Performance of a 100 Year-Old Tree - According to Walter Schauberger

canadiantreeman

TreeHouser
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
1,744
Location
Penticton, British Columbia, Canada
I'm reading a book by Callum Coates, called Living Energies. Excellent read, and I've unearthed a great little tidbit I thought you fellow tree folk might appreciate. The following was formulated by a man called Walter Schauberger in the 1970's.

During the course of its life, this 100 year old tree:

a) Has processed and fixed the amount of carbon-dioxide contained in 18 million cubic metres of natural air in the form of about 2500kg of pure carbon (C).

b) Has photochemically converted 9,100kg of CO2 and 3,700lit of H20.

c) Has stored up circa 23 million kilogram-calories. (a calorific value equivalent to 3,500kg of hard pit coal).

d) Has made available for the respiration of human and beast 6,600kg of molecular oxygen (O2).

Every tree is therefore a water-column and if such a column, which continually supplies and recharges the atmosphere with water, is cut down, the this amount of water is lost.

f) Thereby fixing a mechanical equivalent of heat equal to the calorific value of 2,500kg of coal.

g) Has supplied a member of the consumer society with oxygen sufficient for 20 years, and its nature is such, that the larger it grows, the more oxygen it produces.

In view of such achievements, who in future could value this tree merely for its timber?

The combustion of 100 litres of petrol consumes about 230kg of oxygen. That is, after a trip of barely 30,000km (9.6lit/100km), this tree's entire 100 year production of oxygen has been squandered.

If a person chooses to breathe for 3 years, to burn 400lit of petrol or heating oil, or 400kg of coal, then the production through photosynthesis of 1 tonne of oxygen is required.

1 tonne of O2 = the O2 content of 3,620 m3 of air (+15c at 1 atm)

The photosynthetic production of 1 tonne of oxygen necessitates:

a) The building up of 0.935 tonnes of C6H12O6 (carbohydrate).

b) which process requires 1.37 tonnes CO2 (carbon-dioxide) and 0.56 tonnes H2O (water).

c) The transpiration of 230-930 tonnes H2O.

d) Light energy equal to 527 x 10^8 quanta (v = 440 x 10^12) which represents 3.52 million kilocalories.
 
d) Has made available for the respiration of human and beast 6,600kg of molecular oxygen (O2).

The combustion of 100 litres of petrol consumes about 230kg of oxygen. That is, after a trip of barely 30,000km (9.6lit/100km), this tree's entire 100 year production of oxygen has been squandered.

It makes you wonder...
 
And this, how is water lost?

Every tree is therefore a water-column and if such a column, which continually supplies and recharges the atmosphere with water, is cut down, the this amount of water is lost.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Or the bond between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms breaks and the molecules are changed into different substances. Water evaporates, condenses and falls, but given the law of diminishing returns one could reasonably assume that H and O molecules are changed from water into different substances along the way.

Think about it...perhaps the statement is an oversimplified one for a complex process. Perhaps the intention is to note that there is a step in the hydrologic cycle which is lost. The water that the tree respires into the atmosphere is no longer being moved from the ground into the air by the tree. This might not mean that the water itself is lost, but certainly the water made available to the atmosphere by the tree is.

I'm just the messenger here, fellas.
 
hahaha...no problem...we don't kill the messenger here, just poke, prod and play a little.

Good info overall..thanks for passing it along. (except my head hurts from all the metric stuff!)
 
I don't worry about cutting trees here. We could log 10 times as much as we currently do sustainably. We produce far more bio-mass here than we remove. I expect most of America is like that, maybe not to this extent but...
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
I don't disagree, Willie. But the quality of the ecosystem is not measured by the biomass of the timber. And the quality of the ecosystem is precisely what will sustain us into the future. Like the soils which we grow food upon, the quality of the ecosystem we log timber in decreases with every harvest, and the quality of the ecosystem of the old-growth forest is something which is barely even understood. A pity then, that less than 5% of it remains in North America. We've removed the vast majority of our most valuable assets without even beginning to understand the benefits we are provided with.
 
Five percent of old growth or coastal/rainforest old growth? Or just calculating all of north americas land mass vs all old growth forests left? To get that %5 number? I've hear all kinds of numbers over the years now.

Certainly we have logged the primo forests here in BC. Sad how it's being gone after now. Resource extraction, that's our national economic strategy. Not a word of a lie, pull it out of and off of the earth and get it out of here.

We are being screwed. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/03/13/bc-raw-log-exports.html

Sorry for the derail, lotta cool facts in the original post.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
I watched some documentary about the Northern Gateway pipeline and they threw that # out there. I've also heard it referenced a few other times...but who really knows...

Could just be a # thrown out there to scare people. But we sure as shit have cut a lot of timber on this continent out.

Scary article, btw. Good idea, eh? Ship out the raw logs so that a mill boom can happen in, say, China, while we lose out jobs here in B.C. Then the Chinese ship the milled wood back and sell it for less than the products coming out of our own mills. Great plan, government! What could possibly go wrong? Good thing those export #'s are up!
 
Yah brutal. As we run out of timber supply they have stated that the solution is to go back to the 'traditional' logging areas. Which means log out everything that they didn't want to before in order to protect streams or habitat, that is what's happening around here right now. The next option will be logging visible corridors, you watch it's coming very soon I believe to the north okanagan/kootenays.
 
It is interesting how people in "The new world" ( Australia, New Zealand, USA and Canada) have always approached logging the way one does mining.
 
Back
Top