Store wood in old salt mines to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere

[charles65]

Before we get any more low grade responses - maybe some may like to delve into this issue a bit deeper.

This is a good start;

https://www.google.com/search?clien...iKbICg&q=bury+wood+carbon&oq=bury+wood+carbon

 

[TeethWhitener]

In the interest of rescuing this thread...yes, burying wood can be a form of carbon sequestration, as long as it’s buried in a way that prevents it from rotting (and thus releasing its carbon back into the atmosphere). This—albeit on a much slower timescale—is basically how fossil fuels came to exist in the first place. In addition, there’s plenty of waste wood from industrial lumber processes that could be a good candidate.

The problem isn’t the science; the problem is the economics. You can use waste wood for a number of things (including burning it for energy) that you can presumably sell at a profit (or at least mitigate a loss). Sending waste wood to a regular landfill will just allow it to decompose and release its carbon. So there would have to be a dedicated infrastructure for burial of wood. We have similar dedicated infrastructures for special waste streams—in particular, recycling centers and hazmat disposal centers—but in the first case, the end product can, at least in theory, be resold at a profit, and in the second case, there is a clear immediate danger to public health. With wood burial, neither of those apply, so there’s no economic incentive.

Which means that an incentive must be artificially supplied: then the issue becomes political. Probably the easiest way to incentivize carbon sequestration is through a carbon tax, and wood burial could be rolled into this as a specialized form of sequestration. If the legal framework allows it (e.g., carbon offset trading), you could conceivably see companies pop up that grow and bury a fast-growing plant like bamboo and sell the offsets at a profit to major polluters.

 

[Baluncore]

There will come a time when the process of filling the mine with wood will become carbon neutral and economically optimum. Now is NOT that time.
Filling the mine now would be carbon inefficient. It would be better to delay the process until excess renewable (electric?) energy was available to power all the vehicles needed to transport and bury the material.

 

[charles65]

The problem isn’t the science; the problem is the economics.

Yes, the key is economics. You can cover costs using heat for any number of industrial purposes from producing charcoal. This by itself could keep some fossil fuels in the ground.

The benefits of charcoal (and also its stability) gives it a potential role in sequestration.

Economically, all we need to resource is the production and sequestration of 1 tonne of charcoal per person per year and less if we accelerate other renewables.

Most nations should be able to produce a 20kg bag of charcoal per week for each of their citizens. It would require some diversion of labour but nothing that has not occurred during wars. 20kg bags are already available in BBQ supply outlets.

A total rollout of electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, will make the task even easier.

 

[Rive]

Most nations should be able to produce a 20kg bag of charcoal per week for each of their citizens.

That's about multiplying the food production by three to fivefold, at the very least.

Not gonna' happen: not without excess carbon footprint increase with an even higher multiplier: not in any sustainable way: not in any economically acceptable way.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DrClaude]

This thread has run its course. Time to close.

Thanks to all that have participated.