Hi Terry and Keith
Yes trees contribute greatly to CO2 production... when people are near them they are overcome with an urge to jog ... people drive cars to be near them and even fly in jets around the globe to be in the few places you can still find them standing in their natural state... not to mention the deep sighs of relief some poets give standing in their midst expressing copious amounts of the fearful stuff & contributing greatly to emissions? Knowledge of these dangerous aspects of trees have even been known to influence the living habits of some people ... convincing them to breathe more sparingly ... into airtight recycled containers...truely amazing!
A more serious reply later.
Norm
________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design on behalf of Keith Russell
Sent: Fri 31/08/2007 1:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: dying trees
Dear Terry
coal - yep, lots of coal in Newcastle - biggest exporter of coal on the
lonely planet.- - 90 million tonnes per year and counting.
If you bury the trees deeper there is almost no loss of carbon - decay
really needs oxygen - coal mines would be a good place? Underwater is
not bad.
The average life of a weather board house in Australia is 75 years -
bricks only last 50.
So, let's grow, chop, use, bury deep - grow chop, use, bury deep -
etc.
cheers
keith
>>> Terence <[log in to unmask]> 8/31/2007 12:10 pm >>>
Hi Keith,
Figures on refuse flows show approximately the same amount of lumber
going
into landfill as is produced and used. The figures I have are for CCA
treated lumber. One would expect similar figures for untreated lumber.
Decay
in landfill sites is active. Gases are either vented or burned to
create
electrical energy. Either way the CO2 is released.
Storage in built environment (houses etc) is typically only of the
order of
decades; the proportion of wood in building is relatively small in
developed countries; and creation of joinery and furniture timber is
relatively inefficient and with significant CO2 laden waste streams.
One
friend who was a manager of a cabinet making works suggested their
main
output was sawdust - the beautiful furniture happened as a by-product.
The CO2 neutrality of wood can, however, also be seen as a blessing
where
electricity can be created from wood burned in a tightly engineered
environment without releasing high levels of toxic chemicals. In that
case,
growing and burning wood offers a relatively efficient solar
conversion
process to electricity.
I thought everyone was into coal over your way?
Best regards,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Keith
Russell
Sent: Friday, 31 August 2007 6:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: dying trees
Dear Terry
It might be OK to say that in their slow dying trees give off the
carbon
they have collected in one way or another. But, most fallen timber is
not
dead, it simply isn't growing.
Burying the trees, for example, can lock most of the carbon up and the
small
amount given off is mostly held by the soil. The 75 year old timbers in
my
house have held most of their carbon quite well for the 100 years since
the
trees started. They could keep doing that quite well for another 100
years
and then get buried and so on.
cheers
keith
|