search  current discussion  categories  kilns & firing - wood

## wood firing footprint

### David on sun 6 jun 10

Lee Love wrote,
This is wrong in for several reasons:
2/3rds of a=3DA0 fuel tree is left
in=3DA0 the woods, much of it underground,=3D0A in the form of roots.

Can you give me a citation for the figure of 67% litter.

There are a lot of=3DA0 very helpful and interesting papers on the topic of=
w=3D
ood acting as a carbon "holding company" . http://www.sampsongroup.com/Pape=
=3D
rs/Monitoring%20and%20Measuring%20Wood%20Carbon.pdf which is a pdf file. Th=
=3D
ere are two tables at the bottom that are well worth a look.=3D20
http://olivotto.com/carbon/index.html is another. Take a look at figure 1.
These are two easy to understand studies. There are tens more I am looking =
=3D
at and none of them suggest that burning of wood is carbon neutral. The stu=
=3D
dies are done by researchers looking into questions that differ by study bu=
=3D
t none of them see cutting wood as an exercise in putting a little=3D0A in =
th=3D
e bank and being able to take it out later. This is the=3D0A basic model be=
in=3D
g offered by most wood firers.=3D20
The question of if "waste" wood is carbon free is addressed in the Carbon a=
=3D
nd Forests paper I linked to above. It clearly states there is about a 20% =
=3D
long time carbon sequestration gain in converting litter to chips and then =
=3D
making products out of them.=3D20
The idea that oil derived fuels or coal should be kept in a carbon sequeste=
=3D
red state, not burned, but that somehow since wood is renewable it is OK to=
=3D
burn isn't supported by any data. The 2 papers linked to, 2 of many, stres=
=3D
s the time factor in determining the effectiveness of wood as a carbon sink=
=3D
.=3D20
Here is something from another paper.
This is taken from a report compiled by a forest products company. One woul=
=3D
d expect them to give a sympathetic ear to cutting.
Begin cut and paste.

=3D0AMonitoring and Measuring Wood Carbon=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0AIt may take 15=
0 years fo=3D
r regenerating trees on each=3D0A=3D0Acoupe to recapture carbon removed dur=
ing =3D
timber=3D0A=3D0Aharvesting.End cut.
From a different source. This is from an environmental impact report.
Begin,
Monitoring and Measuring Wood Carbon=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D0AIt is impossible fo=
r a biom=3D
ass power plant that burns=3D0Aexisting forests to be carbon neutral since =
an=3D
y increase=3D0A=3D0Ain forest cutting negatively affects the current baseli=
ne=3D
=3D0Acondition of forest growth versus cutting and=3D0A=3D0Amortality. Furt=
hermor=3D
e, it is the overall carbon emission=3D0Ainput rate into the atmosphere fro=
m =3D
an energy=3D0A=3D0Asource that matters, because overall carbon sequestratio=
n=3D0A=3D
rates can not be expected to increase to make up for=3D0A=3D0Aincreased car=
bon =3D
inputs. With biomass burning of existing=3D0Atrees, the overall sequestrati=
on=3D
rate may even=3D0A=3D0Adecrease because of the impacts on the forest, crea=
ting=3D
End cut.
=3D0A=3D0A
The total carbon sequestered in a tree isn't equal to the carbon it takes t=
=3D
o plant the tree and grow. The tree sequesters more carbon as time passes, =
=3D
peaking at about 75-120 years depending on the tree. The carbon content of =
=3D
a tree is roughly 50% of weight. That is a lot of carbon to throw out into =
=3D
the atmosphere in one go. It is especially important to note that the basel=
=3D
ine rate isn't going to magically increase just because trees were planted =
=3D
to "offset" cut trees. Take a look at Figure 1 in the second paper I linked=
=3D
to.=3DA0It seems the logic of wood firers is that since oil and coal are f=
in=3D
al units in the carbon cycle it isn't OK to burn them but since wood isn't =
=3D
a final stage unit is is OK to do what one wants with it. Wood has to be se=
=3D
en as a carbon sequestering medium to understand its =3D0Afunction. It is s=
ti=3D
cks of carbon. There is a balance that is maintained in nature that can't b=
=3D
e sped up or slowed down depending on the needs that are at hand.=3D20
My original post to the list was for data on wood, electricity and other fu=
=3D
el amounts. I have gotten data from a couple of people off line for gas and=
=3D
electrical. I have found a simple way of figuring the carbon footprint for=
=3D
wood if the wood was prepared without producing any other carbon inputs. T=
=3D
he carbon output would be .5 of the input weight. The output for gas and ot=
=3D
her fuels is in some sense easier to figure as a lot of work has gone into =
=3D
those calculations.
Back to preparing for my next firing.Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/
=3D0A=3D0A

### David on mon 7 jun 10

Claudia wrote,
=3D0A=3DA0the forest burns NATURALLY every 50 or so years

That=3D0A is exactly my point. Thank you.

and=3D20
We just finished a wood =3D0Afiring last night and I don't feel the least b=
it=3D
of guilt.

