"Natural forest devastation"?

Ian St. John istjohn at noemail.ca
Sat Jun 5 21:28:43 EST 2004

charliew2 wrote:
> Ian St. John wrote:
>> charliew2 wrote:
>>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>>> charliew2 wrote:
>>>>> Ian St. John wrote:
>>>>>> Larry Harrell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn at noemail.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:<9p6uc.65843$tb4.2515519 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>>>>>>> Dano wrote:
>>>>>>>>> lhfotoware at hotmail.com (Larry Harrell) wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:<7a90c754.0405271045.2a3f9b04 at posting.google.com>...
>>>>>>>>>> Comment from poster: Good forestry can mitigate many of the
>>>>>>>>>> impacts of drought through thinning, fuels reduction projects
>>>>>>>>>> and controlled burning. Nowhere in the article does it even
>>>>>>>>>> mention active management. Do these "scientists" really ever
>>>>>>>>>> get out there in the woods (this decade)?
>>>>>>>>>> Larry,    in the woods, everyday
>>>>>>>>> Larry, I agree, but active management includes cutting large
>>>>>>>>> numbers of small caliper trees and then doing something with
>>>>>>>>> those trees, meaning re-tooling of mills and creating markets,
>>>>>>>>> etc. I, personally, would avoid that topic when talking to a
>>>>>>>>> reporter, because it creates tangents.
>>>>>>> Yep, we can't let facts get in the way of a good story.
>>>>>>>> Rather than retool mills to try to use the wood as lumber, why
>>>>>>>> not chip it and use it to produce 'cellose ethanol' as fuel???
>>>>>>>> You could include everything down to the leaf litter!
>>>>>>> Most mills have already been retooled and the amount of big log
>>>>>>> mills left in this country could probably be counted on two
>>>>>>> hands.
>>>>>> Gee. That isn't perhaps why they are so 'hot' on taking trees out
>>>>>> as part of the 'tinder reduction program' not would it. Finally
>>>>>> admitting the main economic focus of the 'new forest' initiative.
>>>>>>> In my
>>>>>>> part of the USA, Ian, cogen plants already get agricultural
>>>>>>> waste for pennies.
>>>>>> Then turn it into alcohol. I am merely pointing out the
>>>>>> advantages, since this would remove the 'tinder' instead of thet
>>>>>> 'timber' and make money.
>>>>>> I really wasn't talking to you, Larry. I know your answer before
>>>>>> you start blubbering.
>>>>> Think, Ian.  Alcohol serves as fuel.  The cogen faciliites are no
>>>>> doubt using the wood for fuel, bypassing all of the processing
>>>>> steps involved in alcohol production.  You don't want to use
>>>>> cellulose to produce alcohol, just because it's a "cool" thing to
>>>>> do.
>>>> No. I want to convert it to alcohol because a liquid fuel, suitable
>>>> for mobile vehicles, is more *valueable* than simple heat, and burn
>>>> more cleanly with more of the nutrient recoverable for fertiliser
>>>> from the waste outflow.
>>> It's a COGEN facility.  It's not on wheels ... you can't drive it.
>> Really. I was suggesting an alternative use of the wood. I do not
>> understand, even though I know that you are VERY dim, how you could
>> derive this idiotic statement from it.
> Because you made such an idiotic statement that you want to convert
> it to a liquid fuel, suitable for mobile vehicles, when it is already
> being used directly for a heat source at a cogen facility.
>>> The fossil fuel saved by using the fuel value of wood waste is still
>>> helping the environment, because it is displacing even more fossil
>>> fuel than you would if you processed it into ethanol to displace
>>> gasoline.
>> Not shown. The reason that alcohol is more valueable than wood is
>> precisely because it displace more energy than simply burning it for
>> electricity. The combustion of wood for fuel is also notoriously
>> inefficient due to water content and... conversion to alcohol does
>> not have these flaws and the nutrient content is preserved for
>> fertiliser use.
>>> I repeat - you don't want to produce ethanol just because
>>> it's a cool thing to do.
>> Sure. And you don't want to burn wood for electricity because it is
>> what everyone expects.
>> Anytime you are ready to debate me on number, go ahead.
> You are just too dim-witted to go through a proper debate.  You just
> HAD to invent the excuse of "wet" wood, so you would have the one
> example that you think disproves my statement.  Then you had to
> extrapolate that "proof" to cover all cases, just like you ALWAYS do!
> Think, man, THINK!!!  If you use the same starting basis, I don't
> care WHAT it is.  If you start with wet wood and turn it into
> ethanol, you have wet ethanol.  Do the heat balance, and you will see
> that for WHATEVER the hell your starting conditions are, you ALWAYS
> recover less energy by going through the extra processing steps
> needed to derive ethanol with a high enough alcohol content to burn.

It is clearly easier to evaporate alcohol out of water rather than water out
of wood. Nor do you show that wood burning recovers more energy than
conversion of the cellulose. Nuff said.

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list