Your theory sounds good until you consider the practical aspects of the last step:
> Be careful not to burn them. Repeat
So what do you do with the wood? A billion years ago, your plan would have worked out brilliantly. Some say it's where our oil came from. But now we have fungus among us that evolved to rapidly turn your wood right back into CO2.
Unless you sterilize the wood and bury it deep in the ground where it will never be exposed to air or spores, you're right back to square one. Also there's the logistics and carbon footprint of burying and sterilizing the wood.
One can use it to build hempcrete homes. Instead of burying it, one would encase the wood frame structure into a hydraulic lime + hemp hurd mixture (cemented single stud framing). The hemp also sequestrates CO2, the lime keeps everything fungus free and further absorbs CO2 from the air as the walls cure.
Yeah, IIRC almost none of the old Japanese wooden buildings are original. They all have a strong ship of Theseus theme going on, but philosophically the Japanese tend to view the building as the place and purpose and layout and not the individual boards that are used to build it so it doesn't get communicated.
A well built and maintained wooden house should last over 300 years.
There are such even in North America.
It requires massive timber though. And to get that on a larger scale, you need good long term forest management policies. Plan for something else than paper or chipboard or glulam.
I think the direction is good, the conclusion not so much. Nobody has the use or space for a couple hundred timber houses per person on the planet to cope with the current emissions.
But if executed correctly (Drones sowing and harvesting millions of tons of fast-growing wood / switchgrass per year) and then correcty getting rid of it so it can't decompose (i.e. probably drying and/or sterilizing it), it might solve carbon capture.
That being said, it all involves lots of space, mineral fertilizer and moving parts — on top it might be disastrous to any animal ecosystem trying to get hold in those woods. I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off with stationary carbon capture stations eventually.
It's only going to be one part of the puzzle, at best. But replacing concrete, steel and aluminum, all causing large CO2 emissions while the raw material is created, should be a benefit.
Anyway, you can also store a lot of the carbon just as forest, though it's more of a "one time" use of the land. Trees can also live for hundreds of years. And the soil can also store carbon. At least over here, large trees can often survive forest fires too.
But it requires changed policy, it's not a technological problem.
True. But there are plenty of times currently where plastic could be replaced with wood. From broomstick handles to sporks, we use a lot of plastic that doesn't have to be plastic.
Cost is a consideration. But plastic over the long term has a cost, that isn't factored into the manufacturing+sales cost.
I'm not suggesting this would solve the problem. That single magic bullet doesn't exist. But it can't hurt either.
Well, problematic are mainly dead trees. Thus, I do not see why quickly growing and dying wood should be best. Instead I see better suitability of trees that can become very old, hence avoiding dead wood which turns to CO2. Also, ever greens avoid generating dead leaves.
Hundred? If the wood is touching soil, try a few decades at best. I just replaced an old rotted out deck that was all pressure treated lumber. Also EPA considers it a hazardous waste.
> Be careful not to burn them. Repeat
So what do you do with the wood? A billion years ago, your plan would have worked out brilliantly. Some say it's where our oil came from. But now we have fungus among us that evolved to rapidly turn your wood right back into CO2.
Unless you sterilize the wood and bury it deep in the ground where it will never be exposed to air or spores, you're right back to square one. Also there's the logistics and carbon footprint of burying and sterilizing the wood.
You're not the first person to think of this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266747/