samaritan
ArboristSite Operative
It just breaks my heart whenever I hear the sound of logs bein put into a chipper, they coulda been firewood
It just breaks my heart
- Thread starter samaritan
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
It’s also painful to see wood go to firewood that could have been milled into boards, lumber, and slabs.
But worst of all is to see developers clear out a wooded space and just burn everything that could have been used.
But worst of all is to see developers clear out a wooded space and just burn everything that could have been used.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
Years ago we had the habit of burning everything that wasn't worth hauling home. Later chippers were introduced, for 'environmental' reasons, which I think is a load of BS, although the wood chips can be pretty useful. Nowadays we try to leave as much as possible, on piles, they are good for wildlife, and when they rot they 'feed' the woods.
I think a lot of burning is done to facilitate hunters (not often an important factor in my case), or to serve our (almost 'autistic', I'd say) desire to clean up things... Forests must have been a ghastly place before humans arrived, imagine all that chaos
.
Sarcasm aside, my opinion is probably influenced by that fact that not a lot of forest is left here, definitely no first growth, and parcels are usually small.
A bit more on topic: I totally agree with the fact that first choice should be milling, then firewood. I bought a mill, still haven't been able to use it though, most stuff that I can 'scrounge' is too small.
I think a lot of burning is done to facilitate hunters (not often an important factor in my case), or to serve our (almost 'autistic', I'd say) desire to clean up things... Forests must have been a ghastly place before humans arrived, imagine all that chaos
.Sarcasm aside, my opinion is probably influenced by that fact that not a lot of forest is left here, definitely no first growth, and parcels are usually small.
A bit more on topic: I totally agree with the fact that first choice should be milling, then firewood. I bought a mill, still haven't been able to use it though, most stuff that I can 'scrounge' is too small.
I hate when anything but brush gets chipped. There’s a lotta useable wood that gets wasted.
I would advise not going to the Paul Bunyan Show. They grind up some pretty nice big trees just for demonstrations.
Y... Forests must have been a ghastly place before humans arrived, imagine all that chaos
Sarcasm aside, my opinion is probably influenced by that fact that not a lot of forest is left here, definitely no first growth, and parcels are usually small.
So where are you at? The US currently has more trees than 100 years ago.
Wood chips are big business in the private sector, the tree companies pay to dump the tree debris then they run it through chippers and sell it by the dump truck load to power companies , lumber mills etc to burn in their boiler systems or sold to chip plants that dye them for landscaping mulch or pelletize them for smoking meats and fire pits. Our idiot local governments store the chips they make and struggle to give them away to citizens so it often leads to mass dumping of their chips in parks, playgrounds etc instead of selling it off to offset costs.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
Belgium. Efforts are being done but afaik forested areas keep declining, especially in the north part of the country where I live.
I'm cutting too, obviously, but almost exclusively storm damage, dead standing trees (like spruce, attacked by the beetle), exotic species, etc. etc.
I would love it if more area is turned into forest again, and an economy built around it; it surely must be possible.
It used to be worse though; in the 'Ardennes', in the south, French speaking part of the country (known from the Battle of the Bulge, etc.) forests were almost completely destroyed at some point, even before chainsaws were there. Charcoal production was the name of the game... But, even though a lot of wood gets still harvested, they were able to restore them.
Oh and wood chipping for 'biomass', as fuel for electricity plants, just seems ludicrous to me... I've seen great, large diameter firewood, oak etc., being put into the chipper for that. Actually, American forests are cut down and turned into chips or pellets, and then shipped here to be burned in quite inefficient, converted coal plants. Those plants get subsidized because it's considered 'green energy'... That's just ridiculous.
A few years ago a road expansion was underway and they were feeding full length trees into a giant chipper with an excavator, I feel your pain!
Gabriel1982
Addicted to ArboristSite
Wood pellets can be burned very efficiently in almost self feeding/running central heating units! As in ,you load 1 ton of wood pellets set the temperature,check to have POWER in all forms(big battery bank,self starting gas generator) for the next 12 hours and you can go on your merry way doing your job/bussines! 12-14 hours later when you come home ALL is warm and nice,hot water,etc... Just like in high efficiency gas central heating units but for half the cost! I don't see doing that with classic wood cutting,splitting! You need someone to reload the stove every 4-5 hours at best depending on temperature set and how cold is outside! And wood pellets can be made to be VERY dry(drier than wood logs) faster and can be burned VERY efficiently in smart high tech preheated primary AND secondary air. Basically burn a 50-100Kw central heating unit with NO SMOKE from almost cold start to full blast and for all its heating period(4-6 months depending on your area/zone).
