Global Warming News

[dmccarty]

Timber operations depend on local conditions. In our case they did use skidders and a cutting machine. We have some real bad soil but there was not much rutting at all. We only had one deck on 70ish acres and it was at one end of the property. They dragged trees all the way to that deck from the other end of the property.

Trees were cut down by the cutter and then a man topped off the hardwoods. Pines they just dragged to the deck for precessing into logs.

Soil conditions, topography, market, tree type and size, as well as local regulations is going to drive how the timber is harvested. I just reads that most timber is now harvested off of private lands since the National Forests are being closed down for timber sales.

I don't see how timber slash can even make a dent in the energy needs of the US. There was very little slash left over when our land was timbered. We had one big two story house sized pile at the deck that included stumps and slash from the house site. The hardwood tops were left in a few piles here and there. Might have added up to another ranch house or two. The two story pile is now one story and the ranch houses are reduced by at least half as well. Gigantic amounts of energy would have to be harvested from that slash. I just don't see how that would be possible. And even if it is. You won't get another harvest for 70-80 years.

And in 70-80 years our land is most likely going to be growing houses.

Later,
Dan

 

[keegs]

Hi Dan,

It's funny you mentioned 70 years. The harvest cycle on a crop of grass is about 70 days. You're probably aware that there's quite a bit of cropland under the USDA's CRP. Last I checked the Feds require participants in that program to maintain their fields by cutting every other year. It's purely speculation on my part but it seems to me there's some potential here as a source.

 

[Pilot]

When I worked in Montana, the lodgepole pines, similar to jack pine in the east, were small enough that American Timber logged the whole tree. Loaded them on the truck and tops and all went to the mill. All the waste went into the burner & they generated enough electricity to power the mill and sell some to the local utility.

Big lodgepoles are only about 12 inches in diameter; I think the largest I ever measured was about 22". Height about 70-80 feet, 60-80 years old.

But in Oregon, on the west side of the Cascades where growing conditions are better, you'll get 12", 70 ft. tall Doug-firs in 30 years or so and they are really growing fast, 3 or more feet in height per year, so no one wants a regeneration cut at that age.

We don't get enough dependable snow to log on. Last year we had a pretty good dump, totaled about 22" and lasted a couple weeks before it was all gone. Some years we get only a couple inches. And we are at 1,200 ft. elevation. Much of the private timberland is lower, warmer.

Loggers here aren't geared to routinely log on deep snow; when I was working for the Forest Service, fresh from Montana, I required a sale be logged on snow at 4,000 ft in the Cascades. Didn't work so well; the snow was 4 ft. deep, they had to plow a route to each tree for the fallers, when the tree came down half was buried in the snow and they couldn't limb & buck them. And it was low value timber, mostly mountain hemlock. I was new at sale planning and it showed. Worked OK in Montana, but I wasn't involved in timber sales there so I didn't know why if it worked there it wouldn't work in Oregon. I've learned a lot since then.

 

[dave1949]

We don't get enough dependable snow to log on. Last year we had a pretty good dump, totaled about 22" and lasted a couple weeks before it was all gone. Some years we get only a couple inches. And we are at 1,200 ft. elevation. Much of the private timberland is lower, warmer.

Loggers here aren't geared to routinely log on deep snow; when I was working for the Forest Service, fresh from Montana, I required a sale be logged on snow at 4,000 ft in the Cascades. Didn't work so well; the snow was 4 ft. deep, they had to plow a route to each tree for the fallers, when the tree came down half was buried in the snow and they couldn't limb & buck them. And it was low value timber, mostly mountain hemlock. I was new at sale planning and it showed. Worked OK in Montana, but I wasn't involved in timber sales there so I didn't know why if it worked there it wouldn't work in Oregon. I've learned a lot since then.

It gets too deep here too some winters to be worth getting into the woods. If we get much over three feet of snowpack, that's pretty deep for us. Avg. season snowfall total is usually around 6' - 7'. I bet your name was being combined with colorful words on that harvest. Every once in a while I drive past 4' tall stumps, which is a good sign somebody was cutting in deep snow and ain't about to run there feller saw blade into a rock or whatever is hiding in the snow.

The energy that could be provided by forest biomass is certainly limited. I see the concept as it being just one energy source out of many that are sustainable. If it could supply 10% or 15% of a given region's energy needs, that's more than they had before. A little here a little there sort of thing.

We really think about it here in Maine where 80% of homes are heated with #2 oil and we are surrounded by trees. That situation could be improved upon. If the majority of homes could cut their oil consumption by some percentage, it adds up quickly.

Dave.

 

[dmccarty]

Hi Dan,

It's funny you mentioned 70 years. The harvest cycle on a crop of grass is about 70 days. You're probably aware that there's quite a bit of cropland under the USDA's CRP. Last I checked the Feds require participants in that program to maintain their fields by cutting every other year. It's purely speculation on my part but it seems to me there's some potential here as a source.

Well, the discussion was about timber slash.

