Sweden’s giant wooden wind turbine promises greener future | BBC News
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 гру 2023
- It’s made from the same wood as a Christmas tree and held together by glue. A company in Sweden has created the world’s tallest wind turbine made from timber.
It says this is the future of wind turbine design, promising bigger wind generators which are far greener.
Conventional wind turbines generate renewable energy but producing the huge quantities of steel they’re made from is not an environmentally friendly process.
The timber turbine tower in Sweden is far lighter than steel and takes a tiny fraction of the carbon emissions to produce, while the timber itself is a carbon store.
There could be other benefits to using wood for turbine towers. Its strength and resilience may allow the creation of bigger and taller turbines, generating more electricity.
Clive Myrie presents BBC News at Ten reporting by Jonah Fisher.
Subscribe here: bit.ly/1rbfUog
For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news
#BBCNews
The question I have is how does wood hold up against the elements? Would these turbines have a shorter lifespan than their steel counterparts?
100% it would. Obviously most components will have to stay steel.or some kind of metal.
Well the wood would have a substantial layer of some kind of protective laceur on it so im not sure if it would notice much of the elements at all... - obviously water should not be allowed to seep into the wood. - in theory there is no reason why a wood structure cant last 100s of years... not sure about the wood glue though and how well that will hold up over the decades.
@@historyZZ Depends on the location. A steel turbine near the sea will degrade very quickly due to the salty sea air. Meanwhile wood does not have that same issue. In addition there are multiple treatments that can be done to wood to improve it's durability and resistance against the weather.
@@giglioflex
Wood that is exposed to moisture will rot. Therefore the wood would indeed have that very same issue.
You think it won't be coated with waterproof layers?@@user-ds8rj2vc4v
Hot Damn. You’re telling me all we have to do is cut down a bunch of trees to save the planet?
wooden wind turbine from IKEA
Yes! The models offered is named “Blås” and ”Snurra”.
The termites love this idea
And exactly how many hectars of forest been cleared for 1 turbine? :)
Judging by the drone shots in this video, i'd say between 0.01 or 0.02 hectare per 1 turbine.
Love the renovation, amazing
de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito was the original wooden wonder in UK history. Laminated wood is incredibly strong, but engineers naturally turn to steel, aluminium,
carbon fibre etc. It will be very interesting to see how these perform.
Deterioration from several mechanisms affects glue lam at least for beams. Long term resistance to compressive stress, plus risk of water damage from the elements and condensation seem to be the main issues for wind turbine towers. Time will tell...
No rust to worry about.
You better call them up and let them know, in case they didn’t think about any of that at all right?
Right??
Send in your resume while you’re at it.
@Freshbott2 Ha! I can only claim seeing a few examples of glue lam beam failures due to delamination and a vague awareness that timber is happiest in tension. They obviously CAN use this material, but is it a good idea, including the reality of trying to join sections reliably with adhesive on site in often wet conditions? Chalmers University study of 2018 is interesting in looking at multiple aspects of alternative tower construction.
@@philhealey4443 really you can make the same claims for any timber structure at all. Yes, these are a larger scale than typical, but the structures are simple, and the mitigations scale with the projects. As for very tall timber structures, it’s nothing new at all. Most of them you’d be right in pointing out guy wires keep them under tension, but that’s nothing they couldn’t do on turbine masts if they needed to.
The same conversations were had about timber towers which have started showing up all over the place and have had to exceed regulatory requirements for typical steel and/or brick structures to get approval.
Further they’d be doing their homework on glue and lamination patterns and sealing, I’d doubt it’s just standard PVC. These aren’t like shoddy ticky tacky houses - the developer can’t just offload the responsibility and disappear the way they can with unsuspecting suburban families and the buyer needs to make their money off it. They’ll be doing their due diligence.
How many trees were cut for this manufacturing?
Trees are a renewable source of materials, unlike mines or oil wells.
AWESOME!!!!
Thank you Sweden sounds logical
Sounds very promising, hopefully it'll be robust enough to stand toe to toe with its steel counterparts, if it works it'll be great in terms of cost and environmental impact
@user-rl7mt4gh3o true, Sweden does have a deforestation problem, hopefully they can start investing in sustainable forestry
That must be a stretch saying the wind turbine is storing CO2. Maybe before they cut down the trees to build it but not as is today.