And I use both "technologies": high efficiency gas central heating and classic ceramic tile wood stoves!
I didn't went the pellet wood "way" because of power availability and I am comfortable with normal logs/splitting and a stove that doesn't need power to give me 12 hours of heating time on one burn or 3-4 hours!
If I had a big house with big family wood pellets central heating(high efficiency/no smoke) with puffer and water heater storage along with all it needs would be my choice!
That is not the case!
Dry wood has about 4Kwh in one kg. That's very good if put in small pellets! Better than mining coal,despite coal having 8kwh per kg of power...
And wood pellets burn cleaner!
There is a huge mulch yard just down the street from me. They have piles of chips that look like mountains on our flat plane. All the landscape and tree co. bring in a hundred loads a day to be chipped and mulched. It must be big business cause it's been there about 10 years.
At least they are being used for something.
At least they are being used for something.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
Wood pellets for heating can be very useful indeed, I used to live in a house with a pellet stove. Nice heat, thermostat, auto start, etc. I still like classic stoves more though.Wood pellets can be burned very efficiently in almost self feeding/running central heating units! As in ,you load 1 ton of wood pellets set the temperature,check to have POWER in all forms(big battery bank,self starting gas generator) for the next 12 hours and you can go on your merry way doing your job/bussines! 12-14 hours later when you come home ALL is warm and nice,hot water,etc... Just like in high efficiency gas central heating units but for half the cost! I don't see doing that with classic wood cutting,splitting! You need someone to reload the stove every 4-5 hours at best depending on temperature set and how cold is outside! And wood pellets can be made to be VERY dry(drier than wood logs) faster and can be burned VERY efficiently in smart high tech preheated primary AND secondary air. Basically burn a 50-100Kw central heating unit with NO SMOKE from almost cold start to full blast and for all its heating period(4-6 months depending on your area/zone).
And I use both "technologies": high efficiency gas central heating and classic ceramic tile wood stoves!
I didn't went the pellet wood "way" because of power availability and I am comfortable with normal logs/splitting and a stove that doesn't need power to give me 12 hours of heating time on one burn or 3-4 hours!
If I had a big house with big family wood pellets central heating(high efficiency/no smoke) with puffer and water heater storage along with all it needs would be my choice!
That is not the case!
Dry wood has about 4Kwh in one kg. That's very good if put in small pellets! Better than mining coal,despite coal having 8kwh per kg of power...
And wood pellets burn cleaner!
To determine how 'clean' a certain energy source is, you shouldn't just look at the eventual usage of it e.g. at people's homes, but also take into account the energy used / CO2 emitted / ... during harvesting, processing and transport. If American forests get shredded up, pressed into pellets, and then shipped overseas, I don't think you can call it green anymore.
That, and their usage in massive, inefficient power plants, is just stupid in my opinion. 'Biomass' can be a good choice sometimes but in this case it's just greenwashing, and a way to keep those old plants going.
Gabriel1982
Addicted to ArboristSite
The residue from cutting wood is useless unless you make dry pellets out of it. As for "green energy" or not so green ,it doesn't matter lately. At least im Europe/Romania. In some moments of a 24hour day ,Romania needs between 100-200MW up to 2500MW of power and has to import from elsewhere! Biomass is only 70-80 MW out of all energy used here... And at certain moments when wind blows a lot there's even 2500MW generated by wind alone...
Moldova is even worse when it comes to energy needed...
So if you ask me, all wood residue is much needed to generate power or be used as pellets in a home for humans to live comfortably,not in cold and misery...
Green or not. I don't believe or take too seriously these green energy BS!
