Submitted by MistWeaver80 t3_zyp0f8 in science
>hugelkultur effect
I am unfamiliar with this word
It's a gardening technique where large pieces of whole wood and other organic material are buried and mounded over. As time progresses, the soil is enriched.
Google it. It's a very cool little concept, basically building a mound of slowly decaying organic matter and covering it with dirt, then planting stuff in it. I have had one for 3 years and got very good tomatoes/peppers/squash off of it without watering.
That seems like an excellent idea, but there might be a few drawbacks. How many in the UK have a garden large enough to compost a pine tree? A commercial hügelkultur operation would take a substantial amount of work to create and maintain, especially considering the number of trees that would need to be buried every year.
US here, but fair point! Can also chop for mulch/scatter under bushes, use thicker chunks in a casual fire.
Biofules are good and all, but it's funny that they are suggesting to reduce the co2 emissions of a decomposing tree by combining it with sugar cain that would have to be shipped to the uk.
You may have misread the article.
The process doesn't need sugar cane, only pine needles. The article mentions that while cane by itself is more efficient, pine needles do an adequate job with more refined techniques. The researchers mention the pine needles can be mixed in with the cane. for an added boost. Since the UK already imports sugar cane, it wouldn't be a new addition to their carbon footprint. The pine needles can be mixed in when they are abundant (January).
Fair enough, I was referencing the abstract of the paper cited by the article where only the sugarcane bagasse and pine needles were referenced as the feed stock. I did not read the full paper where I guess they discussed other options.
Also I did not realize the uk imported decent amounts of unprocessed sugar cane, to process to get the bagasse. I am surprised really, seems much more expensive than just importing cane sugar.
Would the logistics and fuel cost of of transferring a single tree to a pickup spot to be "recycled" be less than the net gain in fuel from the recycling?
Probably, but half of our recycling schemes area a net loss when it comes to CO2, and people still do it, because they get to feel good about themselves.
No-one wants to hear that controlled burning of paper/plastic may be better than shipping them across half the world to be treated with chemicals and then shipping it back...
The city I live in collects and mulches them (except the ones with flocking, those have to be thrown out). You can go pick up mulch for your garden for free afterwards. Seems like a waste to just throw trees in the landfill.
They bring them to the dunes on our local barrier beach to catch sand and rebuild the dunes.
I read about a lake sinking them with concrete blocks to create something like an artificial reef for the fish.
..or stop buying trees for Christmas ? I'm certain the Co2 levels would benefit..
It’s pulling more CO2 from the air than it’s adding,
New trees are replanted, pulling CO2 from the air. Meanwhile a lot of the old trees get mulched or buried in landfills, which is sequestered carbon.
The phenomenon of Christmas trees, or Christmas in general are a Co2 and resource waster. The waste are huge on every level. Landfills burps Co2/methane like a geyser. Eco fuels are not very 'eco', and sequestering carbon could be done in other more scientific minded ways.
Step 1: grow trees, which pulls CO2 from the atmosphere
Step 2: cut trees down and sell them
Step 3: compost trees or burn trees, which releases some, but not all, of the captured carbon back into the atmosphere.
Step 4: goto step 1
​
This results in a net carbon sink.
How about we just stop killing and transporting trees just to dress them up for a month.
Aren't old Christmas trees carbon syncs (sequestration)? Aren't they carbon negative?
Edit: to be clear, fir trees are really robust and cheap, they almost never fertilize them.
Once a tree dies it releases any carbon it captured. Doesn’t really matter where it ends up. Mulching and composting are probably the best options.
The town I grew up in had a 12th night bon fire. Everyone took their trees to the town square and we set them ablaze.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Didn't the U.S. try this with Corn and Ethanol to find out that the CO2 produced by agriculture was misunderstood and under represented?
Edit: I didn't read it first sorry. It appears they are only using waste and not farming.
[removed]
[deleted]
We have green waste collection fortnightly here so I just chop it up and it all gets turned into mulch and compost.
[removed]
Biowaste isn't really considered a 'renewable' energy source. We can do better.
I'm very surprised, aren't they burned for energy recycling? Seems like a waste to landfill them (even if it's better for co2 dumping)
This is a net loss process. You expend fuel to take that tree to be recycled that will never develop the replacement renewable fuel.
[removed]
Ehhh. From what I understand, it's just not feasible. You're going to spend more CO2 doing this than you'll recover from the trees unless you handle everything in-house. Remember, cuttings/needles are pretty dense/heavy, especially since they won't be dried. You'll also somehow have to gather the trees, I don't know about places in the UK but here it's not exactly super cheap (for customers or the companies), especially when you consider all the gas needed to pick up, transport, then the labor for unloading/processing.
I remember talking to someone who's done research on this specific thing and from what they found, it just wasn't economically/environmentally feasible. Especially since the holidays are the major time you'd be able to get them. Maybe new advances/discoveries will change that, who knows.
Old Christmas trees in my area are given to farmers for goat feed or mulched by the town and resold to residents for $5/ton.
Yes, goats love Christmas trees, within a week or so all that’s left is the trunk.
Renewable fuel... like... wood?
Goat farmers appreciate the discarded trees too. The goats love pine needles.
I mean… mine gets fed piece by piece into the wood furnace in the shop so…. Pretty straightforward
Scientists discover wood fuel
[removed]
Dumb question, but wouldn’t the best use of old Christmas trees be to just use them directly as fuel. They’re just wood. Can they just be thrown into the furnace of a power plant?
Or, mulched and spread on local hiking trails. This is done in Nashville TN.
Cute, but turn the whole thing into methane instead. It’s much easier and thus, more efficient
many (maybe even most) commercial Christmas trees are absolutely covered in chemicals to keep them looking top notch for the holiday. Just something to consider when you are thinking about what to do with it after its two week stint as an ornament holder is done.
Personally I would like to see this tradition change in some way that leaves all these trees growing in nature providing habitat. Maybe folks can adopt a wild tree and take care of it for the year or something...I don't know I have never invented a holiday before.
[deleted]
WaxyWingie t1_j27db5q wrote
...Or you could chop the darned thing with a machete and stick it under a layer of compost in your new raised bed for a mild hugelkultur effect, like regular gardeners have been doing for decades.