Fuel of the future?

[muddstopper]

Randy, I will agree with in part. The part where there are tons of woody material being left behind not being utilized to its full potential. I once consulted with a fellow that was looking for a source of organic material to use in his fertilizer industry. He couldnt see the forest for the trees. He was searching everywhere for enough material to compost and mix with chicken manure and then convert to pellets for sale as an organic fertilizer. I told him he should be able to easily find all the organic material he needed. Told him to just look out the window of his office and tell me what he could see. Of course he replied just old fence lines all grown up with brush, Old overgrown pastures that werent being maintained anymore. Duh! What he was seeking was right under his nose. Anytime i catch the power company around here clearing and chipping brush under their right of ways, I get as may truck loads of chips as I possibly can. Last time thru they dumped over 100 truck loads.

Now the part I dont agree with you on. The part where there is more than enough woody material being wasted to supply energy production. First, in order for any material to even be considered, it must be more economical than other sources. Ask yourself then why do loggers leave the "waste wood behind. It simply isnt economical to harvest. Would demand create a situation where this waste wood could become economical enough to harvest? Certainly, but it would also make the otherwise already marketable material even more valuable. What you would end up with is now all your timber and pulp would be worth more as a energy fuel source than it would be for lumber and paper. Now being most everyone thinks the same when it comes to making a profit, it only makes sense that a lot of your timber would be converted to fuel and its easier to harvest than the brush wood, so you would still endup with the waste wood being left in the forest.

I also dont agree with any wood being left in the woods being considered waste. The parts of the trees usually left behind any logging operation are the smaller limbs, twiggs and brush. These small parts of the tree contain over 70% of all the total nutrient makeup of that tree. Its called Ramail wood. You can look it up instead of asking others to do it for you. This ramail wood is considered the best material for replacing lost topsoil. It is an excellent nutrient resource for the next growth of replacement timber. It is also a excellent food source for soil microbes that use the soil to store carbon, much of which is pulled from the air. Remove this valuable nutrient resource and your next stand of trees isnt going to be as good, or grow as fast, as the stand that was just harvested.

I feel anybody that thinks using our timber as a replacement fuel to meet our energy needs is a good ideal is just fooling themself. Can waste wood and material be utilized better than it is now, most certainly. But if you create a market where it is profitable to cut timber, it will be cut. And if you can use it faster than it can be replaced, and it will burnup faster than it can grow, pretty soon there wont be any forest left. The precedent for using valuable crops for fuel has already been set. We are already using our food supply to fuel our cars resulting in higher food prices. Why would using our forest as a fuel source be any different.

[Paul_H]

We are already using our food supply to fuel our cars resulting in higher food prices. Why would using our forest as a fuel source be any different.

Do you really eat feed corn? Try sweet corn,it's waaay better and it may give you a sunnier disposition.Feed corn might be better if it's distilled into ethanol for fuel or medicine and then the remaining is fed to cattle then you eat the cattle.
The poop from the cattle can be used to fertilize the next crop.

Try the sweet corn next time and tell me if it isn't better than the feed corn. :laugh:

[muddstopper]

We are already using our food supply to fuel our cars resulting in higher food prices. Why would using our forest as a fuel source be any different.

Do you really eat feed corn? Try sweet corn,it's waaay better and it may give you a sunnier disposition.Feed corn might be better if it's distilled into ethanol for fuel or medicine and then the remaining is fed to cattle then you eat the cattle.
The poop from the cattle can be used to fertilize the next crop.

Try the sweet corn next time and tell me if it isn't better than the feed corn. :laugh:

Sure do eat feed corn. Everytime I get a chicken at the grocery store, or by a steak at the restraunt. Even the BBQ served at the forestry forum cookout contained feed corn. I have been know to use corn oil to cook with and dont forget your high frucose soda waters, they contain corn also.

I know we aint going to agree on this. And it is evident that you dont even want to consider the other side of the coin. I remember the last time I got into a similar discussion on this similar subject on this forum. If you dont have anything to contribute to the discussion but your feeble attempt at humor, try just reading instead. God gave man 2 ears and one mouth for a reason. he intended for man to listen twice as hard as he spoke.

[mesquite buckeye]

Good advice for everyone. Don't forget to check the mirror.

