About passive houses and plastic bags and styrofoam fur

Karsten, it’s about what happens within a defined period of time to the total balance(!) of all biomass use. If this is zero, meaning that as much has regrown as has been burned within that period, it is neutral.

If people burn first and then plant, the world must cope with an excess of CO2 for 50-100 years (tree growth) (and fewer trees). Time factor. Planting one new tree for every tree burned is insufficient.
A forest from which only as much is taken as regrows in total between two removals is sensible. But burning one tree and then planting one is not.

Time factor: If a standard tree takes 50 years to grow and you want to heat with wood, you need a small forest(!) that after 50 years of your harvesting has the same biomass of wood as at the beginning to be neutral.

Because of the time factor, you cannot make one burned tree CO2 neutral within reasonable time frames with one planted tree. It doesn’t work.

And if time frames didn’t matter, that is my argument, oil and coal would also be good again. They are also cycle products. On the scale of millions of years though.

That wood is so much better/more ecological than fuel is questionable for these reasons. Even green people tell a lot of nonsense when the day is long. Burning is simply not the ideal solution, no matter what you burn.

Two points overlooked:

A) Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere accelerate plant growth. The time period to balance out becomes shorter.

B) Technical possibilities already exist to convert CO2 from the atmosphere into fuel quickly.
(Electricity electrolyzes water, producing hydrogen and oxygen; hydrogen can be industrially combined with CO2 to make methanol, gasoline, or diesel.) This allows the cycle to be closed within minutes.

Point B) currently has no lobby. With all the CO2 and climate warming panic, better money can (still) be made. Just think for yourself, don’t just repeat!

Two points overlooked:

No.

A) An increased CO2 content in the atmosphere accelerates plant growth. The period until equilibrium is shorter

No.

B) There are already technical possibilities to convert CO2 from the atmosphere into fuel in the short term. (Electricity electrolyzes water, producing hydrogen and oxygen, hydrogen can be industrially combined with CO2 to produce methanol, gasoline, or diesel)

Yes.

This allows the cycle to be closed within minutes.

No.

-----

To explain:

A) is wrong because the speed of a process, let’s say here dc(CO2)/dt, can only say something about the ratio "of the periods until equilibrium" when the amounts of CO2 to be consumed are identical. But they are not identical if one postulates that more CO2 would shorten a period here (more compared to what?).

The more CO2, the faster the growth, but also the greater the required consumption until equilibrium. Since you inevitably pass the concentration to be compared on the way there (from this point the functions are identical), it can never be faster, only slower. Ergo: More CO2 always requires longer until "equilibrium" than less.

B) is half correct. The technology exists but consists of a series of poor efficiencies (water electrolysis, fuel production with the hydrogen, use of the fuel). The question is how large the CO2 share is of the initially required primary energy to keep the CO2 in the cycle. If we had CO2-free energy generation in abundance, the method would be perfect. With an energy mix that also includes gas and coal, the calculations begin. How does that turn out? Do you know? I claim that it is nothing. Efficiency chains with multiple steps very quickly lead to poor overall efficiencies. And only those are decisive!

Just think for yourself, don’t parrot

With many thanks back

The more CO2, the faster the growth, but also the greater the necessary consumption until the balance is reached.

Can you explain it again for ordinary mortals? Do you assume here that the consumption of CO2 is proportional to growth? If yes, is that realistic? Growth in plants does not depend on CO2 alone...

I admit, now just watching in amazement, because my Kielä Gesamtschulabi Friedrichsort, right behind the tank factory, no longer covers that.

I admit, now just watching in amazement here, because my Kielä Gesamtschulabi Friedrichsort, just behind the tank factory, no longer covers this.

A simple analogy will do as well.

If you turn on two identical stove burners for exactly 3 minutes, one at level 9, one at level 5, after switching off you have one merely warm and one hot burner.

When these now cool down, the hot burner loses temperature at the beginning much faster compared to the merely warm one (in °C per minute, for example). Nevertheless, it takes longer to be fully cooled again compared to the other burner. Reason: The functions that describe the temperature loss per time depending on the current temperature are identical for both burners. Therefore, it does not help to be faster at the beginning because one was hotter – one is always behind.

Replace "temperature" with CO2, "cooling function" with plant growth, and the two differently hot burners with two states with more or less CO2.

-----

Are you assuming here that the consumption of CO2 is proportional to growth? If yes, is that realistic? Growth in plants does not depend only on CO2 after all...

It is approximately proportional. The reason why A) is still not true is another one, described above by me.

It is approximately proportional.

In view of the current CO2 pollution, that would imply that the few untouched groves on Earth are growing exorbitantly. I have my doubts about that. Other factors, such as water and simply lack of space / light, are in my opinion natural limits that cannot be easily neglected, even when looking at it globally. The rainforest cannot grow into the sky, even if it regularly tries. Where there is one leaf, there cannot be a second one, etc.