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