Re:EU experts to say nuclear power qualifies for green inves...
by Chris2048 on Sunday March 28, 2021 @09:17PM
(#26616673)
True, but this proves that wood alone isn't a total solution. Along with reduction in FF dependency and other forms of carbon capture, it could be. "only decades" is enough time to come up with better solutions, including bio masses with a better per $ rate of carbon capture.
In 2014, use of wood products in all notable categories combined was about 1.25 billion tons [3]. Including just sawnwood and wood paneling, it was 0.827 billion tons. Since there's no plausible way to use 2500% as much lumber for structural purposes as we do now, and just harvesting wood and leaving it outdoors will lead to decomposition on short (decades) time scales, people consider charring it and/or burying it underground. Just building more structures out of wood is barely going to put a dent in the problem.
Likewise, dynamically shifting the equilibrium toward wood from CO2 doesn't help much if the wood persists for only decades. The time scale for CO2 to naturally return to its pre-industrial equilibrium is more like 100,000 years [4]. We need sequestration measures that prevent CO2 from returning to the atmosphere over longer time periods than wood takes to decay naturally.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose
[3] https://www.forest2market.com/blog/fao-report-highlights-res...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Long-Thaw-Changing-Climate-Princeton/...