It's only the tower made of wood, not the turbine blades.
the f°°°ing swedish pussies were too scared of warpage - the turbine still works if the tower is leaning, but if the rotor blades twist in different directions, that's a problem. :(
Could those be made of wood in the future as well?
@@twistedyogertComposite wood maybe
Well, that would make a terrible headline.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Thanks, captain obvious, we did hear that at 1:13, because we too watched the entire clip: "These blades are like almost all wind turbines made out of fibre glass. The generator that I'm standing on is primarily made of steel, but the company who's built the wooden tower say that by making the tower out of wood it's storing carbon dioxide."
How about the blades? it's the main non-recyclable part of a wind turbine!
it is recycled...
This report was solely on the materials used for the tower not the actual turbine blades. So I don’t understand why that would be reverent.
But, I do know that there are techniques to recycle the blades quite easily. However, even if you don’t recycle the blades the waste is far, far less than the waste from non-renewable types.
Most are buried or simply discarded. They are an increasing landfill problem.
☺️
@@papasquat355No! Everything is planed in advance. They just don’t build stuff and the figure out what happens. Not in Sweden anyway! Where “recycling” is a words constantly heard in every brain. Regulations and regulations have to be followed before licenses are given. The maintenance process is very important when it comes to wind power. Since a wind power tower in total only lasts a few decades before everything (including the concrete foundation) has to be replaced. And the costs and logistics for this are quite well planned.
Asking when a wind power plan is finished is really like asking when New York will be finished. A larger power farm will start rebuilding and replacing everything as soon as it’s “completed”.
And if there’s a problem with recycling and waste, it is solved. At the worst unrecyclable plastics will be turned into energy by burning it. Another means of cheap energy production in Sweden has actually been importing (well… getting payed for taking care of) landfill waste from other nations to turn it into energy at plants well designed for this purpose. Although burning plastics and other stuff obviously results in carbon emissions.
And how are those glue produced?
Awesome
So... apply Ikea to wind turbine?
Happy New Year.
Is producing plywood carbon neutral?
It depends on what the energy source is used for the production of both the resources (the wood, glue, etc.) and the finished product. Sweden’s electricity production has since long been quite carbon free. With major hydropower infrastructure in the industry rich northern areas (where also the forest grows) and nuclear power to complement it. The large investments being made into wind power is to turn all of Sweden’s industries carbon neutral or completely carbon free. Even the carbon used in stainless steel is being replaced.
I would believe this plywood is rather carbon neutral if you calculate on the full use of the plywood: First as plywood. Then, when discarded (decades or longer) later, likely made into some other material. And finally the wood fibers someday will end their “life” likely ends its life by fire (possibly for energy production). Where some (but not all) of the carbon the trees “breathed” from the air is “exhaled”. For now I would believe the major issue is the harvesting and the transportation of the trees that is being done with mainly fossil fuel consuming machines. Although some of the fossil fuels is slowly being replaced with fuels produced from wood. And even diesel harvest machinery and trucks are replaced with gear that runs on electricity (that wind turbines will produce).
Would the glue holding it together contaminate the wood thus making it non recyclable? Also that’s a lot of farmed wood per turbine
Not to mention wood only stores carbon until it doesnt
Petroleum derived adhesive works really well. It'll last 1000 years in nature.
" Some assembling needed " 👍
Assemble with with the hex- key included in the box & Read the instructions.
It can't more than 100% less emissions, thats utter dribble
It can if it uses wood, it already being a carbon sink. But yes, long term even the wood will create a surplus of carbon dioxide. But this may be a 100 years down the road.
seems like pretty GOOD NEWS. Great!
We suggested wood years ago. Received plenty of response stating wood is not strong enough. Here we are, using wood. After rolling out hundreds of thousands made out of steel for quick sales. Hopefully this company beats the competition becuse this is a true green direction
Fiberglass is not eco friendly so isnt half the other materials used including the lumber is not eco friendly 😂😂😂😂 just because your using a renewable energy source does not mean its efficient or even green for the fact that it takes over 50 years to even replace the lumber that was taken to rebuild shows more work goes in to producing the lumber than the actual building. So your saying all the removal of wood to produce minimal energy is eco friendly? You have been deceived!