[Paul_H]

Mudd,
I was attempting a bit of humour because you seemed to have lightened up since your last display of arrogance awhile back but you remain the same.
I say this with deadly seriousness and truth be told I am serious 95% of the time but humour helps me take my eye off of the ball long enough to hit it,
there are three sides to a coin not two and I look at them all.
I saw your display awhile back and men far more educated on the subject than you backed away from the conversation because your ears are stopped and your mouth open.I'll bet that happens a lot,eh?

[Paul_H]

mesquite buckeye,

We had to deal with logging waste constantly and it was a thorn in our sides.We used to be able to leave the waste in the slash but the 1990's brought close utilization and we had to yard everything down to a 4" top to the landing.From there we had to pile the waste,limbs,branches and small logs into behive piles.
We argued for leaving debris for the next crop but were told that enough remained.That target has changed again.
We would have liked to leave smaller waste logs for firewood cutters but had to have the debris piled to be burned in the fall.Many times the roads were deactivated and we would have to hike in to light the piles once snow was on the ground.
We considered purchasing a tub grinder when pressure came to do so in the late 90's but with a loss of revenue from forestry in the government coffers there were less ways to implement these new rules and burning remains.

I have worked with wood gasification for a few years and have read much about it's pros and cons as well.Like anything,the technology can be abused by those in power or looking for a fast buck.I believe there is a place for it and would like to see more of it especially in areas where a healthy working forest industry exists.
Will the system work everywhere? No,we have to be flexible and sensible.
My dad heats with natural gas,his older brother with 100% wood and their younger brother with wood and electric.I use wood only and try to use what I do with care and am glad for the choice.
.

[muddstopper]

Paul, just what did your attempt of humor bring to the discussion, except it allowed me to point out that just because one cant see the actual corn that is found in many common food sources, it doesnt mean it isnt there. And more knowlegeable than me on this subject, I am sure there are plenty out there that fit that bill. But what have you been able to contribute to this discussion. I only expressed my opinon as did the other posters to this thread. Nothing more, nothing less, yet you chose to poke fun at me as your only contribution. We dont have to agree, but one should at least be tolerant. Now this thread has been totally hijacked and the original intention lost, for this I apologise to the othert members here. If any one wishes to continue this thread, you can do so without my participitation from this point on

[Paul_H]

Take your ball and go home,eh?
If you look beyond your own posts you will see I did contribute before my weak attemp at humour that has set you off.I posted a link to a working wood gasification in my town,one that I have visited and had many conversations about it with the owner who is also a friend of mine.We are pleased with this system in our community.
If you read further back over the years you will see that wood waste and utilization is very close to my heart.
You sidetracked the thread with the mini rant on ethanol and I just tried to tease you a bit that you might lighten up a bit.No thread is ever ruined,it is a continual conversation and shifting to the weather or food for a few posts won't hurt anything.The man that started this thread is articulate and I believe would not be bothered much by my foolishness.

I see I hit a nerve and will try to be more carefull around you in the future.

[mesquite buckeye]

Just a little more.

Where are the richest soils?
      1 mollisols, forming under grasslands, primarily from the decomposition of roots. Frequent fires and rapid decomp near the surface remove most aboveground material.
      2 organic soils, forming under swamps. Not particularly useful for humans unless drained, then the organic content slowly disappears as the oxygen content of the soil rises.
     3 forest soils, forming by root decomposition and recyling of leaves, branches, and other organic forest debris.

Now, regarding forest soils, the point of contention, here. Nutrient recycling is not limited to forest debris left at harvest. This is happening constantly as the trees and other plants continually grow, shed leaves, twigs and dead trees, etc.  If complete nutrient cycling is a desire, it is a simple matter to return the ash from burning organics to the forest. Only a tiny portion of the carbohydrates deposited by death gets incorporated long term to the soil anyway. The main thing in maintaining soil fertility is to not deplete the soil nutrients, of which carbon is not picked up from the soil by plants, but from the atmospheric CO₂. Additionally, there are nutrients added to the soil constantly from weathering  of minerals, as well as constant losses to erosion and leaching. To try to simplify this complex system into one that lives or dies because we do or do not remove the tops of trees for fuel is unrealistic.

By the way, putting a fancy name to something is often used as a method to intimidate outsiders and keep language controlled by a select inside group, and frequently adds nothing to actual knowledge.

Just some thoughts.

[Paul_H]

Great post.

Nutrient recycling is not limited to forest debris left at harvest.This is happening constantly as the trees and other plants continually grow, shed leaves, twigs and dead trees, etc.

I've seen that in many blocks we've logged preharvest,where the forest floor is spongy from needles quite deep turning to something almost like peat.On other blocks the soil is shallow from repeated burnings over the centuries and the mineral soil is almost to the surface yet a good crop of Douglas Fir thrive.

