"Natural forest devastation"?

charliew2 charliew2 at ev1.net
Sat Jun 5 22:34:43 EST 2004

Ian St. John wrote:
> 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.

And you don't know shit about distillation.

> 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