somewhere i read a BOOK that said: you would need XXX amount..or a ridiculous amount... of parks full of trees to offset the C02 produced by a city.(Perhaps it only mentioned xxx amount of trees and not parks.)
hmm- not a snide remark- but this would be an interesting metric to figure out. Needs to be more specific as to where the forest/city is located to be useful.
I've seen info on how much co2 & pollution a typical mature tree can absorb, so that may be a starting point to calculate the # of trees required to offset a particular place.
we need a 'graphic standards' of sustainable design with all those LCA figures and things like what a tree can accomplish... maybe we can start a wiki article.... yeah! we need an archinect wiki!!
according to this quiz, i produce 27602 pounds of CO2 per year...
a single mature tree, according to www.coloradotrees.org, can absorb 48 pounds per year..
so 27602 divided by 48...i need 575.0416 trees...
from coloradotrees.org A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings
A couple of years ago I found a website of some company in Australia who claimed to have invented a new concrete mixture that was actually a carbon sink. It sounded exciting, but I'm assuming that since I haven't heard any more about it they must have been total frauds or idiots.
As far as I know, trees aren't the main producer of O2. I think it's various oceanic plankton. If I remember correctly, plants take the CO2 and the oceans produce the O2. Could be wrong, I can't remember where I heard that.
i did a course on environmental system design (i am in multi-disciplinary dept) where we worked on carbon sequestration using seaweed as part of a fish-farming system.
in the end we decided that carbon sequestration is too problematic cuz it means you have to bury the seaweed forever, like nuclear waste, or the benefits go out the window (same is true i imagine for trees, though potential life cycle is much longer). so we switched to a net carbon neutral system, where we proposed producing energy from fermentation of plant matter (seaweed). This would theoretically make it possible to refrain from using coal, etc and thus not add any more co2 to the atmosphere than already exists...we were using seaweed because it also has properties useful in the prevention of eutriphication of waters around fish farms...
we presented the work at a conference for water/climate scientists in fukuoka, to mixed response. it was a cool experience but the scientists' comments left me feeling a bit cynical by anything as easy (relatively) as planting a bunch of trees to make up for our otherwise absurd environmental actions. it may be a chimera. or worse, an excuse.
typical forest uptake rate of 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (guessing this is for a northern hardwood acre)- and a typical forest will have between 400 to 700 trees per acre (more when young, fewer as forest matures into old growth)... you can do the math.
Parks and C02
somewhere i read a BOOK that said: you would need XXX amount..or a ridiculous amount... of parks full of trees to offset the C02 produced by a city.(Perhaps it only mentioned xxx amount of trees and not parks.)
Anyone recall a source off hand?
Snide remarks are as usual..are welcome.
hmm- not a snide remark- but this would be an interesting metric to figure out. Needs to be more specific as to where the forest/city is located to be useful.
I've seen info on how much co2 & pollution a typical mature tree can absorb, so that may be a starting point to calculate the # of trees required to offset a particular place.
we need a 'graphic standards' of sustainable design with all those LCA figures and things like what a tree can accomplish... maybe we can start a wiki article.... yeah! we need an archinect wiki!!
I've seen the figures somewhere...
i know they're out there too.
who best to chime in but TREEKILLER!!!!!!!!
haha
I agree we do need a 'graphic standards of sustainable design'
according to this quiz, i produce 27602 pounds of CO2 per year...
a single mature tree, according to www.coloradotrees.org, can absorb 48 pounds per year..
so 27602 divided by 48...i need 575.0416 trees...
from coloradotrees.org
A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings
???
A couple of years ago I found a website of some company in Australia who claimed to have invented a new concrete mixture that was actually a carbon sink. It sounded exciting, but I'm assuming that since I haven't heard any more about it they must have been total frauds or idiots.
wee, I only use 13877 pounds of CO2 per year. I need 289.1 trees.
hmmmm, well dammson I think that maybe the quiz is flawed?? cause sounds like the output of the tree is similar to something I've read before.
if coloradotrees.org is correct about: one mature tree can support 2 human beings...
then, population of a city divided by 2 = number of mature trees
30600...those flights back to the states during the holidays can really kill a hippie
squirrely, the data can produce two different numbers.
population/2 = #trees needed to provide O2 to the population
CO2 output/48 = #trees needed to absorb CO2 of the population
The second number will be gargantuan, the first modest.
'graphic standards of sustainable design'...
probably your best bet is "regenerative design for sustainable development"...
or that retraded LEED book. Although neither is really "graphic"
I breifly glanced at ken yeang's "eco design manual" and it looked promising...
Pert....u gotta a link to Ken Yeang's manual??
killing trees is my job. Just like most of the other members of archinect....
squirrel, you're one of few poster who seems to live in trees :)
deed I do mate, deed I do, so just knock before bulldozing my pad!
LOL
As far as I know, trees aren't the main producer of O2. I think it's various oceanic plankton. If I remember correctly, plants take the CO2 and the oceans produce the O2. Could be wrong, I can't remember where I heard that.
have you been to smog park?
it took absolutelt for ever to come out...
http://www.amazon.com/Ecodesign-Manual-Ecological-Ken-Yeang/dp/0470852917
yeang's work is a bit iffy if you ask me.
i did a course on environmental system design (i am in multi-disciplinary dept) where we worked on carbon sequestration using seaweed as part of a fish-farming system.
in the end we decided that carbon sequestration is too problematic cuz it means you have to bury the seaweed forever, like nuclear waste, or the benefits go out the window (same is true i imagine for trees, though potential life cycle is much longer). so we switched to a net carbon neutral system, where we proposed producing energy from fermentation of plant matter (seaweed). This would theoretically make it possible to refrain from using coal, etc and thus not add any more co2 to the atmosphere than already exists...we were using seaweed because it also has properties useful in the prevention of eutriphication of waters around fish farms...
we presented the work at a conference for water/climate scientists in fukuoka, to mixed response. it was a cool experience but the scientists' comments left me feeling a bit cynical by anything as easy (relatively) as planting a bunch of trees to make up for our otherwise absurd environmental actions. it may be a chimera. or worse, an excuse.
heather - the smog park is brilliant!!! great find, now I want to create my own atmospheric reserve! anybody else want to join?
typical forest uptake rate of 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (guessing this is for a northern hardwood acre)- and a typical forest will have between 400 to 700 trees per acre (more when young, fewer as forest matures into old growth)... you can do the math.
i just produce 8845 pounds of CO2... being a vegetarian with an efficient car and living in the tropics helps! i need only 184 trees.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.