next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01D13E59.CF554B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sensible advice Paul. What I like about cash is that when you=E2=80=99ve paid, the job is done. N= o need to remember to keep a balance at the bank to pay what=E2=80=99s comi= n=E2=80=99! From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] = On Behalf Of rita.paul@ns.sympatico.ca Sent: December 24, 2015 1:24 PM To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca; John and Nhung Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry Not to worry John Pay the local fellow in cash - the kind that folds! Don't argue about the wood - and take it when he has it. His wife will be phoning asking when you can take a load. Works for me! Enjoy the rain Paul > On December 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM John and Nhung <nhungjohn@eastlink.ca> w= rote: > > > Yeah, I get the impression that the main problem with the Point Tupper > monster is its size. A smaller operation might have fit in quite nicely. = > Of course, the NewPage surprise added to the mess, but mess it is, and I = > hope the government ad the operators can ramp back its biomass consumptio= n > to a more sensible, sustainable scale. > > Fingers crossed for a mild winter, with minimum demand for firewood! All = > this tells me we still need to take solar heat and other renewable source= s > more seriously. > > -----Original Message----- > From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca= ] > On Behalf Of Stephen Shaw > Sent: December 24, 2015 11:59 AM > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > Ed Darby? Abraham Darby I around 1709 modified the blast furnace that had= > already been evolving for over a millenium, to consume coke instead of > charcoal as the source of carbon that formed the carbon monoxide used to = > reduce raw iron oxide to pig iron, the starting point for other iron > products. Charcoal gave a purer iron product, but making coke from coal > proved much cheaper than making charcoal from harvested trees, by then a = > scarce commodity. For both charcoal and coke, a main byproduct was/is CO2= > gas from the finally oxidised carbon, released into the atmosphere. The > cheaper Darby coke method, later improved, caught on rapidly: a gnomic ir= ony > of this is that while saving some of the CO2-consuming much diminished > forests from approaching extinction, it led rapidly to much greater iron = > production via burning fossil carbon that underpinned the Industrial > Revolution in Britain, which in turn led to ever increasing CO2 emissions= , > eventually worldwide. > > On a lesser point not covered by reporter Aaron Beswick's article in the = C-H > that Dave referred to, if you had tried to get a few cords of 16" cut > firewood for your wood stove in early 2015, as we did, you would have fou= nd > that initially, none of the local suppliers around Halifax could get any = > logs, because they believed that such wood that had been harvested was > nearly all going directly to Point Tupper biomass monster, because that h= ad > been built too large for the available supply of so-called 'waste' wood a= nd > bark. Central planning at its very best. Our supplier eventually got some= > logs from New Brunswick, but the price went up considerably. > Steve > ________________________________________ > From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on > behalf of David & Alison Webster [dwebster@glinx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:12 PM > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > Hi Nick & All, Dec 23, 2015 > I have only few minutes so will deal with the "gnomic" question first > and return later to the rest. > It was a new word to me so I had to consult a dictionary which referred > me to sententious=3D Aphoristic, pithy, given to the use of maxims; (of > persons) =3D fond of pompous moralizing; maxim=3D A general truth drawn f= rom > science or experience. > I think we should both plead guilty to the "gnomic" charge and be > flattered. As for the "pompous moralizing"; I am frequently inclined to > quote the King James Bible but then remember: "Be not righteous over much= , > neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?"; > Ecclesiastes 7:16; and decide not to. > > Merry Christmas All & A Happy New Year > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nicholas Hill<mailto:fernhillns@gmail.com> > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca%3cmailto:natu= rens@chebucto.ns.ca> <mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca> > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 4:32 PM > Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Red Herring & Forestry > > A friend recently accused me of being "gnomic", and ill-educated lout as = i > am, i took issue at being called a gnome, but moving into this here case = at > hand, I think the gnomes have it: "And warning that use of biomass is not= > green is perhaps already an effective way to indirectly kill trees." Not = > exactly gnomic but not entirely designed for clarity and explicitness. Th= en > we have: "And if not now, then without doubt in the future." This non > sentence leaves us without a doubt in the future waiting with and like Go= dot > for some Christmas clarety. > > Seriously, I see Dave's point and Jamie's. England found a way through > Edward Darby to stop using beech trees for coking to make steel; Darby > figured out how to substitute coal for wood and thank god because England= > had run out of most decent sized trees and was charcoaling most of its > forests. David is right that the first quotation is an overstatement but = > Jamie's point was most welcome in today's Herald. We not only are running= > the risk of losing good forest but we are running down our forest soils s= o > that tree regrowth is poor, forest composition is weedy, wildlife suffers= , > and the carbon balance (ie. that less carbon dioxide is being emitted tha= n > would be if we allowed forests to grow and used conventional fossil fuels= in > the most efficient manner) is questionable. We want to move away from > "Green" that is not sustainable for wildlife and I would put biomass and = > large scale hydroelectric both in that unsustainable class. > > Good on David and Jamie, the environmental critic and the advocate. > > Merry Christmas guys > > Nick > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:56 PM, David & Alison Webster > <dwebster@glinx.com <m