@JasonPutschker-xw9uf did I say fibreglass? I can't engage with someone who can't put a sentence together. Didn't you know it only takes 5 days to grow a full tree? Moron. Of course, it takes a while grow and imagine the life it supports in the process. The end. Go back to school
What is the energy return compared to steel towers? Back in 2014 ish, Siemens studied the energy return for their fleet of wind turbines. They concluded they needed to operate 4.5 to 5.5 months to repay the embodied energy needed for the mining, smelting, manufacturing, transportation, building, servicing, disassembling and recycling. BBC please give us the good and solid numbers.
Energy return is just one piece of the puzzle. If going for net zero emissions need to be brought down in all the ways we can.
@SweBeach2023 True. We need good scientific numbers on all levels of the energy infrastructure we are thankfully increasingly installing, replicating, escalating and connecting.
Modern wind turbines will last 3 decades.
Are they wind resistant
Onya Sweden ❤
What size have they got to?
I wonder if they can make a hemp substance. Apparently Ford made a vehicle from hemp
The idea that this is a great way to sequester CO2 is a bit of a stretch. Especially when you look at Sweden's description of how wood is eco friendly. They claim the energy used in production is recovered by burning the sawdust and the products at the end of their life, so it's energy neutral. Obviously, this puts CO2 back in the air. You can claim this is cyclical because it will then get into the wood of the new trees. But that's not really sequestration. And what happens when you burn the glue in the glulam? Sounds toxic. This all seems like a lot of greenwashing to me. Steel or aluminum will have a longer life, require less maintenance, and is readily recyclable without having to wait 20 years to grow more trees.
It will make good fire wood when it gets recycled.
Innovative!
We shall see
IKEA Sweden even want a flatpack wind tower now
Why can't you use recycled plastic & wood to make the blades?
I am just thinking about all the plastic's in the landfills and the oceanside/ocean 🌊🌊.
Mike?
Amazing... 👏
Just see how strong a Skateboard is, multiply that.
This guy gets it!
Woodpecker going to love these things
Well… I doubt that. I have a wooden summer house close to the location of Sweden’s (Europe’s) largest wind power farm. And have no woodpecker issues. One or two has been hacking on the electrical line posts. And after 50 years there are some marks. Perhaps,they prefer hacking on actual trees where bugs and worms they eat thrives better. And a wind power turbine tower isn’t plan to last 50 years before being replaced.
But if the power plants can contribute to the endangered woodpecker population raising, that’s great. And no… wind turbines don’t kill woodpeckers or other birds much. There has however to my knowledge been a problem with (migrating) bats. Some whom are endangered species. But I think it was a solvable one.
Why would a woodpecker love to pick on it?
@@SweBeach2023 You woodn't understand.
Windmills did it first.
The wind hardly blows in Sweden, what is the point.
Because nothing says environmentally friendly like:
1. windmills (know to be harmful to birds)
2. cutting down a shit ton of trees
Also in Sweden they are working on producing green steel.
Yes! But it's unsustainable.
What kind of wood are they using?
Wood wood to be precise
Jonna Jinton didn't like the idea because the ancient woods were cut down and the noise will affect human health as well.
Will it be reused or recycle correctly?
How many trees are needed to make 1 when millions upon millions are around the world
Next step wooden data centres
The problem with wood is that it burns. Which is not a great quality if you're near-neighbors (and not in particularly great relations) with Russia.
Who wooda thunk you could build a wind turbine out of wood?
I can hear a trillion termites rubbing their hands in glee.
0:49 The math of "more than a hundred percent less" does not check out :D
I’ve never written a message like this before but… ‘ABBA, meatballs and flat-pack furniture…’. Really? That’s very poor!
So much of this seems like a novelty concept, making a car that drives electric is making a car for a wasted journey, where are my solar panels, and why doesn't it matter?
I thought they were made from balsa wood
IKEA, that's you?😄
"Even greener" you mean more efficient.
You can see how the forest is cut down there not so good for biodiversity is it
More than 100% less carbon emissions? 😂 No
How is it greener if you cut trees in order to build wooden wind turbines?
They think dead wood captures carbon if you stick it up in the air. 🤣🤣.
Trees are renewable resource so long as you replant them, unlike the coal that's currently being used to reduce iron ore into metal. To answer the comment about dead wood capturing carbon- it's not capturing it's storing, wood stops capturing when cut but continues to store and then newly planted trees on the same land can go on to capture carbon.
👀
Brilliant news
There could be beautiful waterfalls everywhere. Got to be the best and more beautiful and safer.
Great news!
