Burning and planting.. Archived Message
Posted by Shyaku on October 9, 2019, 3:23 am, in reply to "I didn't say that growing forest is the best sequesterer of carbon.."
Yes, I guess deliberately burning and planting simply speeds up the turnover of carbon without being a net emitter, if the burning rate and the photosynthetic rate from the replanted forest are matched. Here, the forest acts as an energy store - Burning extracts the energy and planting recycles the carbon while new energy is pumped in from the sun. I feel a bit sceptical, though, that rates can be easily matched, and it doesn't seem like a very clean way to store solar energy. Maybe a cleaner store might be to do something like pumping water uphill using power from photovoltaics? Not sure. - Regards, Shyaku
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- Why Planting Trees Won't Save the Planet - scrabb October 5, 2019, 2:25 pm
- Yeah, but the planet doesn't neeed 'saving', that would be *us* - mack October 5, 2019, 5:09 pm
- Old, wrong argument. And it says nothing about the sheep. [Sheep? Yes really!] - - Rhisiart Gwilym October 5, 2019, 5:47 pm
- Um, its a steady state even without burying ... - Shyaku October 5, 2019, 7:49 pm
- Apologies to all, but I agree with Dr Gray. Forests are a temporary repository.. - David Macilwain October 6, 2019, 2:07 am
|
|