0.01% of all the 247 billion trees absorb the 1.7 Billion tons of CO2 coal utilities emit..

[healthmyths]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

 

[healthmyths]

So folks WHY is our EPA and Obama so intent on shutting down coal utilities?
Obama has SAID...
Obama said: So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

 

[healthmyths]

Coal-powered plants currently produce nearly 40% of US electrical energy.
Artificially reducing the energy supply by eliminating coal and retiring coal-powered plants will both increase prices and create shortages.

Energy price increases hit the poor three times as hard as middle income Americans.
The lowest 10% of earners spend three times as much of their incomes on electricity as do middle income earners.
The Administration’s “war on affordable energy” is clearly a war on the poor and a war on jobs.

EPA Proposed Regulations to Shut Down Coal-Fired Power Plants Congressman Jim Bridenstine

 

[g5000]

Coal plants are but one source of greenhouse gases.



When you cut down a tree, you release the carbon it has sequestered. Your own sources says "each person uses the equivalent of one 100 foot tall, 16 inch diameter, tree every year for their paper and wood product needs."

Cutting down trees inevitably alters carbon storage, and releases carbon dioxide into the air as the wood decays. Twenty percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and other forms of land use change.

Carbon Storage

And then there is livestock:

A key FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow (FAO 2006), drew attention with its conclusion that (up to) 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with livestock.

Livestock emissions Big Facts


And transportation:

Transportation produces almost thirty percent of all U.S. global warming emissions—but cleaner vehicles can help.

Car Emissions and Global Warming Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

 

[g5000]

So folks WHY is our EPA and Obama so intent on shutting down coal utilities?
Obama has SAID...
Obama said: So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

Why don't you post the entirety of Obama's statement? Hmmm...

 

[g5000]

Here is the entirely of Obama's statement which contains the "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" phrase which is always taken out of context:

The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington.

The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks...they're going to destroy the economy.

This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is. If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson. You can be the master of Washington. You’re not gonna get that done.

Obama I 8217 ll make energy prices 8220 skyrocket 8221 Hot Air

 

[healthmyths]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

Very good point ...except WHY then are we spending billions in putting coal burning plants out of business when the simply solution would be to plant trees NEAR the coal burning plants.
250 trees in one acre will sequester 2.56 tons.
A typical utility generates 3.5 million tons.
So 5,450 acres at 250 trees / acre will sequester ALL the average CO2 put out by the plant!
Certainly cheaper to buy the land around the plant. Convert to forest. Then use the forest for
wood. Replanting to absorb CO2.

What's wrong with that???
They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???
Solution is very simple rather then closing and then doing what???

 

[g5000]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

Very good point ...except WHY then are we spending billions in putting coal burning plants out of business when the simply solution would be to plant trees NEAR the coal burning plants.
250 trees in one acre will sequester 2.56 tons.
A typical utility generates 3.5 million tons.
So 5,450 acres at 250 trees / acre will sequester ALL the average CO2 put out by the plant!
Certainly cheaper to buy the land around the plant. Convert to forest. Then use the forest for
wood. Replanting to absorb CO2.

What's wrong with that???
They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???
Solution is very simple rather then closing and then doing what???

So you are okay with regulations which require a coal plant to mitigate its pollution?

OUTSTANDING!

That is EXACTLY what federal regulations do!

 

[Mr. H.]

Instead of planting 39 million acres of corn to supply that worthless ethanol industry, we should turn that farm ground into forest. The benefits to the environment would far outweigh any of those alleged by the agriculture industry. Screw farmers.

 

[g5000]

They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???

Where are you getting this figure from?

 

[g5000]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

Very good point ...except WHY then are we spending billions in putting coal burning plants out of business when the simply solution would be to plant trees NEAR the coal burning plants.

Trees do not absorb the mercury and other airborne toxins which coal plants put out.

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards US Environmental Protection Agency

 

[g5000]

• Acid gas. In most cases, a FGD or DSI system will qualify as the MACT for acid gases. Both of these systems can effectively remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions as well. While not directly addressed by MATS, SO2 is regulated under Title IV of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). FGD systems are already installed on 63.7% of the U.S. coal fleet, while 0.6% have DSI systems.
• Toxic metals. FGD scrubbers with a fabric filter or an advanced electrostatic precipitator will likely qualify as the MACT for toxic metals. If a DSI system is used to control acid gases, then a fabric filter must be included to remove the appropriate level of toxic metals to complement the performance of the DSI system. The available equipment options are determined by the characteristics of each plant.
• Mercury. The control equipment needed to reduce mercury is driven by the type of coal burned and the plant configuration. In some cases an existing FGD scrubber and selective catalytic reduction system (SCR) can lower mercury emissions to the point where no additional controls are needed. In other cases, activated carbon injection (ACI) systems may be necessary to bring plants into compliance.

Coal-fired power plant operators consider emissions compliance strategies - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

 

[g5000]

From the same link in my last post:

At the end of 2012, 64.3% of the U.S. coal generating capacity in the electric power sector already had the appropriate environmental control equipment to comply with the MATS and allow their operation past 2016. Another 5.8% plan to add control equipment, while 9.5% have announced plans to retire. Owners of the remaining 20.4% are faced with the decision of upgrading or retiring their plants.

Nowhere near the "they are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants" claim made by healthmyths.

 

[healthmyths]

Your premise is flawed. It assumes all the pollution distributes and spreads itself amongst all the trees. In fact it's carried by the wind and to places generally east of the point of origin where there probably aren't many trees to do the absorption. Forests are situated in regions where there are few sources of industrial pollution. So their absorption ability isn't being used. At least not enough to bear out your arguement.

