Regarding swedens hydro power: that was very much not a climate investment. It was a huge government undertakibg to provide power to the industry in a time when climate change was unheard of.
I constantly see it labeled as some sort of green miracle (even though the article in question isn't half bad). It was not. It was the government investing to accomodate a growong indistry, and as a result sweden got one of the greenest energy productions in the western world.
But as a matter of fact, almost nothing happened with regards to hydro power since the 70s.
I've read that hydro is so cheap and efficient that it's always the first thing developed countries invest in, and for the west that was a while ago, way before clean energies were a big topic.
Also the effects on the politics of water availability, especially across borders. See this article [1], and many others besides. (I chose this one because of its recency and also because it seems less sensationalised than much of what I've read - even in journals/news sources usually considered to be reputable/level-headed.)
I wonder about how they handle the biodegradability Morton's fork. If wood doesn't rot at all then it is no longer biodegradable. If the wood does rot then it will eventually become a safety hazard and either be torn down or a "Fallingwater situation" where burdensome maintenance leads to it being more of an architectural show piece than something actually proliferated.
I am not sure of the nuances of the local climate and wood durability and how applicable it would be in other countries. Some places can have medieval wooden buildings intact like the Bourgand Stave Church. Meanwhile others have disposable barns that they expect to have to burn and rebuild occasionally.
I know some is building technique, things like "a stone foundation is important so the wood doesn't touch the dirt and rot from the ground up".
In the forest, a dead pine, if standing up, (called kelo in Finnish), can last for a pretty long time. The bark will be stripped, branches will drop off and it will turn grey. But the trunk stays there standing. It's dead and dry and there's nothing for any animal to really eat. It's too dry for fungus. Termites don't exist in northern climates.
> If the wood does rot then it will eventually become a safety hazard and either be torn down
As we've seen recently concrete also fails, most concrete building have a lifespan of 50-75 years, appartement complexes and other tall buildings need constant maintenance regardless. After that long it's almost always cheaper to destroy and rebuild than upgrade anyways.
From what I understand the main issue with wood is from soil contact (humidity, termites, &c.) and building a concrete base takes care of that issue, above ground structures are very durable: http://www.timberqueensland.com.au/Docs/Benefits%20of%20Timb...
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.5 ms ] threadI constantly see it labeled as some sort of green miracle (even though the article in question isn't half bad). It was not. It was the government investing to accomodate a growong indistry, and as a result sweden got one of the greenest energy productions in the western world.
But as a matter of fact, almost nothing happened with regards to hydro power since the 70s.
The thing is that once you've done it on all the major rivers you can't really do more. See France for example: https://energytransition.org/files/2015/02/14electricitygene...
Hydro dams aren't without side effects either, both on the landscape and the flora/flauna
https://theconversation.com/hydropower-dams-can-harm-coastal...
[1] https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/ethiopia-s-mega-da...
I am not sure of the nuances of the local climate and wood durability and how applicable it would be in other countries. Some places can have medieval wooden buildings intact like the Bourgand Stave Church. Meanwhile others have disposable barns that they expect to have to burn and rebuild occasionally.
I know some is building technique, things like "a stone foundation is important so the wood doesn't touch the dirt and rot from the ground up".
In the forest, a dead pine, if standing up, (called kelo in Finnish), can last for a pretty long time. The bark will be stripped, branches will drop off and it will turn grey. But the trunk stays there standing. It's dead and dry and there's nothing for any animal to really eat. It's too dry for fungus. Termites don't exist in northern climates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_ant
As we've seen recently concrete also fails, most concrete building have a lifespan of 50-75 years, appartement complexes and other tall buildings need constant maintenance regardless. After that long it's almost always cheaper to destroy and rebuild than upgrade anyways.
From what I understand the main issue with wood is from soil contact (humidity, termites, &c.) and building a concrete base takes care of that issue, above ground structures are very durable: http://www.timberqueensland.com.au/Docs/Benefits%20of%20Timb...
The non biodegradability isn't a big concern when you see how much CO2 is produced and energy is used for concrete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concre...