A brand-new deforestation industry
Ah yes yes the Ikea
Meanwhile in the Mojave desert millions of Joshua Trees are due to be cleared to build a solar farm. If CO2 were such an issue preserving CO2 dumps would be the imperative.
Where does the wood come from ... ?! Then how is it greener?
Wood holds carbon. Trees store carbon. Rotting trees release carbon.
If we plant trees and use it for our structures.
1. We maintain more living trees for a constant supply.
2. We delay the carbon release, because for our uses we want the wood to last, not rot.
Great news.
You know what’s better than these wind turbines. Nuclear, larger output less natural impact, longer lifespan, better efficiency, more money made in the long run, cheaper energy per KWh.
More important than saving CO2 is saving money, why do we charge wind energy at the same rate as gas electricity in the UK? Stupid
Now the tree huggers will be up set! U can not win.
So you want to protect the enviroment by cutting off the woods, and then making wooden windmills in their place? 😆
Hello 👋
having even more nature being destroyed for monocultures (wood in this case) might have its own set of problems. I'd say it depends on how quick the green energy produced sets of the carbon emissions from production. If this timespan is low, keep it in steel, please.
Sweden’s forestal agriculture is internationally regarded as being quite sustainable. And although not perfect, I believe the politics is two steps forward, one step back in the pursuit of even better sustainability.
This is more of an experiment that also will evaluate all kinds of issues. Not only technological, but environmental and economic ones too. Perhaps a good idea might be to use different materials concurrently so not to “deplete” one source. Both for sustainability and for geopolitical (national defense/independence) strategies.
How does cutting down that any trees for a wind turbine equate to green? You’re cutting trees down!
I don't understand why they don't recycle plastics to make these turbines
your human designs for wind powered turbines is ludicrous ... they do not need to be so large - on my planet, its a simple tube with a slit - catches wind energy with only a -4% loss of power
There is nothing green about this
Ohh its carbon neutral because its storing carbon just like the trees that have been cut down to make. Theres the incredible advantage of not making any pesky biproduct gases of photosynthesis like oxygen too...
Unfortunately wind is still very much underdeveloped in Sweden, compared to its neighbors. This is due to the double-edged sword of local democratic initiatives blocking their construction. Maybe if the towers were locally manufactured some people would be swayed.
If people would get themselves informed about the indirect gains for the communities (maintenance jobs) I also believe there would be less resistance. And if the gains from the energy production were to be taxed (or even shared) locally, people would also become more positive.
Major wind farms on land can however not be much of a thing close to the major cities. Although in the industry rich areas in the northern regions, where some of the largest wind farms in Europe are also being built. Wind farms at sea is what will happen.
I can understand the worries fishermen can have. And sometimes I wonder (not really) why the maps for planned farms at sea show the farms being way more non-existent, and distant from the shores, in major cities compared to smaller towns. The power plants could as well be more distant from the shorelines in the latter locations too: E.g. the Bay of Bothnia is shallower than the sea outside of Stockholm and Gothenburg. So it can only be because the people and politicians in Stockholm have more of a say than people and local politicians in minor counties and towns. And hence the former can mandate the entrepreneurs to invest in longer electricity transmission infrastructure, and longer supply and maintenance routes to the turbines. While the latter simply can’t.
Sweden is by far the biggest wind power country in Northern Europe.
@@andrease3394 To my understanding the wind power plant close to Piteå in the north is/will be the largest in Europe when completed (“best” winds in the nation can be a good thing I suppose 😄). Although it will end up having less wind turbines than planned since their output has increased since the project was initiated. Also building less, but way larger, turbines is more efficient. And soon relatively large areas outside of the archipelago in Norrbotten will be filled with wind turbines. But unfortunately there seems to not be any serious ambitions to invest in the electric grid that currently can’t transfer the needed power to Stockholm and other major cities. Making for way higher electricity prices in the south, while the prices in the north even have been negative! But the electricity produced by those power farms will anyway be needed for the industries close by. So Stockholm and the major cities will need to go against the will of their population who rater pay high prices than having windmills out at sea on the horizon.
Since Sweden is fortunate to have much hydropower, the output can be somewhat balanced to produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow anywhere (if that ever happens).
