What they seem to be claiming is that because the wood itself contains more carbon that is used to produce the turbine, they have net negative carbon emissions before accounting for actual energy production.

That seems pretty dubious to me. After the turbine’s thirty year life, what happens to that carbon?

At any rate, if it’s true that it takes 90% less carbon to produce in the first place, setting aside the whole “wood contains carbon” thing, that’s pretty cool.

That’s a great project and kudos to the team, meanwhile :

> After the turbine’s thirty year life, what happens to that carbon?

Those curved boards are probably mixed with epoxy or another polymer, making it a bad candidate for recycling in other wood application (paper, osb boards…), compared to first hand row trees. We’ll probably "valorize" it in incinerators.

If you build enough of these sustained, the total amount of CO2 bound it them could be significant. Similar to growing forests or restoring peat bogs. But yea, growing forests is equally suspicious as a lot of carbon sink forests have turned out to be cut down...

"what happens to that carbon?" - biomass))