next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> proved much cheaper than making char
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_1DD8_01D144CF.85B81D90
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Nick & All, Jan 1, 2016
The idea that---"England....was charcoaling most of its forests." =
for the reduction of iron and the use of coke prevented widespread =
deforestation is a widespread myth but is at variance with the facts.=20
The large ironworks which developed for volume production, e.g. =
casting of large cannon were not at all portable so they had to rely on =
nearby forests and take care to not deplete them, as outlined below
From: http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm
"Although historians have often considered that the excessive felling of =
timber to fuel the iron industries resulted in woodland loss, it is now =
recognised that this theory is wholly incorrect. The iron industry was =
long term in nature and iron works jealously guarded their supplies. =
Furthermore, most of the timber used in the charcoal kiln was of coppice =
origin. Coppice material was of regular size, was easy to handle and =
load and required minimal recutting. Woods close to the iron works =
survived because their place as fuel providers to the iron industry =
raised their economic importance and prevented their loss to agriculture =
as happened elsewhere."
The above is in substantial agreement with information from Edlin =
which I posted a while ago; it being--
As covered in some detail in Trees, Woods and Man, H.L.Edlin, 1956, =
272=20
pp. most deforestation was a gradual consequence of other practices such =
as=20
mowing natural hay or bedding in relatively open woodland and the teeth =
of=20
domesticated animals which killed any regeneration. Without regeneration =
the=20
forest gradually died out. This information is scattered & I will not=20
attempt to dig it out.
But can quote from the passage which relates to charcoal (p. 88) =
"Vast=20
quantities of wood were consumed for charcoal. to "reduce" the iron ores =
to=20
metal before the use of coke was understood (Straker, 1931). But it was =
cut=20
from coppices of broadleaved trees, which sent up fresh shoots from =
their=20
stumps within a year of being felled; and these coppices were managed by =
men=20
who knew the elements of rotational cutting. So today in the very region =
where devastation might otherwise have been greatest, we find the only =
large=20
portion of England with an outstandingly high proportion of woodland; in =
the=20
five south-eastern counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire, and=20
Hampshire 14.6 per cent of the land as against 5.8 per cent for England =
as a=20
whole."
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Nicholas Hill=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
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. Then 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 Godot 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 so that tree regrowth is poor, forest composition =
is weedy, wildlife suffers, and the carbon balance (ie. that less carbon =
dioxide is being emitted than 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.=20
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> wrote:
Dear All, Dec 23, 2015
There is an article on biomass in today's Chron. Hrld. page A3 =
"Biomass may be less than green: report". I could not see how to extract =
a link to this article.
The warning was issued some years ago to "Beware of false =
prophets" and if this article is at all accurate then Jamie Simpson and =
Aaron Ward may qualify to some extent.
These biomass plants leave much to be desired and constructive =
criticism will hopefully lead to better context integration in future =
but saying that "...the province is not capable of proving that =
harvesting for biomass is better for the environment than burning coal." =
is misleading in the extreme.=20
First of all it is an example of deplorable prose because =
superficially it would appear to say that burning biomass for power is =
no better for the environment than burning coal. Unless huge amounts of =
CO2 are released in the course of cutting, hauling and preparation for =
burning then the above would be false.
But burning of biomass is not mentioned; only harvesting for =
biomass is mentioned in that quote. And true enough "harvesting for =
biomass" uses energy for no purpose if the biomass is not subsequently =
burned and would not help the environment in any way. And the province, =
being just an area of land would be unable to prove anything.
=20
Getting back to the heart of this question; when a tree which =
has fixed carbon for say 100 years is cut down, it is entirely correct =
that another tree of equal size and carbon content does not spring up to =
replace it in less than 100 years (unless a faster growing tree is =
planted). So yes there often is an apparent lag. But if done astutely, =
say by thinning overstocked trees sufficiently early, then this apparent =
lag will shrink nearly to zero. And this may be repeated o