RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
LeeN's comments:
on The Biomass Question
USE LESS ENERGY; USE LOTS LESS ENERGY. HOW MUCH MORE BASIC DO YOU NEED TO BE.
It was Pogo who said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Biomass Question
burning of slash is a waste of valuable resource -- we burn slash because no infrastucture exists to utilize and process it.
Who determines the value of the resource ? Without an infrastructure to process it, it has no value. Why not invest in creating these infrastructure>
While at OSU, individuals were telling me of 4 foot diameter chinkapin logs being hogged for fuel.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Biomass Question
Part 3
What no one is willing to articulate is that the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (from whatever the fuel source) means using less energy. The Fallacy of Corporate Conservation applies in this regard. The prime directive of all corporations is to maximize short term profitability. For a corporation to advocate reducing consumption of their product (eg electricity) by advocating reducing the amount of energy consumers utilize is corporate heresy, and is something that will never occur. No corporation will ever tell its customers that they need to use 1/3 less of their product even if the very survival of the world is at stake because it would jeopardize the company's profits. As such, rather that continuing to support energy corporations by providing them with additional fuel resources, the humans of this Earth must begin to deprive these corporations of the readily available fuel materials. Then and only then will they begin the essential R&D into solar energy conversion processes and technologies.
Stanley Niemiec
503 749 4237
Wood Technologist (M. S. Penn State '79) and
Former Senior Research Assistant at Oregon State University Forest Products Department (College of Forestry) 1987 - 1994.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Biomass Question
Part 2
Wood contains a small percentage of mineral components that are the residue called ash - typically about 1 to 2% but about 70% of this is in elements such as calcium, potassium and magnesium. With the removal of woody biomass from forests, the process would additionally remove all these mineral components from the land (which would reduce the availability of these essential components for the next generation's growth of trees). Instead of being recycled naturally within the ecological niche, this wood ash would become a very hazardous industrial waste (exceedingly alkaline).
The real fuel value of wood must consider numerous reductions including the energy required for transporting workers and equipment to the site, the energy required for harvesting the wood, the energy requirments for getting the wood to the combustion plant; and for removing/evaporating the water in the wood (its moisture content). When all these processing energy requirements are factored into and compared to the amount of real energy gained, the amount of real gain is small -- a gain that could be better realized with more efficient utilization of energy without any emissions whatsoever.
It is also essential to realize that by establishing a precident of converting wood to fuel, it raises the very important question of who it will be determining which wood species is valuable and which are not (those species that are "substandard weeds"). A wood species that is not valuable now could be extremely important as a resource for other products in the future, or is a wood species that is of critical importance for wildlife species as a food source (seeds and fruits) or as part of the larger interrelational health of the forests. There is a significant difference between industrial forestry ( tree plantations ) and natural, complex, multiple species forests.
Wood as product or wood as humus in soil sequesters carbon, potentially for extended periods of time, while burning wood releases all the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Forget the notion of biogenic carbon dioxide; just because you change its name does not reduce the problems associated with it vis a vis global climate change. It is the argument of a sophist.
Additionally beyond CO2 emissions, when wood burns it releases water, acids (as with acetic acid) and soot. Are we to return to the days of acid rains? Further, soot is a huge absorber of solar energy in terms of atmospheric warming. Wood may seem to be clean and natural but that is not entirely correct as it too emits problematic substances.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Biomass Question
Part 1
The burning of wood for fuel relegates wood to its absolutely lowest possible value -- wood as fuel means it can never be reused or recycled in any possible way.
If job creation is the goal, there are literally thousands upon thousands of possible wood products as durable consumer items (furniture, windows, doors etc) or industrial goods (pallets, truck decking, railroad cross-ties, etc) that already exist and could be manufactured from these resources instead of burning it. Instead of investing in converting Boardman to burn wood, those same monies could be invested in education and job training, the purchase of industrial machinery for local, sustainable businesses (that could employ many times more local individuals) and for marketing assistance to facilitate product sales.
Additionally, this concept of wood fuel for the Boardman plant would give control of huge volumes of natural resources to large corporations and would limit the amounts that might be used for local uses and entrepreneurial endeavors. By so empowering large corporations to have all the woody biomass necessary to fuel the fires of Boardman, I fear the actual "mining" of the forests (to the point that large industrial machinery would suck everything combustible off the land). If you think clearcuts are ugly now, "harvesting" woody biomass for fuel would be worse and greatly more destructive. The potential hunger to feed the hell fires of Boardman could ultimately denude massive amounts of the natural environments creating virtual deserts and barren mountainsides more vulnerable to soil erosion, dirty rivers, and higher soil and water temperatures. This type of corporate control of the forest resources would give horrific meaning to industrial forestry.
It is misinformation that a significant number of jobs would be created in such a corporate endeavor because large machinery (whole tree chippers) would be operated by single individuals. There might be plenty of jobs for truck drivers but all this truck traffic would fundamentally seriously degrade the roads because of all this truck traffic. If the objective is job creation, then train workers in highly skilled woodworking jobs who will use considerably less material and a higher level of added value per unit of resource.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Funding Parks and Candidates
This is a measure on which I am conflicted. It appears to be a no brainer but like CindyAshy, I have very serious objections to OWEB. It may be that they pass State audits but that is not the issue (for me). From my perspective, OWEB spends too much of its monies for administration and overhead and not enough for on-the-ground restoration projects. Further, local watershed councils in my area do not follow open meeting policies, have a very limited, almost cliquish membership and seem to have some pre-established, almost predetermined agenda. My opinion based on my experience relative to the grant application process is that it is biased and prejudicial. CindyAshy's statement that OWEB is mismanaged is spot on.
posted 2 years, 7 months ago
view in context