It's been 10 years now since we sold but there used to be stumpage exemptions on X and Y grade logs which were pulp and we would pay low stumpage on these grade,maybe 25 cents a metre and on all other grades we would pay full price,maybe $40 per cubic metre.That gave us incentive to bring in the low grade logs to the drysort and I could see that as a preventitive measure against using higher value logs for chipping.
Highlead logging costs($65-90 full phase from planning,engineering through silviculture) are more than most type of logging with a few exeptions like Heli logging but it made sense to yard these grades when the price per meter for pulp was at around $45-45 per metre and the stumpage was at two bits.When pulp dropped to $28 per metre we had to leave it and pay the penalty or cut it into firewood.

The gasification system I linked to earlier today gets the wood supply from a local mill literally 10 minutes away.

http://www.finkmachine.com/pdf/enderby-vms-sept-2012.pdf

[Paul_H]

On other blocks the soil is shallow from repeated burnings over the centuries and the mineral soil is almost to the surface yet a good crop of Douglas Fir thrive.

I got thinking about it after reading another current thread on genetics and forests/soils and these sites with shallow soil from past fires almost all are on a SW exposed face but have a lot of decidous such as birch,alder,cottonwood and hazelnut growing throughout and yet these 150 year old stands are straight and sound with Cedar along the wetter areas.

[Jeff]

muddstopper  is now history. I put up with people that want to come after me to a point, but I will NEVER allow someone to go after one of the Forestry Forum admins. I am banning him and the only way he will ever be able to return is a major apology to Paul.

[Paul_H]

I didn't mean to set him off.I've been around hard work and teasing and bantering all my life but it's different when you can't look a fellow in the eye when you do it.I meant no harm.

[Richard PM]

You are so right, not everyone will ever burn wood as a primary source of heat again and lets face it the biggest reason is that they are to lazy. second reason is that the federal EPA has made it so expensive to get a certified unit on the market that most folks cannot afford the unit. I have seen this firsthand with our new wood chip boiler.  even after testing last year at the EPA certified lab ( to our knowledge the only outdoor boiler to ever test with wood chips ) we passed emissions with flying colors and are still waiting for our Phase 2 tags. Think about it who in their right mind would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research and development, many thousands again to have the boiler tested only to have your government sit on the results and then when pushed they change the rules. ( by the way I am a bit anti Government) When burning chips you are burning the tops and limbs and not the logs, unless you are govt as in a lot of our schools who have to burn clean bullwood (no bark,sticks,or leaves) look at what our mills and power plants are burning here in the northeast and the fuel cost. Bullwood cost around $60 per ton and the low grade fuel chips burned at the plants is around $27 per ton delivered

[Randy88]

Richard, another bigger reason why most won't burn conventional firewood is mainly because of people's lifestyles today compared to a 100 years ago, nobody's home during the day, a lot are gone on business for days at a time and the old standby of there was always someone at home is no more, people's needs change, lifestyles, economics, needs, and time allotments and a whole lot more as well, technology is constantly changing as well to try to keep up and meet those needs to cater to the consumer, welcome to the forum, glad to see your here, I hope you have a thread somewhere to explain your chip burner to us, let me know where to read it at.   

[mesquite buckeye]

muddstopper  is now history. I put up with people that want to come after me to a point, but I will NEVER allow someone to go after one of the Forestry Forum admins. I am banning him and the only way he will ever be able to return is a major apology to Paul.

Too bad. I hate to see anybody get booted. I think seeing the different viewpoints makes the thread more interesting. I think we all have to watch the name calling. People get their feelings hurt.

[beenthere]

Bullwood cost around $60 per ton and the low grade fuel chips burned at the plants is around $27 per ton delivered

And coal just sits there waiting to be used as a good fuel again. Wood biomass is 7-8 times the volume to move for the same BTU's compared to western coal. It is, and will remain, a cheap fuel. Just need to get past the anti coal burnin mentality.

And there is nuclear energy that is in the wings,

[Paul_H]

I've never been around coal other than a hunting trip around Sparwood BC 30 years ago where they mine it.If there was some locally,I'd be inclined to heat with it as well.My Duomatic Olsen was a wood/coal electric combo but never had opportunity to use any coal.Would love to build a coalfired truck if we had a local supply.
Our electricity in BC is hydro generated where out East there is more coal powered generation.What are the anti coal groups saying against the use of coal? Acid rain comes to mind but I have no first hand experience with it.You would think that if it was burned properly,the emissions would be minimal.
I have read somewhere that the problem with nukes for power is a supply of enriched uranium(?)

