Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
1092 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Subscriber

  Reply # 1895848 6-Nov-2017 10:42
Send private message quote this post

networkn:

 

Linuxluver:

 

frednz:

 

NZ has set itself a target of planting 100 million trees per year in a "Billion Trees" planting programme.

 

Now that means we need to plant about 274,000 trees per day, every day of the year.

 

Do you think this is possible when you consider ground preparation and the availability of such a large number of trees?

 

How many people would you need to have continuously working on this project?

 

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11936301

 

Forestry
Re-establish the New Zealand Forestry Service, and planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme.

 

 

 



Assuming you have the seedlings, you can plant 50-75 / hour. In an 8 hour day one person could plant 400+ trees. In 260 M-F working days in a year that person could plant at *least* 104,000-ish trees. A thousand people doing that is 10 million trees. Ten thousand people doing that is well over 100 million trees. 

So if 50,000 people did it two days / week......it would happen with bells on. Sounds like a good scheme. I'd walk the hills for two days / week and plant trees. Sign me up. 

If you paid $20 / hour to the ten thousand people for those M-F 8-hour days for a year...that would be $416M in wages, plus whatever the trees cost. We spent $100M selling off part of the energy companies despite most voters opposing the idea in the referendum......so $500m / year for planting 100 million trees sounds like good investment money. Eventually they become a renewable resource and habitat, as well as a carbon sink. Hopefully they aren't all pinus radiata and we plant a few million kaori and totora.   

 

 

This, of course, does not take into account the cost for water, labour for maintenance, and dealing with the ground after the trees have been chopped, to prepare it for another planting, pest control, fungus and bacterial control, etc.

 

 

 

 

An even bigger problem is getting the workers to do it all. The industry cannot attract sufficient workers right no despite offering $40k-$60k in economically depressed areas with high unemployment such as Northland. So planting these extra billion trees has many hurdles to cross.

 

 

 

 


533 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 114


  Reply # 1895853 6-Nov-2017 10:46
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

wellygary:

 

MaxLV:

 

There's plenty of land available, just ask all the farmers who plant trees on their land that's not suitable for anything else.
Then there's government land that's being used and allocated for forestry.

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 

 

 

 

The government wont be the owner of these trees, ( well not most of them anyway)

 

Over the next 10 years, the commercial pinus industry will harvest around 650-,000- 700,000 ha of pine forest ( this is the big lump of forests that were planted from the 1990s ( average age of 28 years)

 

Of the "billion" trees, 70% are likely to basically be replanting what gets cut down,

 

the remaining 300,000 ha ( or 300 million trees) will likely slightly expanded commercial planting ( I'm guessing that the govt will help the industry with some helpful tax incentives) and some planting on Marginal ( likely Maori land)

 

This is simply government policy to favour the forestry industry -

 

Their big fear is that without this help the forestry boys ( who are mostly multinationals) will not replant, but just hock off the land for farming and NZ's GHG would go through the roof- not a good look for a green supported Govt,

 



When has the government said all the trees will (have to) belong to the government?

We've been planting trees, and harvesting them 30 years later since the late 1920's. That's at least three harvests already.

And what's wrong with government policy in favour of the forestry industry? After all it is currently 3% of GDP, and the third biggest export earner for New Zealand after meat and dairy products.

I've posted it before in this thread, but here it is again:

 

However, forestry is a significant industry in New Zealand. It contributes

 

  • an annual gross income of around $5 billion
  • 3% of New Zealand's GDP
  • directly employs around 20,000 people.

Wood products are New Zealand's third largest export earner – behind dairy and meat.

http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/open-data-and-forecasting/forestry

 

There's nothing fearful on the governments part (that I can see) with this lucrative long term investment in New Zealand.  

 

EOS


 
 
 
 


533 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 114


  Reply # 1895863 6-Nov-2017 10:57
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

MaxLV:

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 
Any thing else you'd like to know?

 

National lost the election, the Labour/NZF/Greens coalition won, isn't it about time you started being realistic and moved on?

 

 

Given that this is touted as a green environmental reduce-our-emissions thing, I think it's a misrepresentation. Cutting down trees to plant new trees does little for the environment even if it is "sustainable". Planting new trees to cut them down in 30 years is a one-off benefit.

