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

["Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1" <pjtawney@bpa.gov>]

In Oregon, we have a term called "trash trees".  This refers to trees with
no commercial value.  As a result we don't reforest our forest with these
trees.  Unfortunately these trees, such as red alder, as essential for a
healthy forest.  At home we call them standing dirt.  The trees don't live
very long, rarely more than 60 years, many fall down in 40.  But during
those 40-60 years they supply thousands of rotting leaves to the eco-system
and to resupply the hard red clay dirt with nutrients that the "commercially
valuable" trees need to survive.  Once the tree has lived its life, it falls
and rots leaving even more matter for making good dirt.  Its all sort of a
great compost pile for fir trees to grow in.  The red alder is also one of
our few plentiful hard words and makes the best fire wood.  We are very
careful on our place to not take all the 
"dirt" for our stoves.  Unfortunately we don't know what the miracle of
creation balance actually is.  How many of these alders do firs need to
create the kind of dirt that makes them healthy?  How much taking can I do
before I hurt my forest.  I do take a few, and then thin the firs for wood
(just as the tops begin to fail).  In fact we are guessing on a great deal
of what it takes to make a sustainable planet and still use what we were
intended to use as part of creation.  I figure as long as I burn less than I
would have burned had I been living in a cave - I'm good.  Then focus on the
real problem - over population and the industry that comes with it.  I'm
very interested in how we might build homes and improve structures to reduce
the use of any fuel (wood, hydro, coal).  I found the piece on Swedish homes
especially interesting since thermal storage in the stone work makes so much
sense.  I've seen home here in Colton like that - with a large central fire
place heating the whole house - Did someone mention that they run the hot
water through these systems.  The old homes I've seen run their central
stove with a side box for hot water, also heated by the central stove.  Very
practical even when the power isn't out.  

-----Original Message-----
From: JohnSalmen [mailto:terrain@shaw.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 8:32 PM
To: Ralph Bicknese
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system


moderation is a key point, something you said earlier about depleting a
living part of an ecosystem is perhaps the most key element. To date it does
not seem that there is great understanding as to what a forest is and what
are its boundaries and what is needed for it to remain (note I did not say
sustain as that seems a narrow boundary). Very little is understood of the
relationship of dead tree material in a forest and soil (etc.) maintenance.
Experiences with forests in europe have shown that the removal of deadfall
or branches over time has resulted in a dead forest. Chris Maser has written
some good books on the subject.

This is not an argument for not burning wood but a further wakeup call that
survival is a complex set of relationships - the key to which is simply an
urge to sustain. In my life to date there still remains more questions than
answers, and the few answers I considered practical I've grown skeptical of,
so at this point its seems that though we deal with a lot of 'information'
very little is useful to build upon as a knowledge base or to promote as a
gospel.

John Salmen
TERRAIN E.D.S.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Bicknese [mailto:ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com]
Sent: January 24, 2002 1:34 PM
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: RE: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system


Richard:

<As a rural land owner>
Me too, and in the woods.

< without cutting down one single
tree>
It depends on how many people burn wood and how much they burn.

< and fallen trees and large branches provide ample "free" fuel for the
taking>
State parks will not let me pick up fallen wood and burn it.  I think their
environmental reasons are sound.  When I lived at a campground, we
"discouraged" the use of fallen wood (even though people used it frequently,
and cut down trees on occasion too).

Wood used for construction comes from a renewable resource too.  But there
sure is a lot of hooting and hollering about what we are doing and causing
to be done there based on our demand and industry's current (but thankfully
changing) methods of response.

But, enough swordplay here.  I understand and appreciate your point.  My
point is that moderation (maybe extreme moderation) is the key, as is the
need to transition from a burning society.

Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Averett [mailto:averettr@norwich.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 2:52 PM
To: Ralph Bicknese; Tawney, Patricia - PNG-1
Cc: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: Re: [GBlist] burning wood, was RFH and back-up system

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
______________________________________________________________________




______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________