Climate Change

[old goat]

Thin profit margin for investors to get a facility built and operating, so I’ve been told… and I believe that’s both of those types of biomass facility. I conflated the two (energy and H production). Sry

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, like everything else about fixing the climate crisis it's going to require subsidies. We pay now or we pay later.

[AirheadD8]

Article on co2 injection in California: https://mavensnotebook.com/2022/01/0...26373291015625[/QUOTE]

Fracking ? Drilling wells ( using fossil fuel ) and injecting C02? Uggggg
Plant trees if you want to sequester CO2 , some things don't need to be all that complicated .

I live in a wooded area and it's consistently 6-12f cooler than the city I work in .

[old goat]

[QUOTE}

Fracking ? Drilling wells ( using fossil fuel ) and injecting C02? Uggggg
Plant trees if you want to sequester CO2 , some things don't need to be all that complicated .

I live in a wooded area and it's consistently 6-12f cooler than the city I work in .[/QUOTE]

We could just all drink more soda and sparkling water.

[::: :::]

not sure if this has been posted
https://thehill.com/changing-america...nd-in-wyoming/

not a word about trees in the article as a possible CO2 removal mechanism

[MagnificentUnicorn]

not sure if this has been posted
https://thehill.com/changing-america...nd-in-wyoming/

not a word about trees in the article as a possible CO2 removal mechanism

Wouldn’t it take a while for trees to get big enough to make much of a difference even with planting hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[::: :::]

Wouldn’t it take a while for trees to get big enough to make much of a difference even with planting hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

yes, absolutely
but that project ^^^ also hasn't broken ground

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Why not both? I’m not sure what you’re getting at by bringing up trees with that link


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[::: :::]

Why not both? I’m not sure what you’re getting at by bringing up trees with that link

i was just surprised that there wasn't a benchmark to describe how effective this will be
and trees struck me as our most obvious CO2 processors
not criticizing the effort so apologies if that's how i made it sound
"both and" strategy works for me for sure

[Supermoon]

Best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. Second best time is today. As they say.

Trees are great, so are other capture solutions, but the ocean is probably the best carbon sink if we can get the carbon into it.

[yeahman]

Underground carbon storage is going to be HUUUDDGE. I've read about other projects getting started in North Dakota. All those landowners around the Bakken who didn't own their land's mineral rights (or were outside the prime shale-oil play) could finally benefit financially because carbon storage is attached to the surface rights, not the mineral rights.

[byates1]

This popped up the other day. What say all about this guy's reasoning? Interesting.

[bodywhomper]

That’s ^^ pretty interesting. In some areas of California, there’s been a rush to get first in the queue for permits for underground carbon storage. Same will soon occur for offshore wind.

Trees: in California, there’s almost 2M acres of federal land that was previous conifer forests that were recently destroyed in high severity wildfire. There’s a bit of a conundrum about what to do next. Methods of reforestation may or may not be successful because of difficulty in implementing and maintaining the areas. Most of the discussion that I see revolves around previous lack by the federal government to successfully grow a forest and maintain it in such a way that it won’t be devastated by another high severity wildfire in 20-30 years. There are some success stories and many unsuccessful stories, but none at the scale of the current problem.

[old goat]

A lot of places where forest has burned will never grow trees again, due to climate change.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

A lot of places where forest has burned will never grow trees again, due to climate change.

I don’t really think that’s true. We probably won’t notice the reforestation but the trees will grow. Everywhere that I’ve gone into that’s had very hot fires, everything burned to bare soil, has new trees growing after a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[AirheadD8]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IeyP439HLFs

As long as the CO2 stays where they put it! I’m thinking try that experiment where no population exists!

Not much profit planting trees. Poplar trees grow pretty quickly I’m sure there’s other varieties that do as well. They also give off oxygen so there’s that too.

Sparkling water and soda have side effects on me, I can change CO2 into methane 😁

[old goat]

I don’t really think that’s true. We probably won’t notice the reforestation but the trees will grow. Everywhere that I’ve gone into that’s had very hot fires, everything burned to bare soil, has new trees growing after a few years.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Up your way sure. But the desert and the chaparral are moving north and uphill in California. Donner ridge burned in 1959 I believe. South facing slope that's still bare and eroded. I see the same thing in other burns around here. Plus, the bark beetle kills are increasing exponentially.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I live on the east slopes. It’s dry. Desertification is real but if the trees are growing and healthy when the fire comes through they’ll come back, it just takes a little longer. Now if they’re already dying or unhealthy from drought and disease then they’re going to die anyway regardless of fire.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[bodywhomper]

My understanding is that forest regrowth in the western US after high severity fire (ie complete tree mortality in large areas) is dependent on the dominant species.

There is some banter about it here: https://twitter.com/ucsierraforest/s...Rg1GMw_P8KJYYA

[MagnificentUnicorn]

We’ve had a few catastrophic wildfires here in central WA. Things that were a moonscape a few years back seem to have the usual progression of recovery species. Depending on the locale, new growth of shrubs is first apparent and then a couple years later trees start to appear. Mixed growth too, white bark mixed with larch, cedar and hemlock, aspen, lodge pole and pondos growing together.

I think we’re impatient and can’t get away from a human time scale


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[PB]

Isn't there anything we can do with CO2 besides store it under ground? Seriously, not talking about carbonated drinks here. I mean it's carbon and oxygen - two seemingly usable materials.

[xyz]

Isn't there anything we can do with CO2 besides store it under ground? Seriously, not talking about carbonated drinks here. I mean it's carbon and oxygen - two seemingly usable materials.

Regenerative farming will soak it up. But it’s too simple and effective to be adopted to a meaningful scale.

[neufox47]

Isn't there anything we can do with CO2 besides store it under ground? Seriously, not talking about carbonated drinks here. I mean it's carbon and oxygen - two seemingly usable materials.

This. Would be ideal if we could turn it into an inert building material, etc.

[k2skier112]

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/carbon-sinks.php

Grasslands
Agricultural Lands
Northern, boreal forests
Tropical Rainforests
Peat Bogs
Freshwater lakes and wetlands
Coastal ecosystems such as seagrass beds, kelp forests, salt marshes and swamps
Coral reefs

[old goat]

We’ve had a few catastrophic wildfires here in central WA. Things that were a moonscape a few years back seem to have the usual progression of recovery species. Depending on the locale, new growth of shrubs is first apparent and then a couple years later trees start to appear. Mixed growth too, white bark mixed with larch, cedar and hemlock, aspen, lodge pole and pondos growing together.

I think we’re impatient and can’t get away from a human time scale


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/fore...ires-1.4444998

"Bigger, hotter wildfires are ravaging forests and burning them to the ground more frequently as the climate gets hotter and drier. Now a new study shows that in some places in the U.S., those forests may never grow back."

[skysos]

We’ve had a few catastrophic wildfires here in central WA. Things that were a moonscape a few years back seem to have the usual progression of recovery species. Depending on the locale, new growth of shrubs is first apparent and then a couple years later trees start to appear. Mixed growth too, white bark mixed with larch, cedar and hemlock, aspen, lodge pole and pondos growing together.

I think we’re impatient and can’t get away from a human time scale


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Here's a study on post-fire tree regrowth after 20 years: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11779/ in the Bitterroot range of Montana. I read this a while back and was reminded of it reading this thread.

Conclusion:

"Results suggest that study areas that were affected by high severity fire are unlikely to return to pre-fire conditions without tree planting or other management activities."

There was another study earlier in the same area that suggested the same thing: that the more shaded northerly aspects will regrow just fine, but the higher temps caused by climate change affect the southerly aspects profoundly and those will never grow back without help.