 

It's really nothing to do with party politics; trust me, I'm not a National supporter.

 

 Tangentially; I wonder whether plastic bags are in fact a good carbon sink. They carbon they hold won't be released for thousands of years.

 

 



What do you think the trees will be doing (with carbon) in the 30+ years they're growing? New Zealand has been planting and harvesting trees since the late 1920's, we've had at least three harvests already, enough to make forestry 3% of GDP (currently), earn the country 5 Billion a year, be our third largest export behind meat and dairy, and directly employ 20,000 New Zealanders. There's nothing wrong with this government investment to make forestry even more lucrative for New Zealand.

EOS.  

 

 


2111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1016


  Reply # 1895923 6-Nov-2017 12:28
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV:

 

frankv:

 

MaxLV:

 

Forestry workers will cut them down.
The profit goes to the owners of the trees, in this case the government. You do know that forestry is third most profitable part of the NZ economy dont you? 
Any thing else you'd like to know?

 

National lost the election, the Labour/NZF/Greens coalition won, isn't it about time you started being realistic and moved on?

 

 

Given that this is touted as a green environmental reduce-our-emissions thing, I think it's a misrepresentation. Cutting down trees to plant new trees does little for the environment even if it is "sustainable". Planting new trees to cut them down in 30 years is a one-off benefit.

 

 



What do you think the trees will be doing (with carbon) in the 30+ years they're growing? New Zealand has been planting and harvesting trees since the late 1920's, we've had at least three harvests already, enough to make forestry 3% of GDP (currently), earn the country 5 Billion a year, be our third largest export behind meat and dairy, and directly employ 20,000 New Zealanders. There's nothing wrong with this government investment to make forestry even more lucrative for New Zealand.

EOS.  

 

 

Oh, I agree with all of that. Of course the trees will be fixing carbon during their 30 years of growth. But what do you think the trees that are cut down to make room for these trees will be doing (with carbon) in the next 30+ years? What proportion of their carbon will still be fixed in 30 years time?

 

My beef is just with this being spun as a reduce-our-emissions thing. In reality, it's keep-on-doing-the-same-as-before.

 

I did a bit of Googling and found the NZ Forestry Association report. It helps put some numbers on stuff that people have been guesstimating here (e.g. trees/hectare is 200-500, about 50,000Ha were harvested and planted in 2015. i.e. 10-25 million trees). Peak recent planting was 1994 with nearly 100,000Ha of planting. Wood production for 2015 was 26,000 cu. m. (Surprising factoid: Over half of the Earth's plantations are in Asia).

 

About a quarter of 2015's harvest was pulped in NZ, and about half exported as logs. Assuming (completely without basis) that overseas usage is similar to NZ's, then a quarter of all wood is pulped, in which case I'd say most of its carbon would be returned to the atmosphere within a year or two.

 

 


3228 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1209


  Reply # 1895959 6-Nov-2017 12:54
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Linuxluver:

 



Assuming you have the seedlings, you suppose can plant 50-75 / hour. I have no idea. It might actually be 200 / hour, but one per minute and a bit seems reasonable as a starting point.

 

 

A couple per minute would be reasonable for pine trees in easy country.  If one is talking about native I think it would be much, much slower.  Natives  are less drought tolerant and may need some weed suppression around them for a while.





Mike

533 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 114


  Reply # 1895981 6-Nov-2017 13:26
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

Linuxluver:

 



Assuming you have the seedlings, you suppose can plant 50-75 / hour. I have no idea. It might actually be 200 / hour, but one per minute and a bit seems reasonable as a starting point.

 

 

A couple per minute would be reasonable for pine trees in easy country.  If one is talking about native I think it would be much, much slower.  Natives  are less drought tolerant and may need some weed suppression around them for a while.

 



See pages 4 and 5 of this thread for discussions on how many seedlings can be planted per person/per day. 


595 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236

Subscriber

  Reply # 1895997 6-Nov-2017 13:40
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

MaxLV:

See pages 4 and 5 of this thread for discussions on how many seedlings can be planted per person/per day. 