The idea of using local products for local fuel appeals to me whether it be coal,hydro,wind,wood whatever.

[Randy88]

Paul, don't quote me as 100% right on all aspects, but I have nuclear, and coal fired in my area, they have been trying to get another coal fired unit going here, I've kinda lost track of it and its one of those things where it'll never happen and now one forgets all the controversy but if I recall, its got a lot to do with emissions and also a fossil fuel which contributes to green house gas's and so forth, but to say the least, only the power company is in favor of it, nobody else is going to ever let it happen.   When you look at the numbers, yes it makes sense, its about the cheapest form of energy you can get, but in order to get it, you have to find a place that far fewer people to protest it.    Coal is brought in by barge, truck and rail, there's also some discussion on where the coal comes from, but right off the top of my head, I can't recall what was worse or better or why, again I'm thinking emissions.  I also know the local plants that use it, are constantly having issues with emissions and the filtering of the exhaust coming out the stacks.   

We also have nuclear, and after the disaster in japan, there will never be another one built in this area ever from what I hear, never heard anything bad about the one working now, but its one of those deals where, something bad happens elsewhere and its not going to be built in my back yard type of mentality.

In my area wind is king right now, there are so many wind farms going up the last few years, its totally unbelievable, now to me, I like it, think its great, the general public is also on that bandwagon, its clean, renewable, somewhat cost effective, and good for the local economy, and nobody is protesting it on any level.   I'd suspect that from I see, wind is going to expand greatly in my area and others too, farmers are even investing in windmills in my area, to the tune of a half million a windmill, time will tell if its a fad or something to continue on in  private hands.   

Solar has died out in my area, was a lot bigger before, but now, its gaining but not near what anyone expected it to, can't right off say why, I know some that had solar in the past had problems with the panels and not getting the efficiency they were told, but again, its only in private hands, nothing major for large units really I can think of right off the top of my head.   

Ethanol is huge in my area, same for biodiesel, mainly because of the raw products to feed the plants, I sell corn and beans to both, and I do know its a hot topic to the general public, some love it, others hate it, just depends on the side your one, I personally think the next level is going to take over eventually and its not grain based ethanol, but rather cellulose based ethanol, which is far more efficient and will change agriculture and forestry considerably, but time will tell on that issue. 

As for what else, I'd like to see wood chips or something like that come into my area, some has been done, but not large scale like in michigan or other states that have go-gen plants or what your call them exactly, I've toured the college campus in michigan that burns chips along with cadillac michigan that burns them to make electricity, which to me were impressive. 

I'd really like to see garbage burned in my area as well, especially in some of the larger cities, and no on that one I don't care if it is cost effective or not, but rather a way to get rid of stuff that shouldn't go into landfills, and yes I do live close a landfill and no its not a good thing by any means, hence my opinion on burning it or consuming it in any other way.   

But to me, the next biggest thing is going to come through research and development and no I don't know what it is, but am convinced it'll become a larger portion of our lives before I leave this earth, or I hope so anyhow, hopefully environmentally friendly, not give off emissions that are harmful, isn't deadly on any level, and is fairly low cost and is renewable and not dependent on foreign countries to provide it to us and the list is endless as to what I'd like.   

[SwampDonkey]

My grandfather used to burn coal years ago and I think mainly to heat potato storage sheds. Probably because of long burn times and less space to store a heat source. I have found pieces of coal around the yard of those old buildings (long gone now). We also had a very old coal mine here that was active for 300 years. Government here decided they would no longer burn coal for electric generation, so the mine closed up 2 years ago. There was no other market for the coal locally. When I lived in Prince Rupert, there was a coal train to Port Edward and huge stock piles loaded on ships to head to Asia, non stop.

I recently watched a documentary on coal just in NY state. Unimaginable the mountain of coal moved there in a year and where it's coming from seems to be an unlimited source, even though it is not. The biggest thing I see is we are all too wasteful when it comes to power demand. As long as the light switch works we don't think about the source of that power being finite. ;)

[Richard PM]

Sorry Randy I am not a computer guy and my wife is with her mom in Florida helping her recouperate from her cancer treatment when she returns we can start one. I do not want to anger anyone by promoting a particular brand and we still have to wait for big brother to protect us from ourselves and technology but if you want to know the particulars you may E-Mail me and I will give you our website there is a video of it running last year at the Richmond Va logging expo that Brian and I did. NICE UNIT for small buisiness or very large home.

