Europe is calling, with water being scarce, are the forests next ?
- Thread starter Ambient
- Start date
-
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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
Peterfield
Minister of Fire
Peterfield
Minister of Fire
As very often happens, the public's impression is skewed or glossed over with intentional misrepresentations with mass marketing by the corporations and politician’s who have vested interests. An example are the CFL's (Compact Florescent Lights), they were spun by the corporate shills as a green alternative. I bought right into it and spent an unreasonable amount of $ on them only to find out that they are equally as bad as incandescent lights. Another example might be the idea of an electric car the salvation for saving the planet; only to find out that during the early production of the batteries more harm was done to the environment than the burning of fossil fuels.
Europeans have been sensitized to environmental issues for decades. When I lived there, the price for gas was outrageous, circa 1969. Cars were small to fit down narrow streets and they had to get decent gas milage to be affordable. Through necessity they have evolved as a culture of green thinking folks that take the time to stay in touch with the environmental movement. When I read this article I had to wonder if they had been hoodwinked also?
So are the needs of the European Union to find a cleaner alternative to burning coal, going to be made at the expense of our forests, and the world's clean air?
The industry as a whole needs to be more responsible. The pellet industry will be judged on the whole picture that is being portrayed by the fossil fuel industry, who will certainly put their spin on why we shouldn't turn our backs on filling that fuel oil tank. The average American, I don't want to throw the rest of the North American's in the same category, will listen to their local TV news and believe whatever bilge water is feed to them, as sponsored by corporate interests.
So if to meet the needs of an industry in a foreign land we allow the clear cutting of our forrest's, how soon will it be before we're clear cutting to meet the needs of our pellet stove industry. I just bought my stove, how many thousands of folks are willing to jump onto this movement, believing that they are being environmentally responsible? Will the surge of new owners be stymied by the lower fossil fuel costs long enough to get new plants made and source enough waste product to meet demand?
Peterfield
Minister of Fire
The common denominator on most "green" projects is the money made by vested interests. Al Gore type folks make a fortune off this stuff. You think cap and trade has anything really to do with the environment? Whether it is good for the environment or not, you can rest assured that energy cartels have already stacked the deck in their favor and are using concern for the environment as a catalyst to rope folks in. This stuff goes way back to Spiro Agnew, who was caught with others buying up natural gas interests to corner the market with a group of investors in order to drive the price up over time. The Hunt brothers were caught trying to corner the silver market many years ago. Wondering why solar energy hasn't kept pace with technological developments in other areas? No one has figured out who owns the sun yet and how to tax it, but that's coming. If you want to be really paranoid, fast forward to a time when the government is so hell-bent on revenue streams to support whatever the agenda(s) are that they will intrude into your home to see how you're producing energy in your home. Not trying to be conservative or liberal here, just mathematical.
Lots of ominous rumblings in Biomass Magazine concerning pellet exports. I doubt if any pellets fron Georgia made it to rersidential use, far as I can tell, they are all being offshored.
Quite a lot of discussion about the renewable/replenishment rate of timber as it equates to pellet manufacture. Knowing American capitalism I'm not sure if the pellet producers will practice renewable conservation. Thats a long term commitment versus a quick profit. The Ontario Canada pellet mills are also exporting their entire production, no residential pellets being produced.
While not every stove is capable of burning a commercial pellet (longer, slightly larger in diameter), most can be modified with coarser auger flighting to run commercial pellets.
While not every stove is capable of burning a commercial pellet (longer, slightly larger in diameter), most can be modified with coarser auger flighting to run commercial pellets.
My point revolves around your statement. If we can clear cut forests in Georgia for Europe, where does it end? Cord wood got scarce here with the bio mass Godzilla near Fort Drum in northern New York. It has an insatiable appetite for all things wood. I see trucks rolling by me stacked to the hilt with cordwood, passing many times a day for years. Can't get some for residential use though, which is what led me to get the pellet stove. As demand increases, what happens to our forests?
Good question in as much as trees, unlike annual crops don't grow to harvest size in one growing season. There needs to be some self restraint on the part of the pellet producers or it's a dead end street and everyone looses.
I like the statement that it's not carbon nutral at all, in facr, it's carbon positive. It's only carbon neutral when the biomass originates from excess woody material thats otherwise landfilled, not grinding up whole trees and/or forests to satisify a power plant intake at a profit.
It's a mess, a mess generated by greed and profit, much like every other adventure in capitalism.
