> But it gets better. The sugars in cellulose are effective emitters of infrared radiation, and they do so in two areas of the spectrum where none of our atmospheric gases is able to reabsorb it. The end result is that, if the treated wood absorbs some of the heat of a structure, wood can radiate it away so that it leaves the planet entirely.
This is the best bit. Put enough of this stuff on roofs and it can directly mitigate the greenhouse effect, by emitting IR that goes through the atmosphere and off into space.
It'd reduce energy consumption for air conditioning. Also, while rooftops are a small part of the global Earth surface (75% of it is not really a good place to put roofs on), the figure is much higher in cities and urban areas where, and it's not a coincidence, we spend a lot of energy keeping things cool.
Let's not forget cellulose is mostly made of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, which also helps a bit.
The only way it'd be better is if it were also a good material to build PV panels with.
Of course it will. This is the idea behind space mirrors - reflecting 1% of sunlight is enough to completely counteract global warming. The radiation has to leave the atmosphere though.
I don't know whether this will help or not, but your post seems to support the point of the commenter above, and make a good argument that it would help.
The comment said 1% would "completely counteract" climate change. You posit that we'd need to cover an area equal to that of the US to reach that 1%, which would mean covering a small % of that area would have roughly that level of positive impact. Am I extrapolating wrongly?
You'd be lucky to cover 1% of the United States, much less 1% of the world. The real world impact of everyone in the US putting this on their roof would be minimal, and you're unlikely to actually get a significant percentage to switch anytime soon.
If you're looking for solutions to global warming, look elsewhere. However, that won't stop the marketing team from selling it as such. Evaluate this technology on its merits and take the IR radiation reflection as a bonus.
I guess my question here is: what's the lifecycle impact of producing this, and is the benefit zero or greater. Fair enough, covering 1% of the US land area would be a big ask, but a .1% positive impact on the climate is non-zero, and provided they're not looking for tax-incentives that could be spent on better things, it could well do no harm.
as far as reflection goes, whenever I see a satellite photo of Africa and I look at the bright, sandy Sahara Desert, I always wonder: does it help? or does it hurt?
“the process involves dumping the wood in concentrated hydrogen peroxide and boiling it. While I wouldn't want to drink boiling, concentrated hydrogen peroxide, it's not an especially difficult chemical to handle safely.”
Diluted hydrogen peroxide is safe but in concentrated form it is one of the most dangerous substances. Early rocketry experiments used it as an oxidizer and it’s generally considered too unsafe.
While there are some storage headaches -- the stuff decomposes slowly no matter what you do, so you must provide for tank venting -- otherwise peroxide is much easier and safer to handle. Its bad reputation is half outright myth and half the result of 1940s experience with seriously impure peroxide. To quote a friend, a rocket-propulsion professional, who investigated the matter as part of a study some years ago:
"As far as we could find out, the stories about problems with peroxide were just that, stories... Peroxide, now, seems to only very rarely do anything exciting, at all. And, even then, it seems to never do many of the things attributed to it in the stories."
They attempted to use it as a monoprop, where you pump it over a platinum screen to catalyze it. This is attractive because it avoids any issues with mixing.
They had extreme difficulty sourcing anything but dilute hydrogen peroxide. The few manufacturers refused to sell to them once they discovered the application. I think they ultimately bought a distillation unit made by a man involved in rocket powered drag racers in Mexico.
Ultimately, I think the higher specific impulse of fuel+oxidzer two part systems justified the added complexity and they abandoned monoprops.
As other's have noted, at 3% concentration hydrogen peroxide is pretty benign. At 60% it is quite dangerous. Armadillio Aerospace was exploring 90%+ concentrations.
edit - Since reading about densified wood, I have been wondering about if you can get paper to join to itself using pressure and the right chemicals. If so, you could form it into tubes by rolling it round a metal bar, and maybe even make the laminated paper bicycle from Gibson's Virtual Light.
"The researchers estimate that covering an apartment building with the treated wood could save about 35 percent of the energy used for cooling." Is that compared to the average building or a building covered with another kind of white plating? Because the latter would be super impressive while the former would mostly just state the obvious: white things don't heat up from sunlight as much as non-white things.
Agreed, it would also be very interested to see how this compares to other siding alternatives rather than simply wood vs treated wood (stucco, stone, steel, aluminum, vinyl etc.)
There are plenty of tall wooden buildings, some with wooden exteriors, some without. Wood doesn't actually burn all that rapidly, so it can be a safe choice in the right circumstances.
IIRC the biggest problem with the Grenfell cladding was the combination of flammable insulation + air cavity + flammable cladding. The cladding was not suitable to be used with that particular kind of insulation. Building codes are apparently pretty complex, but not without good reason.
It seems lignin actually has flame retardant properties, so unless they are adding some additional chemicals to make this wood fire resistant, it is probably even more flammable than normal wood.
Well, the big reason early film is kind dangerous is that it was nitrocellulose, and so had plenty of nitro-groups just waiting to have a little fun...
Wonder if this can be worked like normal wood and can be produced in the standard dimensions. One of the advantages of azek and other PVC sidings is that you can use your normal tools.
You can cut aluminum using woodworking tools if you need to. Assuming it's just for siding/roofing I see no reason a chop saw with an appropriate blade couldn't cut it.
Yeah, carbide blades will eat aluminum like butter. Just the other day I cut off a 3" x 3" slab of aluminum block with my table saw in 3/4" cuts. Wasn't sketchy, the saw didn't bog down at all, in fact ive cut woods that were far more difficult than that solid aluminum block.
This is the best bit. Put enough of this stuff on roofs and it can directly mitigate the greenhouse effect, by emitting IR that goes through the atmosphere and off into space.