Any lateral thinkers here? What to do with 1000's of cords of 'waste' wood?

[StihlKiwi]

We know you are holding out on us. Don't think I don't know about that mobile possum farming venture you have been working on for months now. Haul whole trees to the landing, prune 'em down to 3" stems and the slash/needles get fed to the possums. If only ground pine could replace palm kernal. We could make a killing selling to farmers, keep the activists quiet and save a zillion orangutans.

Close, but possums fell through. Goats and hares look promising but as you said, its top secret stuff.

Imagineero's on the money as far as Radiata quality goes. Its soft, needs CCA treating for most uses and doesnt even taste good. It's biggest attraction is the fact that 27-30 years of growing time will yield 600-800 cubic metres per hectare, and investors love the (relatively) short time from costs to profits.

Oh and the orangutans didn't make it - they're now in the offal hole with most of the activists

 

[Whitespider]

Remind me again whats so ass-burning about that?

Well, let's see...
It requires oil and $$$'s to collect the raw biomass material...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to haul the material to a processing location...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to process the material...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to ship the biomass to the usage location...
It requires oil and $$$'s build the machines and equipment to do all that...
And most stupid of all, it requires oil and $$$'s to actually use the stuff!
By the time your done with the biomass you've burned more oil and spent more $$$'s than if you would've just used oil in place of the biomass...
Because of all that biomass is a looser unless the government subsidizes it with my tax dollars...
So the government dumps (wastes) billions (maybe trillions) of dollars subsidizing biomass when it could have just allowed the oil companies to pump a few of barrels of domestic oil and collected more tax dollars from the profit... rather than spend 10 times more than what they could've collected.

That's what's so ass-burning about that!

 

[imagineero]

Imagineero's on the money as far as Radiata quality goes. Its soft, needs CCA treating for most uses and doesnt even taste good. It's biggest attraction is the fact that 27-30 years of growing time will yield 600-800 cubic metres per hectare, and investors love the (relatively) short time from costs to profits.

I was amazed at how quick it grows, and the density of the plantations. They've got it down to a fine art for sure, but its very tough on the land. We were doing 3 prunes before 25 with harvest at 30-32. They're still pecker poles, but marketable. You can borrow against the plantation too, it's equity. It adds value to the property if you decide to sell before harvest. The biggest prpblem is that a lof of the plantations are owned by farmers, and they're pretty cash strapped. Often times they cant raise the cash to prune at the appropriate time which reduces the value of the lumber.

It's a little known fact that while a hectare will yield 600-800 cubic metres of pine, it will also yield 1000 cubic metres of gorse.

Shaun

 

[SPDRMNKY]

There's no market for bug and rot resistant cedar logs and boards? Cedar chips and shavings?

around here it's hedge posts or nuthin'...or folks will go buy the green ones cuz' they're "round". most of the trees are growing in the open, so lot's of big knots...not great posts or boards. I could create a niche for em', but I'm still in the first 5 years of creating another niche.

chips and shavings would make me some nice side cash, but not enough to but bread and milk on the table. same with aromatics.

-----

WS, this ain't about preferring biomass over oil...it's about seeing a resource going to waste, and looking for a way to utilize it. I'd like to wear ruby encrusted pants someday...if I could just sideways, lateral think my way into the next big thing. it worked for that guy who LOL'd, BRB'd, and tweeted his way into a business that has a bluebird as a logo.

 

[Philbert]

Precisely the left-field, hackneyed, lateral, out there type of brain surge I was hoping for, thanks

(rep is always appreciated in lieu of payment!)

Philbert

 

[StihlKiwi]

Well, let's see...
It requires oil and $$$'s to collect the raw biomass material...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to haul the material to a processing location...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to process the material...
Then it requires oil and $$$'s to ship the biomass to the usage location...
It requires oil and $$$'s build the machines and equipment to do all that...
And most stupid of all, it requires oil and $$$'s to actually use the stuff!
By the time your done with the biomass you've burned more oil and spent more $$$'s than if you would've just used oil in place of the biomass...
Because of all that biomass is a looser unless the government subsidizes it with my tax dollars...
So the government dumps (wastes) billions (maybe trillions) of dollars subsidizing biomass when it could have just allowed the oil companies to pump a few of barrels of domestic oil and collected more tax dollars from the profit... rather than spend 10 times more than what they could've collected.

That's what's so ass-burning about that!

If you think about it, most products require $$$ and oil to produce, even oil

 

[StihlKiwi]

I was amazed at how quick it grows, and the density of the plantations. They've got it down to a fine art for sure, but its very tough on the land. We were doing 3 prunes before 25 with harvest at 30-32. They're still pecker poles, but marketable. You can borrow against the plantation too, it's equity. It adds value to the property if you decide to sell before harvest. The biggest prpblem is that a lof of the plantations are owned by farmers, and they're pretty cash strapped. Often times they cant raise the cash to prune at the appropriate time which reduces the value of the lumber.