I'm real glad I can burn a annual renewable fuel (so long as it stays at a reasonable cost).
I like the statement that it's not carbon nutral at all, in facr, it's carbon positive. It's only carbon neutral when the biomass originates from excess woody material thats otherwise landfilled, not grinding up whole trees and/or forests to satisify a power plant intake at a profit.
It's a mess, a mess generated by greed and profit, much like every other adventure in capitalism.
I'm real glad I can burn a annual renewable fuel (so long as it stays at a reasonable cost).
I didn't realize the gravity of the situation until I subscribed to a couple Industry publications. The bio-mass indusrtry, from the production end to the end use is BIG business.
So a Canadian company is now harvesting Georgia? Didn't know they had a plant there but....
"Viridis Energy Inc. has been experiencing exponential growth in North America over the past three years and is now exporting premium Okanagan wood pellets to Italy.
The growing demand for biomass provides a tremendous opportunity for Viridis' wood biomass growth throughout Europe and the world. Having already anchored ourselves as the premier wood biomass provider in North America, now is the perfect time for us to develop our presence in the competitive international market.
Biomass has taken on a more significant role in recent years. Our premium softwood pellets are in high demand worldwide as coal plants are actively moving toward a co-firing approach or completely converting their plants to run entirely on biomass. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels and Viridis has the ideal fibre to supply biomass for efficient and clean conversion from coal for energy."
Okie doesn't have a plant there, they just get the pellets (Southern Yellow Pine) from Georgia Biomass. I believe Georgia Bio exports a "crap load" of pellets overseas.
I don't understand this. Whether waste wood or good wood, how is burning it any less carbon neutral? I see timber as a crop. Clearcuts can return to forest very quickly and reabsorb that carbon no matter if the whole tree was burned or if it rots.
Lake Girl
Moderator
Depends on the tree type ... around here the pine get harvested and we're left with a lot of poplar, the weed of trees. So yes, you get trees, just not the good ones that were cut down...
maple1
Minister of Fire
I don't get it either - but I can certainly see it being a lot less carbon neutral due to the added inputs to turn the fibre into pellets & then get them to where they're going. Not so much the burning vs. decaying aspect.
I can't imagine looking across the bay of Beverly Lake and thinking about a day's fishing with the forests around the lake cleared out in the name of corporate profits. When forests are selectively managed, the wood is still harvested and the forests improve. If they clearcut the forests, they should be mandated to replace the timber.
There's a need for fossil fuels, it doesn't mean we should gouge out every last drop and leave the landscape and ground water polluted, so that a few can make a ton of money. Same goes for the forests, Europe and other emerging markets may want and need more wood and wood by products for pellets...do it responsibly.
The local pellet mill produces 100,000 tons of pellets a year and another 80-100,000 tons of lower grade biomass for the cogen. plant on Fort Drum. It is pretty easy to see the effect it is having on our local forests. I am not looking forward to the day they build another plant to keep up with European demand.
Ah, see here in the NW they are required to replant. In fact, what most folks see as forests have already been clearcut 2 or 3 times and regrown. To not replant the forest would be a conversion from forest to something else and would require permits not unlike building a parking lot.
Timber is agriculture. It is a long rotation crop business and CAN be done sustainably. I see two issues emerging with this. 1) Some timber companies cutting their own throats by not replanting due to lax local laws, though forests are natural and will eventually return on their own. 2) The export of product which drives up the prices for us. That's called a global market.
If you don't want a particular forest clearcut then go buy it. Somebody else is farming those trees and would be happy to sell you the whole parcel for enough money.
ah, they do that here. folks from NYC come up to the Adirondack's and form a co-op and buy tracks of land. Infuse themselves on local town boards, set the pace and way of life for the indigenous folks, makes for a very resentful way of live. I would much rather have a responsible governmental agency, oversee proper managerial practices by properly managed and ethical companies.
So how does sustainability work out in Mirkwood
Lake Girl
Moderator
Not the case here ... many of the lands harvested are "Crown" lands. The province made a mistake a many years back letting the corporations manage the woodlands and cut out numbers of MNR forestry staff. The largest manager of wood rights in the north of Ontario is Resolute... They are not a very good corporate citizen for many reasons with lack of proper clearing scarification and replanting one of them. I have only to go down the road to see the mess they left about 3 km from our home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Forest_Products
(broken link removed to https://ca.fsc.org/resolute-forest-products.332.htm)
- Status
