351
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are right.

But it’s less certain.

There’s a decent amount of carbon emissions associated with management of land, however, and if you want the land to continue to be optimised for carbon sequestration you’ll need to manage it and, besides, in most areas you can’t just buy land, plant some trees on and leave it - it’ll need active management to stay a forest and to comply with local regulation.

But let’s say you’re doing that and planting for carbon sequestration, then you’d probably choose something like pine (fast growing, absorbs a lot of carbon, stays green through the year so tends to prevent competition on the floor). A tree that like will absorb roughly a tonne (1000-1100 kg of carbon) in its life. Then it dies and you’ll need to remove it to ensure a new tree can grow (otherwise it’ll be taken over by other species slowly).

A hectare of dense pine trees can probably hold 3000 trees (if we are being generous) so a hectare (100x100 metres of land) can hold 3000 tonnes of carbon. On average in Europe we emit about 9 tonnes of carbon per year and live for 80 years so a hectare can hold about 4 people’s worth of life time emissions.

In the U.K. you’ll end up spending about £25,000 for a hectare of woodland (give or take), but then you’ll need public liability insurance and management fees (let’s just say £20/year for for a hectare of insurance and £750/year for management of a hectare) … so let’s assume £800/year for a hectare or £200/year to manage the size of woodland required to absorb a person’s life time emissions (remember, 4 people per hectare). Now you need a trust manager who runs it, permanently forevermore, to manage it all. Let’s say £40,000/year and assume that they manage 1000 people’s life time emissions (this obviously could scale down to almost zero as the scheme grew) or £40/year per person.

But don’t forget additionally: This has to be NEW woodland, so you need to buy non-woodland and then plant the woodland. Otherwise you’re not absorbing more carbon. Typical quotes for a hectare of pine planting will be about £4000.

And this cost needs paying forevermore: £6000 to buy the space for a person’s emission £4000 to plant it £250/year to manage it (insurance, management)

To deliver £250/year you’ll need an investment of 250/0.04=£6250. Let’s just say £7000 to leave some buffer for bad years and to pay for the additional carbon that’s emitted from the management. So:

£6000 to buy the space for a person’s emissions. £4000 to plant it.
£7000 to manage it forevermore.

So all in you’ll need to spend £17000 to absorb your lifetime’s worth of emissions.

Now let’s compare that to geological sequestration. Climeworks, the only publically available scheme to suck carbon out of the air and sequester it into rock, permanently, quotes £1100/ton of carbon. So to extract the 720 tones you’ll emit in your lifetime it would be £792,000.

So yeah, trees do it a LOT cheaper (2% of the cost), but it requires active management and it’s not guaranteed to be on geological scale.

And I’m not aware of a scheme that enables this to happen. Are you?

[-] essteeyou@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Is this one of those situations like solar panels where the tech will get cheaper over time?

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

No doubt. But we can’t afford to wait. We need it yesterday.

[-] essteeyou@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

All the more reason to develop the tech then.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel like you could do both? carbon capture facility underground with trees ontop and intakes poking through the ground? Wouldn't even have to burry the facility just build it with a heavy duty roof garden in mind.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tree roots go down far. You definitely could not run carbon sequestering underneath.

But then again, why would you? Why even bother with sucking it out of the air if trees are so much cheaper? And the added benefit is that you’ll be rewilding land, so it impacts biodiversity too.

[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

As mentioned elswhere in the thread, running a carbon capture plant is something you could just do when renewables are producing excess output which would be more efficient than just winding them down.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Trees got solar panels built in you're not gonna win this one.

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Very few renewables are wound down, though. Usually the excess is used to fill pumped storage or turn down hydro plants. For now that’s a viable strategy but soon are exceed renewable will be have to be used someplace else so it’s not a bad idea. I doubt it’ll be enough though.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
351 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

59598 readers
2506 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS