Re: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system

["Richard Averett" <averettr@norwich.net>]

Ralph,

As a rural land owner I can assure you that without cutting down one single
tree, there is an abundance of fuel wood available for wood stoves & etc.

Storms take their toll on the forest and fallen trees and large branches
provide ample "free" fuel for the taking.  Of course, using a combustion
engine to harvest this wood negates the "free" part of it, but there is no
cutting or "logging" being done to procure it.

Also, as previously mentioned, a good forest management program will require
some old growth, and even new growth, be thinned out and removed in order to
maximize the ecosystem's potential and for fire prevention.  Some downed
trees or tops may be good as rotting wood replenishes forest soils, but too
much of a good thing can become a problem.

Because trees are "renewable", and oil and gas are (presumably) not, it
makes sense to use wood resources if available and not environmentally or
ecologically detrimental.

Richard Averett


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>
To: "Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1" <pjtawney@bpa.gov>
Cc: <greenbuilding@crest.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system


> Patricia:
>
> My concern about wood burning stoves and fireplaces is based on a concern
> about cutting down trees and burning them this depleting a living part of
> the ecosystem and creating pollution verses using renewables (solar, wind,
> etc.) instead.  There is now doubt in my mind that if enough people burned
> wood to heat their houses and/or to cook their food, we would soon be
> without forests and would have a great deal more air pollution.  When that
> pollution reaches a certain point it cannot be thought of as good or
> beneficial pollution. There have been plenty of examples throughout
history
> (and there are currently many third world examples) of the overuse of wood
> as fuel and the pollution it has caused.  To revise what you said about
> automobiles and about burning wood after a look back at history; our
cities
> were polluted because we because we burned wood and human health was
> negatively affected. And addition vast woodlands were denuded causing
major
> environmental damage. We have already been there and that kind of use will
> not lead to the society many of us would like. Ah, the good old days.....
>
> However, LIMITED, small-scale individual use, will probably not lead to
> appreciable degradation if the woodlands are managed properly and
quantities
> burned are kept small.  So, it is possible such use can take place in a
> sustainable way.  By sustainable I mean it can take place in a way that
does
> not denude woodlands and that does not add so much pollution that the
> atmosphere cannot absorb it. I accept that and appreciate that is what
Sacie
> and some others on this list have mentioned they are doing. We do not have
a
> problem with this now but what if hundreds of thousands turned to wood to
> meet their heating needs?  We have been there with wood and with coal and
it
> was not pretty.  But again, if carefully managed and used as a backup
source
> for buildings that have very low heating needs there is no reason to think
> this will be a problem.
>
> I agree with the concern about what photovoltaics and wind generators,
etc.
> are made from, just as there is concern about what all of our building
> components are made from.   In particular, the production of silicon cells
> used in photovoltaics utilizes some processes that create hazardous
> byproducts.  And the production itself is fairly energy intensive as it
> relies on what is likely to become old fashioned manufacturing processes
of
> a heat, beat and treat age. I say old fashioned because at some point
these
> methods will become obsolete out of necessity, just as burning wood for
heat
> will.  In my thinking they are obsolete now.  We just have not perfected
all
> the other ways yet although those on this list and many others are getting
> better at it. I accept that many will keep using wood as a supplemental
heat
> source for now even though many know it is not ideal.
>
> For an interesting look at how and what, eliminating "heat, beat and
treat"
> methods is about you might enjoy checking out the book "Biomimicry" by
> Janine Benyus.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralph
>
> From: Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1 [mailto:pjtawney@bpa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: 'Ralph Bicknese'; Sacie H Lambertson
> Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
> Subject: RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system
>
> Just a question - I appreciate that the Sun is renewable - but I don't
> believe the plastic or other component parts in a Photovoltaics system are
> either renewable or recycled while trees, when properly managed, grow
back,
> right?  The smoke that comes from burning actually is a natural component
> part of an eco-system, containing much of the same qualities as wood
> produces when it rots what will become of old Photovoltaic components?
Our
> citites are polluted because we drive cars in them, not because of wood
> burns and the dangerous health impact of the two pollutants are
> significantly different isn't it?  I have a bias I admit.  But as I
> understand it while wood produces more particulates (which eventually
return
> to earth and become part of the planet) the fumes from cattle and cars
> contain chemicals that are poisonous and will remain so.  I also have 40
> acres of trees, and live in an area with a population of 5,000 (about half
> are horses).  But still - If you want to clean up the planet focus on
cars,
> exploding populations and commercial cattle production - because both are
> causing sick air and aren't a natural part of the eco-system. Trees have
> always burned and in fact actually burn less now then they use to.  We may
> actually be hurting the planet when we don't let forests fire burn.  I
think
> things like Photovoltaics come into the sustainability question only for
> those electrical uses that we can't live without - like brain scans and
hot
> water.  Using Photovoltaics for this to off set use of goal or other big
> polluters makes sense but comparing it to wood heat - doesn't wash.  Just
a
> thought.
>
> P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
> Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
> Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________