Very good point ...except WHY then are we spending billions in putting coal burning plants out of business when the simply solution would be to plant trees NEAR the coal burning plants.
250 trees in one acre will sequester 2.56 tons.
A typical utility generates 3.5 million tons.
So 5,450 acres at 250 trees / acre will sequester ALL the average CO2 put out by the plant!
Certainly cheaper to buy the land around the plant. Convert to forest. Then use the forest for
wood. Replanting to absorb CO2.

What's wrong with that???
They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???
Solution is very simple rather then closing and then doing what???

So you are okay with regulations which require a coal plant to mitigate its pollution?

OUTSTANDING!

That is EXACTLY what federal regulations do!

From the same link in my last post:

At the end of 2012, 64.3% of the U.S. coal generating capacity in the electric power sector already had the appropriate environmental control equipment to comply with the MATS and allow their operation past 2016. Another 5.8% plan to add control equipment, while 9.5% have announced plans to retire. Owners of the remaining 20.4% are faced with the decision of upgrading or retiring their plants.

Nowhere near the "they are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants" claim made by healthmyths.

Obama Regulations To Shut Down 40 Percent Of Nation’s Electricity

Obama Regulations To Shut Down 40 Percent Of Nation s Electricity Off The Grid News

 

[healthmyths]

They are going to close 40% of all coal burning plants... WHY???

Where are you getting this figure from?

I was WRONG!!!! WRONG!!!
It is not 40% of all coal burning plants.
It is 40% of all electricity utility production coming from coal burning utilities.
Sorry. Again... very very wrong!
40% of all electric production is done by coal plants that EPA wants to close.

 

[Mustang]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

 

[KissMy]

Coal plants are but one source of greenhouse gases.

When you cut down a tree, you release the carbon it has sequestered. Your own sources says "each person uses the equivalent of one 100 foot tall, 16 inch diameter, tree every year for their paper and wood product needs."

Cutting down trees inevitably alters carbon storage, and releases carbon dioxide into the air as the wood decays. Twenty percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and other forms of land use change.

Carbon Storage

And then there is livestock:

A key FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow (FAO 2006), drew attention with its conclusion that (up to) 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are associated with livestock.

Livestock emissions Big Facts

And transportation:

Transportation produces almost thirty percent of all U.S. global warming emissions—but cleaner vehicles can help.

Car Emissions and Global Warming Union of Concerned Scientists

I installed bidet attachments on 2 toilets to nearly eliminate my families toilet paper use. The first $33 bidet paid for itself in 3 months. Many carbon reduction techniques saves a lot of money & the environment. People just have to stop, think & change some habits, it will actually make them better off. My parents loved my bidet & installed a couple themselves. It will spread from there.

I swapped out most of my light bulbs & saved a lot more. The old bulbs wasted 90% of the energy as heat only emitting 10% as visible light. Then my air conditioner had to use more power to cool that heat the bulb generated. Carbon reduction saves money.

We recycle most of our trash now. It saves money, environment & creates jobs.

I planted 100 walnut trees in drainage ditch area of the farm. I plan to plant at least 300 more & possibly up to 2,000 total. It is a lot of work & requires irrigation for 2 summers. But these trees will not reduce wildlife areas, hunting or farming, but they will produce lots of income from nuts & high priced lumber while absorbing lots of carbon. At 400 walnut trees per acre will make me over $1 million of lumber per acre in 20-25 years. That will be a nice retirement income, that is safer than a 401K. This absorbs carbon, creates jobs, produces more food, lumber & makes a lot of money.

 

[kiwiman127]

Coal emissions kill trees, among other things via Acid Rain..Acid rain can damage steel and even rocks.. Regarding humans, the emissions contribute to respiratory diseases and pre-term births.
How does acid precipitation kill trees
Acid rain - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Sulfur dioxide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists
But it seems money is more important that the human death coal causes. Next this people are going to claim to be Christians! Nope, they are just tools.

 

[healthmyths]

Now this may seem rather simple but please follow these numbers and tell me where I'm wrong...
Carbon sequestration, air quality, and climate change

• A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.
• One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people.
• Tree Facts American Forests

In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2.
A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
coal power air pollution Union of Concerned Scientists

According to the last forest inventory, there are almost 247 billion trees over 1 inch in diameter in the U.S. Tree Facts Facts About Trees

So according to my figures... 40,800,000 trees can absorb ALL the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year by all the coal fired utility plants.

That means 0.01% of all the TREES in USA are absorbing the 1.7 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year.

What is wrong with these figures then?

I'm not even going to respond to the stats as far as the numbers are concerned. I'll merely respond to the claim of trees as a carbon sequestration destination.

To paraphrase your OP, please follow along. Carbon-based fuel (in the form of coal and oil) has been sequestered and buried underground for millions of years. At best, a tree might be expected to hold on to the carbon for a couple of hundred years before it dies (and decays) or burns in a natural fire, or is cut down (and is burned or decays) thereby releasing the CO2 back into the air.

Consequently, trees are not much of a carbon sink, all things being equal. That's especially true considering that the carbon is being taken out of a proven secure sink (until humans get to it) and placed in a temporary location. It's like taking your money out of an underground vault and placing it in a coffee can buried in your back yard. It damn sure isn't safer there.

What is your expertise that you can spout without ANY substantiation?
I at least am giving you the sources of where I came up with the numbers... where's your sources?