David on sun 6 jun 10
The carbon footprint is indeed far more complex than adding up the total we=
=3D
ight of wood burned in a kiln. There is a baseline that can be calculated f=
=3D
rom weight of wood though.
The only way for the carbon footprint of a wood fired kiln to be zero is fo=
=3D
r the kiln to be fired once every 30-100 years. Not likely.
If the tree falls down naturally or is cut down by hand or by hand=3DA0 wit=
h =3D
a stone ax directly next to the kiln, the wood is broken up by hand or ston=
=3D
e ax and only fired within the time window of the natural balance of the ca=
=3D
rbon cycle would it seem to be carbon neutral. There are many different tim=
=3D
e lines but=3DA0 30-100 years represent the extremes. The natural cycle of =
ca=3D
rbon sequestration doesn't magically change, i.e., speed up, because a tree=
=3D
is cut down and burned. The natural carbon balance contains a variable of =
=3D
time which can't be ignored or altered very much. By=3D0A the same token pl=
an=3D
ting trees to "offset" the carbon added into the atmosphere will only seem =
=3D
to slightly shorten the time line. The seedlings have to be grown within wa=
=3D
lking distance of the site of replanting to insure there isn't any addition=
=3D
al carbon added into the equation. There is the additional problem of what =
=3D
seems to be the 50% or so of carbon that goes into the soil for=3DA0 longer=
s=3D
equestration in natural decay of wood. This sequestration in itself isn't c=
=3D
arbon neutral but seems to be a carbon sink.
I fire exclusively with wood and am very interested in the carbon footprint=
=3D
of wood firing and from the reading I have done there isn't any way other =
=3D
than wishful thinking to think burning a tree is carbon neutral. The two pr=
=3D
esentations I have seen have totally ignored the time and soil sequestratio=
=3D
n factors. They assume that since the carbon in a tree will be released bac=
=3D
k into the atmosphere you can burn it today and somehow be carbon neutral.
It looks like the smallest carbon footprints aren't going to be found in wo=
=3D
od firing.
Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/
Mary & Wes Handrow on sun 6 jun 10
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=3D_NextPart_000_007B_01CB05CA.57498600
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wood firing carbon footprint in a very sense is as close to zero are you ca=
n
get. All wood products if left to nature for long enough will end up as
CO2. Rotting wood is one of the slowest releases but still ends up as CO2.
My kiln fires on waste wood, farmer's cutting back the edges of forest on
their fields, or cullings from people trimming their trees in their yards.
All of this is very near to zero footprint other than the fuel in the
chainsaw, what gets used making the steel in the mauls, hatchets, axes and
wedges used to break the wood down to smaller bits and the bricks. Coal
fired electric, big footprint, hydro all the concrete, steel rebar all big
footprint. Same for nuclear. Solar, where did the energy to make the
collectors come from, the same for wind, geothermal and on and on. The
carbon that makes up wood all come from the atmosphere and as such is net
zero. Even the tundra if it thaws adds a lot of carbon to the atmosphere.
------=3D_NextPart_000_007B_01CB05CA.57498600
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment
Received: from [209.85.212.51] by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG (SMTPL release 1.0w)
with TCP; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:40:02 -0400
Received: by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5)
with spool id 2439438 for Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG; Sun,
06 Jun 2010 19:41:27 -0400
Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so928909vws.38 for g>;
Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.74.9 with HTTP; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.193.16 with SMTP id ds16mr3988061qcb.148.1275848354676;
Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lsv ([192.168.31.36]) by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:41:28 -0400
Received: from LSV.CERAMICS.ORG ([unknown] [74.223.174.11])
by vms172055.mailsrvcs.net
(Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009))
with ESMTP id <0L3M0043SBNX0KJK@vms172055.mailsrvcs.net> for
res1lp2f@VERIZON.NET; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:21:50 -0500 (CDT)
Return-Path:
Reply-To: "Lee Love"
From: "Lee Love"
Sender: "Clayart"
To:
References: <839854.88842.qm@web54205.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Wood firing footprint.
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:19:14 -0500
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-reply-to: <839854.88842.qm@web54205.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
List-Subscribe:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Help: , :LISTSERV@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG?body=3DINFO%20Clayart>
Thread-index: AcsF12waXCEPlGtoQ52srWuchZQmTg=3D=3D
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, David wrote:
> The carbon footprint is indeed far more complex than adding up the =3D
total
weight of wood burned in a kiln. There is a baseline that can be =3D
calculated
from weight of wood though.
> The only way for the carbon footprint of a wood fired kiln to be zero =3D
is
for the kiln to be fired once every 30-100 years.
