Since burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, are there alternatives to burning? Maybe it's difficult to do something with the vast amount of dry wood/plants, even if one manages to collect them?
This is a totally valid question that is getting down votes it shouldn't. And the answer is yes, there are alternatives to burning.
Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's already carbon neutral.
Decomposition and fertilization (eg hugelkulture) will also release greenhouse gases. So, again, carbon neutral.
Pyrolysis allows you to produce synthetic gas, biochar, and energy from the wood. Biochar is a useful industrial and agricultural product, and it's pretty much just solid carbon. Hypothetically you could bury it and be carbon negative, but there isn't really anyone doing that at scale.
You could also bury the wood deeply enough that it wouldn't re enter the carbon cycle, but wood is heavy, large, and difficult to move around.
I hope your down voters realize the intent of your question (can we sequester the carbon from forest waste/slash rather than releasing it?) and adjust their votes.
Thank you for seeing the question for what it is. Genuinely was wondering if there are good alternatives to controlled burns. If not then of course controlled burns are significantly better than wild fires.
One thought that crossed my mind was if a burn after collecting the debris can be used for energy generation with proper emissions filtering/control etc. That would also offset other energy related emissions. But as someone below writes perhaps the collection and transportation of the debris would take more energy than what this would generate.
Burning wood and plant matter in a non destructive way is carbon neutral as that carbon will grow back as trees. It’s part of a natural cycle, like a carbon bank.
The problem is that we’ve been pulling up buried and fossilised trees and burning them, which introduces excessive amounts of CO2 and ruins the natural balance of the carbon bank.
Yes, burning wood is carbon neutral in the long run but clearly emits carbon now (and the earth gets hotter now).
It would be nice to think about maybe collecting undergrowth and turning it to charcoal in something like a kiln and then burying it - reverse coal mining. Of course, we'd want to stop regular coal mining first.
The non-burning natural decomposition of wood also releases the carbon into the atmosphere, as CO2, methane, etc. It's a neutral cycle, as plants are recently grown from atmospherically-sourced carbon.
Deforestation and pulling old oil & coal out of the ground and into the atmosphere is what tips the balance.
Pfhreak|5 years ago
Burning will return what the tree pulled out of the atmosphere, so it's already carbon neutral.
Decomposition and fertilization (eg hugelkulture) will also release greenhouse gases. So, again, carbon neutral.
Pyrolysis allows you to produce synthetic gas, biochar, and energy from the wood. Biochar is a useful industrial and agricultural product, and it's pretty much just solid carbon. Hypothetically you could bury it and be carbon negative, but there isn't really anyone doing that at scale.
You could also bury the wood deeply enough that it wouldn't re enter the carbon cycle, but wood is heavy, large, and difficult to move around.
I hope your down voters realize the intent of your question (can we sequester the carbon from forest waste/slash rather than releasing it?) and adjust their votes.
jstanley|5 years ago
Couldn't you make the same argument about burning literally anything?
Doesn't burning oil just return carbon to the atmosphere that was already in the atmosphere at one point anyway?
jekdoce|5 years ago
One thought that crossed my mind was if a burn after collecting the debris can be used for energy generation with proper emissions filtering/control etc. That would also offset other energy related emissions. But as someone below writes perhaps the collection and transportation of the debris would take more energy than what this would generate.
pvaldes|5 years ago
This is just an excuse to burn. There is not good CO2 molecules and bad CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. More CO2: bad. Less CO2: good
bamboozled|5 years ago
The problem is that we’ve been pulling up buried and fossilised trees and burning them, which introduces excessive amounts of CO2 and ruins the natural balance of the carbon bank.
joe_the_user|5 years ago
It would be nice to think about maybe collecting undergrowth and turning it to charcoal in something like a kiln and then burying it - reverse coal mining. Of course, we'd want to stop regular coal mining first.
white-flame|5 years ago
Deforestation and pulling old oil & coal out of the ground and into the atmosphere is what tips the balance.
olliej|5 years ago
You’re not comparing no-CO2 to some CO2 (and CO, and everything else, etc). You’re comparing some co2 to unbelievably large amounts of CO2 (etc)
WalterBright|5 years ago