Many farmers are pulling out of CRP because they can make more money growing crops. Environmentalists don't like the CRP land being put back into production. I really would like to see some numbers on how much energy can really be created from waste products on farm/timber land. I am very skeptical it can be done profitably. The company that bought our timber could pay top dollar because they had lower transportation costs since there mill was close by.

To cut and bail grass grown on CRP land is going to cost some money. Then the bales have to be transported which costs even more. The process to get a product out of the bale had better be very cheap and efficient to make it worth the expense.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

I really would like to see some numbers on how much energy can really be created from waste products on farm/timber land. I am very skeptical it can be done profitably. The company that bought our timber could pay top dollar because they had lower transportation costs since there mill was close by.


Later,
Dan

Wood pellet mills that take sawdust from mills and make pellets come to mind as one competitive product if the price of oil is relatively high - (who knows what that price may be these days?) This secondary use would be the best case scenario obviously. Maybe that is the only way it can make sense with current technology.

Back in 2002, a Maine study found the cost of generatiing electricity from wood waste was $56/MW while the current supplier market price was $44/MW. Don't have a more recent comparison. Oil is more expensive now I think. The wood fuel plants were built in the 1980's.

Not being an economist, I don't know how to value the local labor, industry and tax revenues that would derive from local fuel electricity production. It would seem that if the costs were within spittin' distance for wood vs oil/coal/natural gas, the value of a local economy with jobs and the means to support schools, etc. would be high.

I don't think anyone expects forest biomass to become a primary fuel source. We do have a handful of schools and public buildings that are heated with pellet-fired boilers. That makes sense when oil prices are erratic and it's good politics to put the school tax dollars back into the regional economy.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

I'm thinking of the hundreds of millions of new consumers around the world all aspiring to live like Americans. I think new car sales in China just exceeded sales in the US. It would seem logical to assume then that demand for motor fuels is only going to increase and margins will tighten again.

Strategies to consume less gasoline could make biofuels less competitive, at least in the near term but we're usually not good at comsuming less of anything once the economy is growing.

 

[Pilot]

Seems like Keegs & I agree on some things, in this case the increase in demand for fuel as China and India, as well as other developing countries become more prosperous and people want cars. Tata Motors in India has come out with a car priced at less than $3,000. It won't be long before worldwide demand for motor fuel takes off. The recession has delayed it somewhat, but it's coming.

I am hopeful that we'll be able to get fuel from algae, but that doesn't seem to be coming along as fast as it seemed it might. Increases in prices for gasoline and diesel might get things going.

Here's a different perspective in regard to world oil reserves: Experts talk about limited oil supplies and especially the peak oil believers. But one thing that isn't mentioned in the discussion is that there are about 800,000 oil wells in the world, of which over 500,000 are in the USA alone. Think about it. So about 63% of all the wells in the world are here. Sure, more modern wells are more efficient (the Saudis are working to monitor all wells by computer and can turn wells off or on from a central control center as prices fluctuate), but it seem extremely unlikely that we had so much of the oil in the world at one time. That stat suggests that there are a lot more places to explore.

One of the roadblocks to more exploration is a reluctance on the part of many third world governments to allow foreign companies to explore in their territory, due probably to their colonial history. And the preponderance of nationalized oil companies. Pemex in Mexico has seen a huge drop in production, but they still have pretty good reserves; it's just that there is so much corruption and they are so inefficient. Mexico is now an oil importer if my memory is correct.

Lastly 70% of the world is under water. We now have technology for deep water drilling.

Oil reserves numbers are based on a particular price point for oil. At $40 per barrel, reserves are a lot lower than if the price is $80 per barrel, because at $80 a company can afford to suck oil out of expensive sources. So as prices climb, reserves climb.

Gasoline will likely cost more in the not so distant future, but my money (and I'm no expert, so don't quote me, I just want to give you food for thought) says we'll have oil for quite a long time to come.

Of course, if human caused global warming is real, it may not matter how much oil we have.

 

[IH3444]

BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

 

[dmccarty]

I don't think anyone expects forest biomass to become a primary fuel source. We do have a handful of schools and public buildings that are heated with pellet-fired boilers. That makes sense when oil prices are erratic and it's good politics to put the school tax dollars back into the regional economy.
Dave.

But was it a good use of tax dollars? Were the old boilers reused, left in place or replaced. If the old boilers were kept and able to use either oil or wood then it might make money sense. But if new boilers had to purchased was that a wise use of money?

I looked at pellet stoves. There was no reason to own one to save money. In fact it would likely cost me more money compared to heating with electric because of the high cost of the pellets. And I studied the stoves before the pellet prices increased. Getting the pellets can be erratic. The WSJ had a story a year or so back about the shortage of wood pellets due to the lack of demand for lumber. No lumber means there is no sawdust to make into pellets. Lack of pellets but lots of demand drove up prices. Like any commodity.

I dont see how the use of forest biomass amounts to a poot in a hurricane compared to the overall energy requirements of the US. If it makes money sense in a given area that is great it should be used. But I don't see how it will effect national energy usage.

Later,
Dan