It's a little known fact that while a hectare will yield 600-800 cubic metres of pine, it will also yield 1000 cubic metres of gorse.

Shaun

You're forgetting the 250m[SUP]3[/SUP] of blackberry growing through the gorse.

 

[Whitespider]

If you think about it, most products require $$$ and oil to produce, even oil

That’s absolutely true. But we’re not (or I wasn’t) talking about just any product… biomass is touted as an energy source. What kind of sense does it make to produce an energy source if the energy returned from it is less than the energy used to produce it? How can it be an energy supplement if requires more energy and more $$$’s to produce than the energy it replaces? If it requires (for example) two barrels of oil to produce 10 ton of biomass, and that 10 ton of biomass returns energy equivalent to that of one barrel of oil… how can that possibly reduce our oil consumption? Why are we willing to waste a barrel oil (and the associated $$$’s) just so 10 tons of wood chips don’t go to waste?

Why is it that people throw aside all common sense when it comes to “green” and/or “alternative” energy? Why is it that people are willing to pay more for less when it comes to energy, but shop for the best possible deal when it comes to anything else? Part of the problem is government subsidies and kick-backs… because people don’t think about what it’s actually costing; they only see what comes out of their immediate pocket. Another part of the problem is the vast majority of people let someone else do their thinking for them, they actually believe that government knows what it’s doing, and they’ve been brain-washed into believing this crap is “saving” the planet… which is probably the biggest load of hog-wash ever fed to us. If fossil fuel is destroying the planet, how is it possible to save the planet by using more of it to achieve an overall less net gain in energy?

If you point this out to the supporters and producers of “green” and “alternative” energy they’ll answer with something like, ”Well someday, we are getting there, there’s been advancements…” If I told you there was absolutely no reason for you to save for your future or have a retirement plan because “someday” we’re all gonna’ be millionaires… you gonna’ buy into that one also? No…? Then why do you buy into that other crap? “Someday” ain’t good enough for me… doesn’t matter if it’s energy or green beans. Really, if you want your eyes opened to the truth, all you have to do is follow the money… just look and see who’s getting rich from this crap, and watch them fly around the world in their oil-guzzling private jets. There are two types of supporters of “green” and “alternative” energy… those with their eyes wide open and getting stinkin’ rich… and those brain-washed, tree-huggin’, bleeding-hearts blindly paying for it. I’m not a supporter… but if you are, you’d better be getting rich from it or you’re a damn fool!

 

[imagineero]

The simple answer is that it doesnt require two barrels of oil to make the equivalent amount of biomass to one barrel of oil.

Old school guys get so upset about new term. Biomass is politically correct speak for firewood. The day you can get more energy out of burning the oil (pickup truck, chainsaw, 2 stroke oil and bar oil combined) than you can get out of burning the wood you cut with that oil give me a call. We'll be able to go into business together selling a 20L fuel of gasoline to people that will give them enough heat to last through the winter.

Now that sort of silly talk is out of the way, lets be real. Yeah big equipment takes big oil. And I can say that coming off mine sites where fuel consumption is measured in the thousands of gallons, used by the largest dump trucks in the world. But the amount of work you can get done with a tank full of fuel in a saw is huge. The amount of mass you can carry in an 18 wheeler with a tank of fuel is mind boggling (even at todays pump prices). The truth is that you get way more energy out of the products you can produce using $ and oil than you can by simply using the oil. Otherwise every primary industry in the world would shut down overnight and be replaced with.... oil. Biomass is simply a word to describe things which have energy in them. Oil itself is biomass, its just an older kind.

In the modern sense biomass is often used to describe waste products from forestry and agricultural processes. These products are already being used to advantage. Like in australia, all the slash leftover from sugar cane is burnt in the processing plants to offset the electricity needed to make the sugar products. If you go back to old days of forestry, forest biproducts were often used to fire the kilns to dry the timber. This ain't new technology here. It's old fashioned sense with new politically correct terms. For the most part if you were to translate it directly it would come out as "you modern folk need to stop wasting everything and start using everything like we always have for thousands of years"

Shaun

 

[Whitespider]

Oh... I see... you're not getting rich... you're one of the blind ones.
Your argument simply twists the meanings and usages of words... sounds just like "someday" to me.

Whatever you want to believe... or believe whatever your told... your choice, not mine.

Oh... and read it again, the two barrels was followed by "(for example)"... never intended as factual amount any more than the 10 ton, just round easy numbers to make a point. The actual, factual numbers of this fiasco are kept hidden (for good reason), but the educated estimates are mind boggling.