 

 

We used to plant 1000-1500 a day


1092 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Subscriber

  Reply # 1896051 6-Nov-2017 14:27
Send private message quote this post

Sidestep:

 

MaxLV:

See pages 4 and 5 of this thread for discussions on how many seedlings can be planted per person/per day. 

 

 

We used to plant 1000-1500 a day

 

 

With new H&S rules, labour rules etc I'm wondering if that rate is still being achieved today?

 

 


595 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236

Subscriber

  Reply # 1896060 6-Nov-2017 14:39
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

kryptonjohn:

 

 

 

With new H&S rules, labour rules etc I'm wondering if that rate is still being achieved today?

 

 

I'm sure it is. We weren't a super fast crew, and that was on rough-ish ground (lots of sticks, logs, root balls, bracken etc)

We were spaced out one extended spade length apart, planting bare-root radiata seedlings. 10c a tree I think?

Take 2 steps, drive the spade in, tilt it forward, pull a seedling out of your bag & drop it in, pull spade, tamp it in with your heel. Repeat.


4788 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 890

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1896123 6-Nov-2017 15:34
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

 

 

Oh, I agree with all of that. Of course the trees will be fixing carbon during their 30 years of growth. But what do you think the trees that are cut down to make room for these trees will be doing (with carbon) in the next 30+ years? What proportion of their carbon will still be fixed in 30 years time?

 

My beef is just with this being spun as a reduce-our-emissions thing. In reality, it's keep-on-doing-the-same-as-before.

 

I did a bit of Googling and found the NZ Forestry Association report. It helps put some numbers on stuff that people have been guesstimating here (e.g. trees/hectare is 200-500, about 50,000Ha were harvested and planted in 2015. i.e. 10-25 million trees). Peak recent planting was 1994 with nearly 100,000Ha of planting. Wood production for 2015 was 26,000 cu. m. (Surprising factoid: Over half of the Earth's plantations are in Asia).

 

About a quarter of 2015's harvest was pulped in NZ, and about half exported as logs. Assuming (completely without basis) that overseas usage is similar to NZ's, then a quarter of all wood is pulped, in which case I'd say most of its carbon would be returned to the atmosphere within a year or two.

 

 

As long as you don't burn it, it should remain sequestered for a long time: house framing, fences, furniture (more hardwoods than soft pine) or paper (landfill / re-cycled).

It's a start and a billion trees would store up a lot of CO2. 

 

 





____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


3228 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1209


  Reply # 1896173 6-Nov-2017 16:06
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Linuxluver:

 

 

 

As long as you don't burn it, it should remain sequestered for a long time: house framing, fences, furniture (more hardwoods than soft pine) or paper (landfill / re-cycled).

It's a start and a billion trees would store up a lot of CO2. 

 

 

Most of the tree doesn't make it into timber - branches, leaves/needles, bark, outer slices, sawdust from sawing. They all rot or burn.  Dry pine is very light.

 

The stump and roots rot releasing CO2.  Hopefully some of it stays as soil carbon.

 

Paper will be broken down unless it's kept dry, releasing either C02 or methane.

 

The main benefit of plantation forests is the standing stock of CO2 - around 400T/ha under a typical harvest  and replant cycle.

 

Manuka scrub is about 550T/Ha when mature.  It will grow almost anywhere, stabilises soil and you can make honey from it.  All without having to harvest any vegetation at all.  You will build a considerable amount of soil carbon doing this.  Native forest is about 1,000T/Ha when mature - but that takes ages.

 

Maybe we should be planting manuka on lots of marginal land.





Mike

595 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236

Subscriber

  Reply # 1896212 6-Nov-2017 16:42
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

MikeAqua:

 

 

 

Maybe we should be planting manuka on lots of marginal land.

 

 

We have some land slowly recovering from the Government's last great tree planting exercise – in the 70's

The theory was good. I believe it was supported with an initial 'encouragement grant” refunding 45% of the cost of clearing & planting, and with transferable tax credits as they grew.
The minimum area to qualify was 10 acres (about 4ha), of otherwise unusable, marginal or scrub land.

 

In practice, without proper auditing anything other than high canopy old-growth native forest was 'scrubland', and was fair game.
It was then chopped up and sold to investors – “Queen St farmers” who bilked the grants and tax breaks.