Glulam most definitely works for applications like this. It also has been holding my my hometown's church for 50+ years... Canada like Sweden has an abundance of forests to draw upon to make these so why not? They are much more sustainable than concrete or steel so whatever you can do to minimize the use of those materials is probably a good thing... Especially when as of 2023 Solar and Wind and the #1 and #2 cheapest sources of energy on earth...
Most unreliable!
Not cheapest by far worldwide. Not cheapest anywhere without major subsidy which creates a false sense of value.
@@pgw1977False!
@@tannerweinheimer7839False!
@@tannerweinheimer7839 check the data's, wind and solar are way cheaper than the other source of energy, even without subsidies
"More than a 100% less carbon emissions" by storing carbon...I'd like to see the numbers questioned by an awake journalist with a calculator. You still have to take down and transport trees, process them in a factory, glue, bend and quality control the product, transport and mount it with what was obviously not wooden bolts, and every installation like this will have a footprint where it is installed; think clearings, fillings and roads. It's probably much better than steel still, obviously, but don't just swallow and regurgitate outrageous claims, please.
I have an question- If steel making process are not invironment friendly, then why do they think that use of wood is environment friendly❓.......😢
Because you don't need to use fossil fuels to grow wood. It absorbs carbon from the air and stores it. Steelmaking (currently) uses coal to reduce iron ore into metal.
@@SocialDownclimber thanks 🙏
@@Critical-Thinker895 Can you show me the paper that compares the carbon emitted in making the plywood to the carbon stored in the plywood? Real interested in that as long as it isn't based on feelings.
@@Critical-Thinker895Most industrial manufacturing in Sweden is already carbon emission free due to the fact that electricity is since long produced by hydropower plants in the industry rich areas. What creates carbon emissions in the production of wood is the machinery used for harvesting and transportation. Although trains are electrified and the fossil diesel is slowly being replaced with diesel also made from wood, besides the heavy machinery also being replaced with electric vehicles.
Although I don’t have the data I believe that this plywood will be even better than carbon neutral. Calculating for its full life, being recycled into some other fibrous material after its life as “windwood”. And then decades (or centuries) later ending up as being burned to produce energy, when only some of the carbon that the wood “breathed” from the air will be “exhaled”.
Most of the wind power plants in Sweden is being built to be able for the industries to go fully carbon free. Both the forestal and the steel industry. And the steel industry is to my knowledge way more energy consuming. The problem with steel is however that the process itself needs carbon. So it won’t be enough to just build large wind power plants to accomplish this. But inventions have been made that replaces the carbon in steel with hydrogen. So the steel industry can go fully carbon neutral.
@@user-fx3rq3cm2owork only for Scandic Countries not elsewhere, since they will end up allowing those guys to chop Brazilian Amazon forests for their feedstock, only Scandinavian Countries did have the political/governmental integrity to make sure that never happened.
and where does the glue come from?
No one's saying it's 100% green. Though it's much cheaper and cleaner than extracting, processing and burning fossil fuels.
Right. They'll probably be using something like epoxy, phenol formaldehyde or even a polyurethane adhesive. All of which require petrochemicals
Dead cow feet, so what, their farts are adding to the greenhouse effect. Farts are bad mmmmkay! LOL (sarcasm)
the glue is a lesser issue than the waterproofing, that requires a much larger quantity of synthetic material. I would guess something polyurethane-based as is used for car paint, and a different polyurethane composition for the wood glue, since polyurethane wood glues are the most wateeproof common wood glues. though you still want to protect the wood from water intrusion very well anyways and possibly even install a drying system inside the hollow parts, because wood warps when exposed to moisture changes (and if it gets and stays properly wet, it gets heavy and soft, and eventually very soft as it rots). but if the moisture problem can be avoided, wood can probably replace the bulk of the fiberglass composit, and is more manageable as waste at the end of its lifespan even with glue and highly weather-proof coatings (because all that sh°° burns just fine, which fiberglass does not).
edit: nevermind, I commented before watching... I can't believe they're using plywood for a tower structure when they're supposedly trying to be environmental, and the tower only needs strong load bearing in one direction - just like trees. they should use long beams, not imitate the structure of the metal tower just with incredibly thick plywood. that does use a ridiculous amount of glue. and look how compact the sections are (veneer cutting process can only produce a limited length along the grain depending on the width of the blade), those joints between them are going to be weak points requiring heavy reinforcements. a structure made mostly of tall beams could be built much lighter, not just with less glue but with less wood. and cheaper, because good quality plywood like that costs as much as relatively highly prized hardwoods, whereas for structural stability from beams, spruce would be a very suitable wood and is the cheapest. I bet the internal structure of the tower in a beam construction could be built for a tenth of the price, plus another tenth of the price for a skin.
these people don't know sh°° about working with wood, they are imitating a metal design with wood.
