[Bearshouse]

So in order to capture 4000 TONS, or 80,000,000 of CO2 you would not need 160 trees, you would need about 1,6000,000 trees, not 160 trees.

That's 160,000 trees. (not 1,6000,000) An acre usually only accommodates 100 mature trees so that's 1600 acres to accomplish what that plant is doing. Visually that's a little less than 3 miles square. I would venture this plant and surrounding buildings takes up close to that much land and costs considerable more than allowing for a natural forest.

[Dusty Road]

Throw in the fact that it doesn’t cost anything to operate 160,000 tree’s and no CO2 is produced in the manufacture or operation of those tree’s. Leave nature alone and let her take care of herself and it’s amazing what she can do. We’ve got 42 square miles of ranch, all I have to do to surpass that facilities capabilities of capturing CO2 is nothing. The plus side is I run about 30 head of cattle on each square mile and produce oil and gas from 72 locations. I’m about as environmentally friendly as they come.

[qwerty1234]

>>That’s 160,000 trees.

80,000,000 / 50 = 1,600,000

boy, math is hard for some folks.