 

[imagineero]

Did you know that stihl chainsaw technology was brought to earth by aliens as part of their long term plan to deforest the planet to make it easier to take over? And 911 was an inside job. Spread the word.

 

[Steve NW WI]

Oh... I see... you're not getting rich... you're one of the blind ones.
Your argument simply twists the meanings and usages of words... sounds just like "someday" to me.

Whatever you want to believe... or believe whatever your told... your choice, not mine.

Oh... and read it again, the two barrels was followed by "(for example)"... never intended as factual amount any more than the 10 ton, just round easy numbers to make a point. The actual, factual numbers of this fiasco are kept hidden (for good reason), but the educated estimates are mind boggling.

Spidey, if you didn't read Imagineero's post and just blindly responded, go back and read it. Otherwise, I'll be down your way in a couple weeks. I'll haul that biomass stove-modded-to-a-furnace off for ya, since it's much cheaper just to heat with oil.

Yours truly,

"Hippie"

PS - if ya need help moving don't call me when the Iowegian Corn Mafia shows up at your house

 

[Whitespider]

Oh, I read imagineero’s post alright. Yeah, technically speaking fire wood is “biomass”… but that ain’t what those “green”-blooded alternative energy nuts are talking about when they use the term “biomass”. Direct combustion ain’t the politically correct way of biomass utilization… rather it is (inefficiently) converted into so-called “environmentally friendly” products, such as industrial fibers, chemicals and biofuels (like ethanol). If those “green”-blooded alternative energy nuts had their way, all forms of direct combustion would be outlawed overnight… including the burning of firewood.

 

[half]

good firewood

We had a site not far from home, that had been felled and I was keen to get in there and recover a lot of good firewood that was left to rot. I spoke to the contractors concerned and they said sorry, but no. It seemed that between OSH , Dept of labour and rules and regulations they could not guarantee that people going on the site, complied with the rules, i.e. had a chainsaw licence, wore the right gear, and took the right care of themselves. It seemed that the contractor was liable if someone got hurt.

And just last month the same thing happened at a govt facility near home, where the easterly gale had knocked down about 8-10 Mac. One of the guys working there is a mate and he has the right licences and gear so He could cut the wood,When he was not working. I could go on site with safety gear, boots, hard hat, glasses,muffs, overalls but because I did not have a licence I could not cut. I could load my trailer take it off site .I could not bring a splitter on site to split.
And they sent out a guy to check what gear we had before we started work. This chainsaw licence thing is starting to get to be a thing you need here. It is run by the dept of labour and it is a 1/2 day course , so it seems I will have to make time and get it.

Its funny really about 20 yrs ago a mate went to aussie to live and he told me the rules and regs over there were horrid. I now know what he he was talking about. We have gone Politically correct crazy, and some of the rules are stupid

 

[Philbert]

i.e. had a chainsaw licence, wore the right gear, and took the right care of themselves.

We don't have chainsaw licenses here, that I know of. But in the city where I live, you have to have a certified arborist on staff if you want to do any tree work.

This weekend I am going to USFS training (every 2 years) to get a 'Class B Limbing and Bucking' license which will allow me to use a chansaw on trail maintenance project in the National Forest. Don't need one for firewood, or for cutting on private lands. Always can learn something.

I am curious though, if the regulations you mention apply everywhere, or if they happen to be site/project specific for the cases you mention?

Philbert

 

[imagineero]

It's more of an occupational health and safety/insurance issue. Mostly these sorts of rules are around to reduce liability, not to increase skills. Everyone passes the courses, regardless of whether you are a safe operator or not. If you take the course and hurt yourself it's difficult to sue. Because you've been properly informed of the hazzards and correct way of operating the tools, if you then proceed to use a method which isn't covered then you are at fault. The course is basically a drawn out way of saying 'I accept the consequences of all my own actions'.

The whole liability/insurance this is a nightmare for small contractors. I give away wood for free and even deliver it for free a lot of the time. I hate to see it go through the chipper. I can't have people running gear on my sites partly because it looks unprofessional, but mostly because it's just too much of a risk for me to take. If somebody ever got hurt, I'd pretty much lose everything I own.

 

[half]

rules

It seems to only be where the tree fellers have been in, or wood on govt property, The cow cocky down the road who has a tree blow over is not to worried, He just wants it cleaned up as soon as, so in some cases, he can repair the fence. Mind once you do a few and the cockys get to know you,and you do a good job, they will ring and ask if you want the wood. Take it away for nothing, and you can split on site too, in 99% of cases.I have a couple of mates, one with a 36in bar saw, and we just hit it for a weekend, even if we cut good rings and load it and take it home like that if time is tight So really my wood shed is always chockablock with good dry wood. My woodburner loves it. the door will take an 18inx9in log. a good one will burn for hours

 

[StihlKiwi]

Oh, I read imagineero’s post alright. Yeah, technically speaking fire wood is “biomass”… but that ain’t what those “green”-blooded alternative energy nuts are talking about when they use the term “biomass”. Direct combustion ain’t the politically correct way of biomass utilization… rather it is (inefficiently) converted into so-called “environmentally friendly” products, such as industrial fibers, chemicals and biofuels (like ethanol). If those “green”-blooded alternative energy nuts had their way, all forms of direct combustion would be outlawed overnight… including the burning of firewood.

