@themactep@fosstodon.org
It is. There was a lot of talk about illegal logging in Siberia 1-2 years ago, most of that ends in EU as "biomass" or "wood chips" but in reality it was normal, healthy forest
@kravietz @themactep
I was thinking about industrial (and monetizable) ways of capturing CO2, and woodchopping industry seems to be the best one.
As long as you can maximalize wood growth and minimalize the ammount of burned wood, you should get a huge reduction in CO2.
Just something for Greta to consider... :blobcatcoffee:
@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org
This is a valid point. What intuitively feels stupid here is moving this wood over tens of thousands of kilometers, usually with fossil fuels, which might kill any net gain from CO2 point of view.
Also logging in places like Sibera is counterproductive, as it takes a hundred of years for a forest to grow in low temperatures there.
@kravietz @themactep
While I agree about the point with Siberia, the entire point should be to maximalize the growth rate. That means, tbat we should serioisly look into that place in the world and with what type of tree can support the highest growth per year.
The transportation technology is ridiculously effective by now. The speed of growth on the other hand has the opposite problem.
@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org
On the other hand moving wood from Africa on ships (=diesel) to be burned in highly populated EU sounds silly.
If you're living in a highly populated areas with little potential for anything else, just stick to energy sources with high power density.
@kravietz @themactep And as I said, burning wood is a horrible thing if you believe in global warming...
Especially since nuclear energy is so much better them any other energy source...