Study finds 3 Trillion trees - much more than thought previously

Do I get more if I plant more? Added a bunch around the property this year ... cedars look like they are doing well the spruce are a bit sad looking.

Sure, but just think about all the pollution they emit:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/may/13/thisweekssciencequestions3

Ignoring that last paragraph are you

How quick does one go through those 422 trees if they are used for electrical generation?
Edit: Not to mention wood used for heat...

Curious, how complex would it be to make a wood or pellet stove an electrical generation unit? Enough that it could be self-sufficient for electrical requirements (pellet stove obviously).

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.ca/2013/07/pellet-boiler-also-makes-enough.html
http://www.pelheat.com/Biomass_Pellet_Power_Generator.html

Not there yet and not a true option for summer months but interesting concept of potential integration.

You mean something like this for a pellet stove instead of an oil or gas unit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_combined_heat_and_power

Overall it makes a ton of sense in colder climates because the waste heat usually generated by large power plants is then used for residential heating with a CHP-unit. Practically, it is not cost effective due to the low cost of grid power.

(Another example where the market does not produce the most beneficial outcome for society.)

Using the number of trees is deceptive. Board-feet of standing timber is a better metric.

Several years ago I fund some numbers about the wood that can be harvested every year in the US on a sustainable basis. What I remember is that it came out to about 450 million cords. Assuming 100 million households that would need heat, each could use 4.5 cords per winter. Half of that wood would be softwood so it is more like 3 to 3.5 cords of the BTUs when using hardwood; kind of the average wood use here. So yes, in the US it would be sustainable to heat each residential home solely with wood. Unfortunately, there would not be any left for other uses such as construction, furniture, paper, or the big one: non-residential heating.

semipro said:

Using the number of trees is deceptive. Board-feet of standing timber is a better metric.

Click to expand...

Excellent point. New England appears to be pretty heavily forested at casual glance today. But we forget that when t first European settlers arrived the same forest land was covered with old growth trees that rivaled the great west coast forests in tree size. White pines for instance used to grow to nearly 200 ft, before the British Navy took them all for sailing ship masts.

begreen said:

Deciduous trees don't convert CO2 with bare limbs in the winter. I see that the previous number was just an estimate by a single professor (at my old alma mater) so it's not surprising that with a team poring over additional and better satellite data that the number has gone up.

Click to expand...

That's a funny fact I never thought about. Great reason to plant evergreens if you ever needed one.

spirilis said:

That's a funny fact I never thought about. Great reason to plant evergreens if you ever needed one.

Click to expand...

True - but I believe the ultimate test of how much CO2 gets converted is the annual growth rate of the tree/plant. The majority of the 'carbon mass' of plants is derived from CO2 in the air. So while deciduous may be dormant in the winter, they grow much quicker in warmer months so don't necessarily produce less oxygen overall. They may actually produce more ?

begreen said:

Interesting. Evergreens around here grow very rapidly. Firs, cedars and redwoods definitely outpace the deciduous trees on our property with the exception of the eucalyptus, which sheds, but doesn't lose its leaves in winter.

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on species and growing conditions. I feel like the evergreens over time outpace the deciduous (ie maple and alder) trees. But given fresh disturbed ground, the maple trees here spring up VERY quickly. Other deciduous definitely grow alot slower though.

begreen said:

Yes alders and soft maple are the first trees to populate vacant and clear cut land around here. About 50 yrs later the firs and hemlocks are towering over them.

Click to expand...

How different that is than what I've observed here in the east. Easter Red Cedar (a juniper actually) seem to be the pioneers with hardwoods like maple, locust, poplar, and oak and many others following.

Old growth trees have lots of stored carbon but do little to remove additional carbon due to very slow growth. But burning these old growth trees releases lots of stored carbon. Young, growing trees remove lots of ambient carbon as they grow rapidly. Carbon storage in the below ground root structure also increases rapidly as the tree grows.

Interesting study and makes some sense. A different tack on this is the concept that an acre of land which grows trees adds about the same amount of wood every year, whether a young or old forest. The wood volume is either concentrated in fewer large trees or spread out among more smaller trees. Growth depends on space, light, moisture, nutrients, and temperature.