Judging from your replies to previous posts I'm not sure any of this will get through to you, but I'll have a go anyways.
These politically correct green-blooded alternative energy nuts you speak of probably exist, but you seem hell bent on lumping anyone who even uses the words biomass or alternative fuels in with them.

The inefficiency problem you keep going on about is primarily due to the subsidies give to farmers etc in the US to produce ethanol from crops. The production costs of this ethanol fuel is higher than the production cost of the equivalent volume of oil needed to provide the same amount of energy, no doubt about it. What you are forgetting is that the US is only one country, and in other countries (such as Brazil) ethanol can be produced from crops at a lower cost than the equivalent volume of oil.
If this ethanol can be sustainably produced at a lower cost than fossil fuels then why is it a bad thing?

Oh yeah, I'm no 'hippie' by the way, far from it. I just realise there is the potential out there to convert this underutilised resource (biomass) into energy

 

[Whitespider]

If this ethanol can be sustainably produced at a lower cost than fossil fuels then why is it a bad thing?

Once again StihlKiwi your argument ignores or twists certain facts. I’m not accusing you of intentionally doing it as I’m sure you’re just repeating what you’ve brainwashed with.

Brazil uses sugar cane to produce Ethanol, and I’ll admit that it is much cheaper and more efficient to use sugar cane than corn. But here are a couple facts you’re omitting…

1. Ethanol contains only 2/3’s the energy of gasoline by volume, it can’t be compared on a volume-to-volume basis because it requires 1.5 gallons of Ethanol to equal 1 gallon of gasoline.
2. Cheaper production costs are not why Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline in Brazil… it’s cheaper because the price of gasoline in Brazil is double the price it is here in the United States (and ethanol costs more in Brazil than it does in the US… even though it’s supposedly produced cheaper and more efficiently? Somehow the whole story doesn’t quite add up… kind’a like that “someday” story).
3. Even including the cost savings from using sugar cane, when you figure energy content discrepancy and the cost of refining oil using modern technology (like we have in the US)… Guess what? Oil still comes out on top as the cheaper, more efficient energy source!

The “supporters” of Ethanol love to prop up Brazil… but its all BS, just twisting, bending or omitting of key facts. Once you get all the facts, it’s a simple thing to see that Ethanol is not a cheaper-than-oil energy source anywhere on the planet!

 

[StihlKiwi]

Once again StihlKiwi your argument ignores or twists certain facts. I’m not accusing you of intentionally doing it as I’m sure you’re just repeating what you’ve brainwashed with.

Brazil uses sugar cane to produce Ethanol, and I’ll admit that it is much cheaper and more efficient to use sugar cane than corn. But here are a couple facts you’re omitting…

1. Ethanol contains only 2/3’s the energy of gasoline by volume, it can’t be compared on a volume-to-volume basis because it requires 1.5 gallons of Ethanol to equal 1 gallon of gasoline.
2. Cheaper production costs are not why Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline in Brazil… it’s cheaper because the price of gasoline in Brazil is double the price it is here in the United States (and ethanol costs more in Brazil than it does in the US… even though it’s supposedly produced cheaper and more efficiently? Somehow the whole story doesn’t quite add up… kind’a like that “someday” story).
3. Even including the cost savings from using sugar cane, when you figure energy content discrepancy and the cost of refining oil using modern technology (like we have in the US)… Guess what? Oil still comes out on top as the cheaper, more efficient energy source!

The “supporters” of Ethanol love to prop up Brazil… but its all BS, just twisting, bending or omitting of key facts. Once you get all the facts, it’s a simple thing to see that Ethanol is not a cheaper-than-oil energy source anywhere on the planet!

I thought I stated it clearly at the time but on maybe I didn't. When comparing sugar-cane ethanol to oil-based fuel (in this case gasoline) I meant it was cheaper to produce enough ethanol to provide the same energy output as a given amount of gasoline ie it is cheaper to produce the 1.5 litres of ethanol required to replace 1 litre of gasoline.

Just because I have made statements contrary to yours does not mean I have been brainwashed. As you say, I may have unintentionally misinterpreted something, however you need to remember that goes both ways. Clearly your definiton of brainwashing is different to mine