[jjoonathan]

Or biofuel. Plants are good at capturing atmospheric CO2 and the resulting biomass can be turned into fuel using well established technology.

If it's nearly suitable for cars I suspect it's even more nearly suitable for aviation on account of the lower volumes and higher margins.

[munificent]

Now I'm just imagining some sort of steampunk wood-burning airplane.

[rdtsc]

> Now I'm just imagining some sort of steampunk wood-burning airplane.

Almost there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas

"Flight attendants will resume service in just a moment, after they throw another tree trunk into the wood gas generator"

[konspence]

Already underway[1]. It's completely viable, it just needs investment and commitment.

[1]: https://www.alaskaair.com/content/about-us/sustainability-re...

[WalterBright]

> Plants are good at capturing atmospheric CO2 and the resulting biomass can be turned into fuel using well established technology.

I.e. burning coal.

[_Microft]

Nope, that's outright wrong (and from other replies you should have learned that by now, so why keep reiterating something false?). Anyways...

The total amount of carbon in circulation is what matters because that part can end up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it shows its heat capturing effects. Trees fix carbon while growing and emit it while decomposing but do not change the total amount of carbon in circulation in the long term.

Digging up carbon that has been locked away for aeons is what is so damaging. There would be nothing bad about burning oil IF that oil were produced by capturing carbon dioxide. We do not do that. We dig up loads of fossil resources and add them to the cycle.

If that explanation was too complicted, here is an easier one: fill a bucket to the brim with water, take a cup and start scooping and pouring back to the bucket. Everything is fine. Now get a second bucket full of water and start pouring into the first (material so far not in circulation is added to it). You see the problem?

If you still insist on your view with burning coal and trees being equivalent, then I challenge you to conduct the water-bucket experiment in the middle of your living room. I mean it wouldn't do no harm, right?

[WalterBright]

Which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere:

1. chopping down a tree and burning it

2. digging up a tree and burning it

Both are the same. Calling (1) "green energy" is outright wrong. Want to be green? Burn less carbon. The source of the carbon you're burning is irrelevant.

[philhippus]

Yes, but it takes 100's of thousands of years for the planet to form fossil fuels such as coal. We can't wait that long.

[WalterBright]

Just stuff the tree into the furnace. It'll burn just fine.

(The only reason the industrial revolution switched to coal was because the landscape was denuded of trees. The Jamestown colony in America was tasked with making glass, glass needs lots of fuel, and England ran out of trees. "Connections" by James Burke)

[blacksmythe]

You have to convert the wood to charcoal to burn hot enough for a blacksmith forge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal

I highly recommend a visit to Plimouth Plantation to anyone interested in 1700's era technology: https://www.plimoth.org/

Or Old Sturbridge Village for 1800's era technology: https://www.osv.org/