@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
Basically, from my perspective all energy policy should be highly localised.
If you have vast areas of forest, use wood locally. If you have geothermal (Iceland), valleys that can be flooded with dams (Sweden) or shallow water around your coast with strong winds (UK), make maximum feasible use of these.
@kravietz @themactep
Here is where we disagree :ablobcool:
World has many diverse biomes. While I am (mostly) against central planning, It seems wasteful to ignore the fact, that there are some industries, that could be 100 percent centralized in parts of the world where they could be 200 or more percent effective.
@LukeAlmighty @themactep@fosstodon.org
Oh no, I don't mean localized as in isolated from the others, just in terms of fuel logistics.
It makes perfect sense to transport 5 tons of uranium over 7000 km once per year as its environmental impact is nominal and offset by the energy production.
In case of continuously moving thousands of tons of wood over the same distance the environmental impact likely exceeds any benefit.
