4 ms·
Let's say you jam your trees in at 40 foot spacing (you want large mature trees) - that gives you 27 trees per acre. Assuming your math is right, and we need 4
by smallerfish 3y ago
Let's say you jam your trees in at 40 foot spacing (you want large mature trees) - that gives you 27 trees per acre.
Assuming your math is right, and we need 42,000 mature trees per year capturing carbon, that means we need 1,555 newly planted acres of trees _per year_ to match this plant (and, there will be 25-30 years before the first batch to be planted actually matches in terms of capture). So you have a small problem of finding land that isn't already forested, finding labor to plant and maintain your growing forest, and continuing to do the same year after year.
And, bear in mind that this plant is just a rounding error on the problem in terms of capacity, so in reality you need to scale by orders of magnitude.
- bluejekyll 3y ago27 trees per acre is a low number, and based on my own experience with land returned to a forest with decent canopy, the 150 trees per acre is not unreasonable. That said, even with my estimates you’re correct that this is a lot of land, but I wanted to quickly put it into perspective. We are losing forests all over the planet, and this can also help understand the impact of that. Also, the labor you mention is probably a wash compared to the construction of this plant. Edit: as an example, if you ever have a chance, go tour a maple tree farm as a good reference. Now, that said I did just google for maple farm tree density and they estimate 70 per acre.
- smallerfish 3y agoNo doubt we need to get deforestration under control. I'm just trying to point out that "just plant trees" is not a sufficient answer to climate change by itself. It helps, certainly.