The world is fine, people are f...
https://www.sistemulenergetic.ro/
In California humans made forests more thick and cluttered, not less. When settlers first arrived in California the Sierra Nevada mountain range was smoky all the time, from lightning caused fires. Authorities have been putting out fires for over a century now. The fires were what thinned and cleaned the forest out. The mountains due east of where I live were surveyed in 1911 at 30 trees per acre, now there are over 300 trees per acre. One of the problems caused by overcrowding is there’s not enough water to go around, and the trees aren’t as healthy because of it. They also can’t protect themselves. Another problem is there’s an incredible amount of fuel, making the fires catastrophic when they do happen. From my perspective it’s Smoky Bear and Sierra Club policies that created this problem. Smoky Bear with the put out every fire policy, and Sierra Club with the “Don’t touch the Forest” policy. For decades they filed lawsuits every time the local National Forests scheduled thinning operations, tying things up for a long time.
freeasaburt
ArboristSite Operative
Interesting...
Well forest fires can be benificial - for big healthy forests, that is, not for good timber or the safety of people living nearby, obviously. On the newly created edge species get a chance that probably otherwise wouldn't, etc. In some places they are so common that some trees need fires to be able to spread their seed (the heat opens the pods, or whatever you call them).
Seems to me that thinning, especially removing (and possibly burning) small undergrowth is often done for visibility and accessability, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing, per se.
But it all depends. The original forest here (nothing is left, everything has been cut at least once, though some is still forest now, just different), which reached from +/- central Belgium to almost the southern border, was a beech forest, with the occasional oak. Beech is immensively dominant, and the final stage of natural forest evolution in these parts. Beech kills all undergrowth, with their massive canopies, the only new thing that can grow is beech itself, fed by the root system of the big ones. You get these pretty impressive 'beech cathedrals', as they are called, completely open.
By the way, the forest I'm talking about was dubbed 'Silva Carbonaria' by Julius Caesar, which means 'Charcoal Forest'. When the Romans arrived here, there was already quite some logging and charcoal production apparently, by the Germanic tribes, for metalworks I would guess.
Sorry for going off topic .
Well forest fires can be benificial - for big healthy forests, that is, not for good timber or the safety of people living nearby, obviously. On the newly created edge species get a chance that probably otherwise wouldn't, etc. In some places they are so common that some trees need fires to be able to spread their seed (the heat opens the pods, or whatever you call them).
Seems to me that thinning, especially removing (and possibly burning) small undergrowth is often done for visibility and accessability, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing, per se.
But it all depends. The original forest here (nothing is left, everything has been cut at least once, though some is still forest now, just different), which reached from +/- central Belgium to almost the southern border, was a beech forest, with the occasional oak. Beech is immensively dominant, and the final stage of natural forest evolution in these parts. Beech kills all undergrowth, with their massive canopies, the only new thing that can grow is beech itself, fed by the root system of the big ones. You get these pretty impressive 'beech cathedrals', as they are called, completely open.
By the way, the forest I'm talking about was dubbed 'Silva Carbonaria' by Julius Caesar, which means 'Charcoal Forest'. When the Romans arrived here, there was already quite some logging and charcoal production apparently, by the Germanic tribes, for metalworks I would guess.
Sorry for going off topic
.
A few years ago the bark beetles killed a large percentage of trees. Along the highway at about 7,500 feet elevation they had a whole tree chipper, they would push 3 foot diameter trees into it. Then a special truck would throw the chips back out where they came from. Before they had the chipper up there, they hauled the trees down to 1,200 feet elevation and chipped there. Then hauled the chips back up and spread in the forest. I‘m thinking the people who hate to see trees wasted must be in an area where trees are scarce. Although we also don’t want to see trees wasted, we have such an over abundance that they just need to go away by any means. The biggest concern is fire danger. Look at the background in the picture of my mountain property, I had to carve out a place just to make a burn pile. Personally I don’t use chippers, they’re expensive and they leave the flammable material in the Forest. Just my opinion, some say the chips are great for the environment.
Forest fires are beneficial once in a great while only in an unmanaged forest. With proper management (including thinning and harvesting) then a forest is healthy and safe, and fire threat/damage is less severe, plus there is more useable product harvested. A win-win situation.
stillusingstihl
ArboristSite Lurker
I agree. We've just had a big storm in Blackheath, NSW, and a council arborist has arranged for two big pinoaks in my street to be reserved for me as firewood rather than going into the chipper. I'm very grateful for this. I have to cut and remove the wood from the verge but that shouldn't be a problem.
Score
Bill G
ArboristSite King
We did that here years ago.......money well spent
