ChoppyChoppy
Tree Freak
They got rid of car emission testing here and started a "wood smoke is bad" program.
During that car exhaust program diesels were exempt though.
During that car exhaust program diesels were exempt though.
The evils of burning wood
- Thread starter Big Briggs 37
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
wrx-snowdrift
ArboristSite Operative
Exactly!
We are not creating “new” CO2 we are recirculating it.
I understand the issue of air quality and it’s not just about CO2 emissions.
It does not matter whether wood is seasoned unseasoned or real crap with or with out bark. Whether one wants to be a good neighbor or not it still does not matter. Most sane people realize that trees are important to cleaning and filtering our air so we can live. If every one around the world decided no more trees period would that work, probably not so much. Trees start as young shoots producing oxygen then finally mature and die. After the death of a tree it decomposes producing CO2 just like it was burnt in a fireplace. If all fireplaces are outlawed then what. The growth has to be addressed. The forest has to be burnt and I am sure that uncontrolled burning will not cause any pollution. If all RX burning is outlawed then what. Crews of a great magnitude will have to fire up large diesel powered equipment to grind up all the dead vegetation and I am sure that will not cause any pollution. If no one can heat with wood then more coal fired generators might be needed to heat homes. Or natural gas generators could take over all the heating requirements around the world and I am certain that they do not produce any pollution. Wait natural gas is not a renewable source for heating so maybe just let every one freeze to death that would certainly reduce congestion on the freeways. Good ole Air Quality Management Board from California where I live could make sure sure that the air stays clean for the whole world and California. At least to some some degree they are responsible for the mess they helped create in Paradise California. My information indicates that they stand in the way of most RX burning processes with out any concern for burnt homes and other buildings. Now we have to consider the amount of pollution that more than 6,000 homes not including businesses would have caused. If they really cared about protecting air quality they could do what ever they could to keep fireplaces burning every where and unneeded undergrowth burnt. Thanks
Particulates are a localised and potential short term issue, which some other countries in Europe recognise and have 'bad air days'. When higher rules come into force. Basically weather such as wind disperses the pollution, but still days and temperature inversions trap the pollution allowing it to build to high levels. It's recognised by WHO that particulates shorten the lives of millions around the world.
I agree greenhouse gas Vs local pollution needs considering and isn't... How do you weigh one against another?
Oh and I have read something like 50% of the carbon in a plant/tree is locked up after death and ends up as organic matter in soil or later the sea.... So burning a tree is worse than it decaying.... But if burning fossil fuel is the alternative then is possibly good
I agree greenhouse gas Vs local pollution needs considering and isn't... How do you weigh one against another?
Oh and I have read something like 50% of the carbon in a plant/tree is locked up after death and ends up as organic matter in soil or later the sea.... So burning a tree is worse than it decaying.... But if burning fossil fuel is the alternative then is possibly good
For how many thousands of years have humans been using wood to make fire for heat/cooking? Now all of a sudden it's a problem? Sounds like they just want more people buying their "natural" gas products. Best way to do that? Make burning wood illegal. No other choice but to buy their equipment and their product to heat your home.
for how many thousands of years have we had metropolis cities with 10 million people crammed together?