[Richard PM]

Bullwood cost around $60 per ton and the low grade fuel chips burned at the plants is around $27 per ton delivered

And coal just sits there waiting to be used as a good fuel again. Wood biomass is 7-8 times the volume to move for the same BTU's compared to western coal. It is, and will remain, a cheap fuel. Just need to get past the anti coal burnin mentality.

And there is nuclear energy that is in the wings,

[Richard PM]

I would agree but keep in mind transportation costs, we have no coal here in new england but we do have trees. we can't effectively send wood or wood chips to pensylvania and cannot get coal cheap. another thing to think about is the fact that trees are the worlds filter and only give off the pollutants that they have absorbed over their lifetime (rather they are burned or rot in the woods) if you burn it hot enough you may be helping to reduce our pollution footprint whereas with fossil fuels you are unearthing a product that has been safely stored for millions of years and burning it adding to whatever pollution we already have. Wood is not perfect for everyone but as for me I burned my last gallon of fossil fuel for heat 10 years ago and will never go back !!!

[Richard PM]

Paul, don't quote me as 100% right on all aspects, but I have nuclear, and coal fired in my area, they have been trying to get another coal fired unit going here, I've kinda lost track of it and its one of those things where it'll never happen and now one forgets all the controversy but if I recall, its got a lot to do with emissions and also a fossil fuel which contributes to green house gas's and so forth, but to say the least, only the power company is in favor of it, nobody else is going to ever let it happen.   When you look at the numbers, yes it makes sense, its about the cheapest form of energy you can get, but in order to get it, you have to find a place that far fewer people to protest it.    Coal is brought in by barge, truck and rail, there's also some discussion on where the coal comes from, but right off the top of my head, I can't recall what was worse or better or why, again I'm thinking emissions.  I also know the local plants that use it, are constantly having issues with emissions and the filtering of the exhaust coming out the stacks.   

We also have nuclear, and after the disaster in japan, there will never be another one built in this area ever from what I hear, never heard anything bad about the one working now, but its one of those deals where, something bad happens elsewhere and its not going to be built in my back yard type of mentality.

In my area wind is king right now, there are so many wind farms going up the last few years, its totally unbelievable, now to me, I like it, think its great, the general public is also on that bandwagon, its clean, renewable, somewhat cost effective, and good for the local economy, and nobody is protesting it on any level.   I'd suspect that from I see, wind is going to expand greatly in my area and others too, farmers are even investing in windmills in my area, to the tune of a half million a windmill, time will tell if its a fad or something to continue on in  private hands.   

Solar has died out in my area, was a lot bigger before, but now, its gaining but not near what anyone expected it to, can't right off say why, I know some that had solar in the past had problems with the panels and not getting the efficiency they were told, but again, its only in private hands, nothing major for large units really I can think of right off the top of my head.   

Ethanol is huge in my area, same for biodiesel, mainly because of the raw products to feed the plants, I sell corn and beans to both, and I do know its a hot topic to the general public, some love it, others hate it, just depends on the side your one, I personally think the next level is going to take over eventually and its not grain based ethanol, but rather cellulose based ethanol, which is far more efficient and will change agriculture and forestry considerably, but time will tell on that issue. 

As for what else, I'd like to see wood chips or something like that come into my area, some has been done, but not large scale like in michigan or other states that have go-gen plants or what your call them exactly, I've toured the college campus in michigan that burns chips along with cadillac michigan that burns them to make electricity, which to me were impressive. 

I'd really like to see garbage burned in my area as well, especially in some of the larger cities, and no on that one I don't care if it is cost effective or not, but rather a way to get rid of stuff that shouldn't go into landfills, and yes I do live close a landfill and no its not a good thing by any means, hence my opinion on burning it or consuming it in any other way.   

But to me, the next biggest thing is going to come through research and development and no I don't know what it is, but am convinced it'll become a larger portion of our lives before I leave this earth, or I hope so anyhow, hopefully environmentally friendly, not give off emissions that are harmful, isn't deadly on any level, and is fairly low cost and is renewable and not dependent on foreign countries to provide it to us and the list is endless as to what I'd like.   

[SwampDonkey]

In Sault St Marie, Ontario the city is full of renewables. There are two solar farms, and a large wind farm taking advantage of the wind off Superior and also hydro.