@@Ass_of_Amalek Could they use a wooden frame but use a metal "skin"? It wouldn't be free of metal but would use less of it. Perhaps they might not even need to use metal, they could use fiberglass or carbon fiber.
If you cut down trees to make another thing made out of wood, doesn’t that incrise the CO2 in the atmosphere creating another problem? This intreview only shows how a company reduces the spending via transport with lighter magerial, however the steel can rezist ij the nature more time than a wood with glue. It’s just basic logic behind…
Question: How many trees need to be felled, obviously in an eco friendly manner to make one turbine and does it even last as long as a steel one.....
Wow! What an innovation.....
P.S Pun intended.
This is so dumb!
The problem are the carbon fiber blades, which are not recyclable.
The tower steel is!
The wood used here is not, and eventually will release that carbon it stores while in use.
Maybe it can be reused in building homes, or some sort of industrial structure, or roof, afterwards.
It won't manage the loads of the turbine, but for buildings it will be more resistant than most building materials.
Maybe some thought should be put from the designs stage. ;)
A little hard to store carbon without photosynthesis. This is a Benny Hill skit and making plywood out of it will release 100% of the already stored carbon in the wood.
I think this will be good for certain areas for sure but we will need to see how durable this is. I would be nervous about using this in a jungle environment
Well… not too many jungles around in Sweden. And in jungle environments you usually don’t have much need of energy production (although unfortunately jungles are destroyed to make place for energy consuming industries). But at the energy consuming places on the parts of the globe where jungles are located, I’d go with solar energy instead.
@@abrakkehakka1357 you do need power for jungle environments. Unless countries, like Vietnam, the Congo, Thailand, Brazil have magically disappeared in the last couple years. And solar is not nearly as reliable and wind. Wind is almost always blowing you cannot guarantee cloud cover. Especially if you put your wing generators in strategic locations especially if it’s like along the coastline. Not to mention that jungle environments usually have a monsoon season which means for a prolong period of time there’s almost no sun shining.
I live in a high rainfall jungle environment and I built my house almost entirely from wood. About half of that wood was recycled from demolished houses and the rest local hardwood. It's going well after 45 years.
key word LOCAL wood.
Except we have no capability of storing the energy for more than an hour or so. Utter waste of time
Steel is 100% recyclable though and a Turbine will last 30+ years anyway so theres no issue. Even the carbon fiber blades which haven't been fully recyclable is fine because the benefit outweighs the negative a million times over. If we're gonna start getting upset over a SINGLE wind turbine blade not being recycled after it alone has cleanly powered literalyyy 1,000s of homes for 30 years then we might aswell get rid of the vast majority of our stuff because the vast majority of things will be much worse. It's like when people complain about the production of solar panels causing emmissions, like of course it does, everything does. But once it's produced it then produces energy for 30 years with 0 additional emissions.
Howard Hughes made the Spruce Goose out of?
What happens during Fire Accident 🔥 or due to some electric short circuit
Whole thing will burn and release Carbon di oxide
I’m calling BS on the towers being lighter than the steel ones. Try lifting a steel beam and a wooden beam with the same load carry capacity. The steel one will be lighter by a large margin.
Agreed
Those trees were happily taking up CO2 until they were cut down and made into turbines.
New trees are planted which keep on taking up CO2. Can't believe that needs explaining 😂
@@Critical-Thinker895
How is the carbon released?
By the cutting that makes those tree slices which are glued together afterwards?
Nah. Think you're wrong.
@@oneshothunter9877That is inaccurate. Carbon is released through decomposition. That is when the wood rots. Not when the tree dies.
Plus, sourcing wood from the trees we plant prevents that harm. It creates a mostly closed loop. Dead trees are replaced with living trees we plant. Released carbon is offset by trapped carbon by those new trees.
how many people gonna be killed when wooden towers are worn from the elements? this is the question
0
👏👏👏
मुझे उम्मीद है कि यह न्यूज डेली सुनने से इंग्लिश सीखने में मदद मिलेगी
But how is this better? Lots of questions but no concrete answers.