Oh and I have read something like 50% of the carbon in a plant/tree is locked up after death and ends up as organic matter in soil or later the sea.... So burning a tree is worse than it decaying.... But if burning fossil fuel is the alternative then is possibly good
London I studied and researched this topic many years ago while in college. In real life this assertion just does not add up. If you take most forested areas after it has matured and harvest as much of the fuel that is possible what is left? You have a large amount of organic matter left which will yes decompose and produce plenty of CO2. The problem with your assertion is that there is a limit on how much can the ground digest in a prescribed period of time. So in other words if you have one area in twenty that burns by accident or by other means all the formulas will have to be thrown out the window. Mathematically it is still better to burn as much fuel as possible from forested areas no matter how home owners complain about smoke in their eyes. The biggest polluter in all the world is heating homes. Check it out. So if you want to make an argument about when and where to collect energy then go for it. The energy used today is more nice and clean because we do not see or feel the pollution since we have moved the pollution where we do not notice it. But it is still being produced and harmful to the environment. Thanks
London I studied and researched this topic many years ago while in college. In real life this assertion just does not add up. If you take most forested areas after it has matured and harvest as much of the fuel that is possible what is left? You have a large amount of organic matter left which will yes decompose and produce plenty of CO2. The problem with your assertion is that there is a limit on how much can the ground digest in a prescribed period of time. So in other words if you have one area in twenty that burns by accident or by other means all the formulas will have to be thrown out the window. Mathematically it is still better to burn as much fuel as possible from forested areas no matter how home owners complain about smoke in their eyes. The biggest polluter in all the world is heating homes. Check it out. So if you want to make an argument about when and where to collect energy then go for it. The energy used today is more nice and clean because we do not see or feel the pollution since we have moved the pollution where we do not notice it. But it is still being produced and harmful to the environment. Thanks
No fair inserting facts into a reply to a denialist
Ted, I agree (just pointing out some contrary views to consider and stuff I've read that may or may not be 'fact' in order to promote a healthy discussion)
Myself I think reducing co2 through sustainable fuel trump's local air pollution to a good extent. I am aware though that the sustainable nature of wood can be questioned.... We have a large ex coal fired power station that was converted to biomass/wood (Drax). It's appetite is so large it needs wood from all over, apparently wood is shipped in from the US even. It helps us meet carbon reduction targets bit factor the fuel used to transport and process the wood, consider it's difficult to ensure all wood comes from managed, sustainable sources and it looks less clear cut. Then there's me, and others like me...I scrounge wood from a local tree guy, chainsaw then hand split. 5 gallons of petrol and a fair bit of sweat heats my house and some of mum's. The wood is a waste product, my use seems good to me..but it means particulate in London. I manage that by seasoning well, my wood stack is at the 2.5-3 year ahead point, and I always burn hot, fast and as clean as possible. I will often look at my chimney if outside and it's rare to see smoke. That's the way I like it.
Myself I think reducing co2 through sustainable fuel trump's local air pollution to a good extent. I am aware though that the sustainable nature of wood can be questioned.... We have a large ex coal fired power station that was converted to biomass/wood (Drax). It's appetite is so large it needs wood from all over, apparently wood is shipped in from the US even. It helps us meet carbon reduction targets bit factor the fuel used to transport and process the wood, consider it's difficult to ensure all wood comes from managed, sustainable sources and it looks less clear cut. Then there's me, and others like me...I scrounge wood from a local tree guy, chainsaw then hand split. 5 gallons of petrol and a fair bit of sweat heats my house and some of mum's. The wood is a waste product, my use seems good to me..but it means particulate in London. I manage that by seasoning well, my wood stack is at the 2.5-3 year ahead point, and I always burn hot, fast and as clean as possible. I will often look at my chimney if outside and it's rare to see smoke. That's the way I like it.
lknchoppers
ArboristSite Operative
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 711
That is the problem right there. Cities are the problem and the root of all evil, more crime, more pollution, more stupid rules, more people in your face, I have always said "Live Like Rats & Die Like Rats" !!!
ChoppyChoppy
Tree Freak
Watched your video.
How are you measuring out what you deliver? Looked like it's not much per delivery, maybe 1/4-1/3 cord?
I do a 1 cord min for delivery, have plenty of 1 or 2 cord orders, also some that end up being 8-10 cords.
The one with dumping the trailer, do people want all that junk that was mixed in? We separate all that out.
Just curious.
lknchoppers
ArboristSite Operative
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 711
I deliver 1/4 cords sometimes. That was about a quarter cord. When I hand load there is much less debris, people don't like to get a bunch of bark and junk with their firewood. I try to minimize it when I can. A lot of times I hand unload or stack as well.
Similar threads