This is wrong in for several reasons: 2/3rds of a fuel tree is left
in the woods, much of it underground, in the form of roots. Some
trees mature in as little a 5 years. Modern wood kilns are very
effecien. For a glaze firing, my kiln used 40 bundles of wood. I
used recycled wood that would have otherwise been fired in an open
bonfire, so I got heat work for zero additonal carbon into the air.
The big advantage is when you grow a woodlot for fuel. You are
burning trees that would have not been grown othewise, so you are
actually taking carbon out of the air.
Not likely.
> If the tree falls down naturally or is cut down by hand or by hand=3DA0 =
=3D
with a
stone ax directly next to the kiln, the wood is broken up by hand or =3D
stone
ax and only fired within the time window of the natural balance of the
carbon cycle would it seem to be carbon neutral. There are many =3D
different
time lines but=3DA0 30-100 years represent the extremes. The natural cycle =
=3D
of
carbon sequestration doesn't magically change, i.e., speed up, because a
tree is cut down and burned. The natural carbon balance contains a =3D
variable
of time which can't be ignored or altered very much. By
> =3DA0the same token planting trees to "offset" the carbon added into the
atmosphere will only seem to slightly shorten the time line. The =3D
seedlings
have to be grown within walking distance of the site of replanting to =3D
insure
there isn't any additional carbon added into the equation. There is the
additional problem of what seems to be the 50% or so of carbon that goes
into the soil for=3DA0 longer sequestration in natural decay of wood. This
sequestration in itself isn't carbon neutral but seems to be a carbon =3D
sink.
>
> I fire exclusively with wood and am very interested in the carbon
footprint of wood firing and from the reading I have done there isn't =3D
any
way other than wishful thinking to think burning a tree is carbon =3D
neutral.
The two presentations I have seen have totally ignored the time and soil
sequestration factors. They assume that since the carbon in a tree will =3D
be
released back into the atmosphere you can burn it today and somehow be
carbon neutral.
> It looks like the smallest carbon footprints aren't going to be found =3D
in
wood firing.
> Dave
> http://togeii.wordpress.com/
>
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
------=3D_NextPart_000_007B_01CB05CA.57498600--
Lee Love on sun 6 jun 10
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, David wrote:
> The carbon footprint is indeed far more complex than adding up the total =
=3D
weight of wood burned in a kiln. There is a baseline that can be calculated=
=3D
from weight of wood though.
> The only way for the carbon footprint of a wood fired kiln to be zero is =
=3D
for the kiln to be fired once every 30-100 years.
This is wrong in for several reasons: 2/3rds of a fuel tree is left
in the woods, much of it underground, in the form of roots. Some
trees mature in as little a 5 years. Modern wood kilns are very
effecien. For a glaze firing, my kiln used 40 bundles of wood. I
used recycled wood that would have otherwise been fired in an open
bonfire, so I got heat work for zero additonal carbon into the air.
The big advantage is when you grow a woodlot for fuel. You are
burning trees that would have not been grown othewise, so you are
actually taking carbon out of the air.
Not likely.
> If the tree falls down naturally or is cut down by hand or by hand=3DA0 w=
it=3D
h a stone ax directly next to the kiln, the wood is broken up by hand or st=
=3D
one ax and only fired within the time window of the natural balance of the =
=3D
carbon cycle would it seem to be carbon neutral. There are many different t=
=3D
ime lines but=3DA0 30-100 years represent the extremes. The natural cycle o=
f =3D
carbon sequestration doesn't magically change, i.e., speed up, because a tr=
=3D
ee is cut down and burned. The natural carbon balance contains a variable o=
=3D
f time which can't be ignored or altered very much. By
> =3DA0the same token planting trees to "offset" the carbon added into the =
at=3D
mosphere will only seem to slightly shorten the time line. The seedlings ha=
=3D
ve to be grown within walking distance of the site of replanting to insure =
=3D
there isn't any additional carbon added into the equation. There is the add=
=3D
itional problem of what seems to be the 50% or so of carbon that goes into =
=3D
the soil for=3DA0 longer sequestration in natural decay of wood. This seque=
st=3D
ration in itself isn't carbon neutral but seems to be a carbon sink.
>
> I fire exclusively with wood and am very interested in the carbon footpri=
=3D
nt of wood firing and from the reading I have done there isn't any way othe=
=3D
r than wishful thinking to think burning a tree is carbon neutral. The two =
=3D
presentations I have seen have totally ignored the time and soil sequestrat=
=3D
ion factors. They assume that since the carbon in a tree will be released b=
=3D
ack into the atmosphere you can burn it today and somehow be carbon neutral=
=3D
.
> It looks like the smallest carbon footprints aren't going to be found in =
=3D
wood firing.
> Dave
> http://togeii.wordpress.com/
>
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
| |
|