 

Out here, dirt access roads were cut in, the native Manuka and Pohutukawa forest cleared to just above the high tide line, pines planted to get the grant & credits, and the blocks sold on as 'farm forestry blocks'.
Purchasers paid good money for their pine investment blocks - with rosy projections of profits at the thinning and harvest stages.

 

Except, exposed to the open Pacific, salt spray and wind, they were never going to grow viable timber.

 

Some thinning and low pruning was done in the early 80's but by then, tax credits gone, it was clear the timber wouldn't be any good.
The blocks were abandoned, and on sold. Being so remote, without services and zoned 'rural' - unable to be built on without a zoning change - they were only worth cents on the dollar.

 

We bought some of the land, and set about reversing the pine plantings.
By the 90's Dad had cut most of the stunted ocean edge pine out and was replanting with Manuka and Pohutukawa (thanks project crimson!)
I'm still knocking back the wildings and clearing an acre or two a year, probably 10-15 tonnes of knarled, twisted pines to waste (or firewood) and replanted with native trees from our nursery.

In another decade most of the ocean-facing land will be back to how it was before it was planted in 'trees


2111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1016


  Reply # 1896215 6-Nov-2017 16:46
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Linuxluver:

 

 

 

As long as you don't burn it, it should remain sequestered for a long time: house framing, fences, furniture (more hardwoods than soft pine) or paper (landfill / re-cycled).

 

 

When the wood (or paper) decomposes, its carbon will be returned to the atmosphere. Unless you bury it deep enough and long enough to turn into oil, I guess. A NZ house has an average life of (I guess) 150 years or so? Fences and furniture somewhat less. Paper a lot less.

 

The point is that it is a cycle. Planting a whole lot of trees will soak up CO2 for 30 years, which is a very good thing. But then there will be a glut of cheap wood and consequently cheap paper, so that quite quickly a quarter of that carbon will be returned to the atmosphere. In 180 years, almost all of it will be back in the atmosphere. We will always need to replace those trees to soak up that carbon. That billion trees needs to be there in perpetuity.

 


It's a start and a billion trees would store up a lot of CO2. 

 

 

Yes, but. We already have half a billion trees. So, it's actually only half the improvement it appears.

 

Maybe we should look at making limestone or something like that? Of course, increasingly acidic rain and oceans will make that increasingly difficult.

 

 


4078 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1638

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1896288 6-Nov-2017 18:03
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

frankv:

 

 

 

Maybe we should look at making limestone or something like that? Of course, increasingly acidic rain and oceans will make that increasingly difficult.

 

 

Despite the potential difficulty with some of the CO2 returning to the atmosphere when a tree decomposes, wood is still by far the least energy intensive way of locking that carbon back down. Sucking air into giant machines to pull out the CO2 directly and do something with it would take massive amounts of power. Power which could be put to much better use elsewhere.





iPad Air + iPhone SE + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.


3228 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1209


  Reply # 1896578 7-Nov-2017 09:15
Send private message quote this post

Sidestep:

 

MaxLV:

See pages 4 and 5 of this thread for discussions on how many seedlings can be planted per person/per day. 

 

 

We used to plant 1000-1500 a day

 

 

How many hours per day to achieve that?





Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

UAV Traffic Management Trial launching today in New Zealand
Posted 12-Dec-2017 16:06


UFB connections pass 460,000
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:26


The Warehouse Group to adopt IBM Cloud to support digital transformation
Posted 11-Dec-2017 11:22


Dimension Data peeks into digital business 2018
Posted 11-Dec-2017 10:55


2018 Cyber Security Predictions
Posted 7-Dec-2017 14:55


Global Govtech Accelerator to drive public sector innovation in Wellington
Posted 7-Dec-2017 11:21


Stuff Pix media strategy a new direction
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:37


Digital transformation is dead
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:31


Fake news and cyber security
Posted 7-Dec-2017 09:27


Dimension Data New Zealand strengthens cybersecurity practice
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:27


Epson NZ launches new Expression Premium Photo range
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:26


Eventbrite and Twickets launch integration partnership in Australia and New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:23


New Fujifilm macro lens lands in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:16


Cyber security not being taken seriously enough
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:13


Sony commences Android 8.0 Oreo rollout in New Zealand
Posted 5-Dec-2017 20:08



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.