. The subfloor isn't thin plywood, its 3x12 inch planks
TopTierTuna t1_j966vc4 wrote
For what it's worth, there exists a kind of cement that is carbon negative in the same way coral is. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cement-from-carbon-dioxide/
If you've got about an hour of time for a podcast that's better than you're expecting, here's Brent Constantz.
SorsOG t1_j966xc1 wrote
As much as we can hope this will be viable in the future, we also don't know what long term effects trapped CO2 could have on wood. It could make it deteriorate faster than anticipated for all we know. Or even how long the trapped CO2 will stay trapped to keep it strong.
squanchingonreddit t1_j96e3rk wrote
Less if we built more mass timber buildings. They're real neat.
ubercorey t1_j96ldb6 wrote
As a contractor, 100% this.
lavendula13 t1_j96qqyi wrote
The process appears to be highly intensive (and thus expensive). Certainly more so than cutting down a tree and sawing it into 2x4s, etc. Why not genetically engineer a species of tree that takes up more CO2 (and other elements) while deferring the formation of lignin.
propaganda_bot-9733 t1_j96rk7f wrote
Concrete is not even close to the number one source of carbon emissions. It accounts for roughly 3% of total emissions, which is about 1/4 the amount that road transportation emits.
If we stopped using concrete completely, alone this action would have pretty much no measurable effect on our C02 problem. Although it could be part of the mosaic of solutions and that is worth saying.
bernyzilla t1_j96s0nq wrote
Thank you. 2,000 tones is an insane amount. A quick Google search puts the weight closer to 20,000 pounds or ten tons.
Which will dramatically change the calculus for carbon sequestration. Also remember that this only works for new trees, and that mature forests release as much carbon as they absorb.
Still, I am all for planning as much trees as we can possibly get away with. Climate change is an emergency and we should be doing everything possible to mitigate it.
danielravennest t1_j97a51j wrote
On the other hand, one old house I lived in needed concrete floor support jacks in the crawl space because the floor joists were too weak on their own. They just didn't have standards and building inspectors back then.
On the other hand, when I renovated, I found the wall studs were actual 2x4s, not 1.5x3.5 like modern ones. But they were rough cut, right from the sawmill.
danielravennest t1_j97e8rr wrote
That's a completely wrong number. An 80 foot red oak grown in a forest is about 10 tons. That assumes it is 2 feet in diameter at the base.
Source: former tree farmer, and now woodworker "from the tree". That means I harvest a tree, get it cut into lumber, and dry it. I know how much those logs weigh.
The biggest log I ever dealt with was a 3 feet in diameter x 20 ft long oak, which was 5 tons. That was a yard oak, rather than a forest oak. Lack of competition allowed big side branches and therefore a fat trunk.
A freshly cut southern red oak is about 42 pounds per cubic foot oven dry weight, and an equal amount of water when freshly cut. "Dried" wood contains 6-14% moisture in addition to the dry weight. Wood is porous, and exchanges moisture with air that has any humidity in it. So in practice the weight in a finished product is about 46 pounds per cubic foot.
danielravennest t1_j97er4h wrote
> it's mostly water.
danielravennest t1_j97fst3 wrote
Within reason, the individual tree weight doesn't matter. A "closed canopy" is when you look up in a forest and can't see any sky, just leaves and branches. That means all the available sunlight is being used by leaves.
So for a given soil and climate, a closed canopy maximizes the CO2 capture in tons per acre/hectare. If you want to produce durable wood products and store the carbon, you generally don't want a lot of little skinny trees. You want the trunks to be big enough to get useful pieces out of it.
danielravennest t1_j97g9pp wrote
You want to turn the trees into durable wood products and "biochar". Lumber and biochar can last 1000 years if properly handled.
One-Plane7101 t1_j97u5p4 wrote
Evolution is pushing trees to do that anyway. Only drought/flood resistant plants will survive as climate changes. It could take a couple hundred thousand years or so, but it’ll happen.
TheIllustrativeMan t1_j98b379 wrote
2x4 refers to the rough cut dimensions, so that's why. Modern studs are "finished 4 sides", which decreases the dimensions after rough cut.
AutoModerator t1_j90zgnu wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.