• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
permaculture forums growies critters building homesteading energy monies kitchen purity ungarbage community wilderness fiber arts art permaculture artisans regional education skip experiences global resources cider press projects digital market permies.com pie forums private forums all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
master stewards:
  • Nancy Reading
  • Carla Burke
  • r ranson
  • John F Dean
  • paul wheaton
  • Pearl Sutton
stewards:
  • Jay Angler
  • Liv Smith
  • Leigh Tate
master gardeners:
  • Christopher Weeks
  • Timothy Norton
gardeners:
  • thomas rubino
  • Jeremy VanGelder
  • Maieshe Ljin

Palm trees not good for carbon capture?

 
gardener
Posts: 5447
Location: Southern Illinois
1492
transportation cat dog fungi trees building writing rocket stoves woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have read recently that palm trees are not all that great for carbon capture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecaceae

Apparently they are not true trees.  Can anyone explain why a palm “tree” is not as good at absorbing carbon as a true tree?

Thanks in advance!
 
pollinator
Posts: 3854
Location: Kent, UK - Zone 8
705
books composting toilet bee rocket stoves wood heat homestead
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
They don't make  true "wood" in the stems. It is very soft, has a low density of carbon compared to true trees, and that carbon decays very quickly back to the atmosphere. With true trees the carbon is trapped in the form of lignin which is very strong and very chemically stable.

There is a quite a bit of variability even with true trees. For example, our wood shed currently contains a mix of both linden and beech. The beech logs are twice as dense as the linden, burn for more than twice as long, and have much more heat. Structurally they have more carbon in them.

The complication comes when you consider speed of growth as a factor. A fast growing tree stores more carbon per year; but they also tend to be short lived and the wood tends to have low density and decay more quickly.

Beyond that, unless the carbon is permanently removed from the biosphere - eg by making and burying biochar - the stored carbon from any tree is only temporarily locked up. In geological terms it returns to the atmosphere very rapidly.
 
You ridiculous clown, did you think you could get away with it? This is my favorite tiny ad!
A rocket mass heater heats your home with one tenth the wood of a conventional wood stove
http://woodheat.net
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic