Good news/ bad news

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

michaelryba

Member
Mar 15, 2009
83
N.E. Ohio
this was printed in a local paper:


Associated Press
More Ohioans have started using wood to heat their homes over the past decade as the price for other fuels increased and the number of residents using fuel oil for heat dropped.

The Columbus Dispatch compared census data from 2000 and 2009 and found the number of Ohio homes heated primarily with wood increased from just under 48,000 to an estimated 82,000 or more. Though the use of wood grew faster than other fuel sources in that span, it's still used to heat less than 2 percent of Ohio households.

About 209,000 homes were heated with fuel oil in 2000, but that dropped by about 70,000 homes by 2009. Natural gas remained the most popular source, heating more than two-thirds of Ohio homes in 2009. About one in five homes used electricity for heat.


So, the good news is that more people are getting into woodburning for heat.
The bad news is that if this trend continues, my days of finding affordable wood nearby are numbered.
 
The reason I never get that concerned is that not all of those will be heating solely with wood - I bet not many will go through more than a cord. Heating with wood requires so much commitment that you'll never see wood heating on a massive scale.
 
If your good at moving the weight you wiil be fine.
 
wait untill real inflation rears its ugly head. thank Bernanke for that one. Print it like its going out of style.
Hold on tight, its going to get worse.
 
Pondman said:
this was printed in a local paper:

The bad news is that if this trend continues, my days of finding affordable wood nearby are numbered.

And the worst news is that people might start cutting good trees just to burn them. I hate that. Everything I burn is standing dead or damaged branches, except for the gigantic silver (Big Bob) I had to take down because it posed a threat to my house - and that killed me to do. Tree-hugger? Yep, so I planted a red maple (Bob Jr.) further away from the house to replace it.
 
Cate said:
Pondman said:
this was printed in a local paper:

The bad news is that if this trend continues, my days of finding affordable wood nearby are numbered.

And the worst news is that people might start cutting good trees just to burn them. I hate that. Everything I burn is standing dead or damaged branches, except for the gigantic silver (Big Bob) I had to take down because it posed a threat to my house - and that killed me to do. Tree-hugger? Yep, so I planted a red maple (Bob Jr.) further away from the house to replace it.

I cut live trees, but for every tree we cut we replace with a sapling in the spring.
 
Mill_Heat said:
Cate said:
Pondman said:
this was printed in a local paper:

The bad news is that if this trend continues, my days of finding affordable wood nearby are numbered.

And the worst news is that people might start cutting good trees just to burn them. I hate that. Everything I burn is standing dead or damaged branches, except for the gigantic silver (Big Bob) I had to take down because it posed a threat to my house - and that killed me to do. Tree-hugger? Yep, so I planted a red maple (Bob Jr.) further away from the house to replace it.

I cut live trees, but for every tree we cut we replace with a sapling in the spring.

That's a good practice if you have to cut live trees. I'd just hate to see people cut live just to make a buck.
 
Standing dead trees "snags" are arguably more alive than living trees given the biomass that inhabits them. They are critical to a healthy forest. It's not necessarily the wrong choice ecologically to cut the living tree and leave the snag.
 
Yep a lot of live trees need to be cut to improve the health of the woods, saying you should never cut live trees is naive.
 
~*~Kathleen~*~ said:
Standing dead trees "snags" are arguably more alive than living trees given the biomass that inhabits them. They are critical to a healthy forest. It's not necessarily the wrong choice ecologically to cut the living tree and leave the snag.

I would have to agree.
 
Random thoughts . . .

I don't worry too much about more folks burning wood . . . a) folks buying new stoves will typically be buying new EPA stoves which means they will not be using as much wood as say they might have back in the 1970s-1980s when many folks returned to burning wood and b) folks are often lazy . . . and even if many folks switch over to wood, in time a good portion of those folks will get tired of the work, mess, maintenance, etc. and return to gas, oil, etc.

Live and dead trees . . . it doesn't matter much to me . . . truth be told I probably take more live trees than dead . . . opens up the area . . . and I do selective cutting . . . always leaving smaller wood to grow into bigger wood . . . it's a practice my father taught me and my grandfather taught my father . . . which is why we're cutting in places that 15-20 years ago were cut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.