Good, me neither.

Robert Harris wrote,
However some of your points are a little skewed.

You and my wife agree on at least one point.
=3DA0

He also wrote,
For starters I am
going to assume that when we talk of a carbon footprint we are really
talking about a method of measuring our impact on global warming through th=
=3D
e
"Greenhouse Effect"

No, I am talking about the amount of carbon wood firing puts into the air.

He also wrote,
In burning at a higher temperature you are certainly burning more cleanly -
that is more of your wood is being turned into Carbon Dioxide (the main
greenhouse gas) and water. However this actually=3D0A means that when you b=
ur=3D
n a
piece of wood you get closer to the theoretical amount of CO2 that can be
produced - instead of producing a large amount unburnt (or not quite burnt)
material. Which of course is more likely to cause respiratory problems but
adds less to the greenhouse effect.

Clean burning doesn't matter.=3D20
All the studies I have read say all the carbon from a tree eventually goes =
=3D
back into the air.The efficiency of the burning doesn't matter for what I a=
=3D
m talking about. The inefficiently burned wood is in effect being rendered =
=3D
to a state that facilitates decomposition, that is to say it will return to=
=3D
the air faster. I would like to see some writing that says that efficient =
=3D
burning of wood somehow reduces the carbon content. It doesn't. It only red=
=3D
uces other more visible byproducts such as large and small particulates. I =
=3D
haven't read a single mention of methane byproduct from natural decompositi=
=3D
on. Can you provide any studies=3D0A that mention methane production in the=
t=3D
=3D
s.ch/index.php?id=3D3D36&L=3D3D1 talks about active production of methane a=
s an=3D
energy source. I don't know enough about it to say anything.=3D20

He also wrote,
If the wood is added to a compost heap then far more of the carbon will be
trapped (as organic material) than if the wood were burnt. Of course
depending on how it is decomposed some of it might be turned into methane
which is a far far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

I can't find any data to suggest natural decomposition in situspan> causes =
=3D
methane production.=3DA0 I am not talking about disposal of wood in compost=
h=3D
eaps. I am talking about how much carbon wood firing puts into the air.
Carbon trapped in the soil will eventually return to the air but at a much =
=3D
slower rate. This is in keeping with the=3D0A natural carbon cycle. Burning=
i=3D
t speeds up the cycle. This seems to be the crux of the problem. In my last=
=3D
message I had a couple of extracts from studies that unequivocally say bur=
=3D
ning wood isn't carbon neutral.=3DA0 I would like to see some studies that =
sa=3D
y it is neutral, or that it somehow reduces the amount of carbon in a piece=
=3D
of wood. Does anyone have links to these types of studies? All studies sta=
=3D
te without question that the time frame is important. =3D0ASpeeding up the =
ti=3D
me frame renders the tree carbon negative.
Thank you,
Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/

### David on mon 7 jun 10

Since I have made so many new friends I am going to stop while I am ahead.
If anyone has studies they think I should see please point me to them. I ha=
ve just changed my topic at the upcoming European Wood Firing Conference fr=
om Nanban firing to this topic. After I get my presentation together I will=
probably set up a webinair to have a practice go at presenting it. I will =
post something here and those interested will be able to participate for fr=
ee.
Thank you,
Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/

### Mary & Wes Handrow on mon 7 jun 10

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=3D_NextPart_000_00A7_01CB0685.C71E2650
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If we are going to get into the production of methane we might as well stop
now. Termites produce more methane than anything else and methane is a
stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but so is water vapor. All of the bugabo=
o
that people are worried about is the fact that what took geologic time
scales to put down as fossil fuels, we are releasing on human time scales.
And no we are not even close to the high amounts that nature (volcanic
sources) have released in the geologic past nor the highest oxygen levels o=
f
the past (age of the large insects). We are in a closed system and no mate=
r
what we do the earth will go on the question is will it go on with us going
along for the ride? If you want to really go "green", find all of the
wasted energy in your lifestyle. If that is too much hardship for you then
stop looking for others to point fingers at. No one method of firing is
that much better than another. I fire with wood because I like the look an=
d
I can get the fuel for my sweat, just like some that use waste oil. In the
grand scheme of things if you compare any kind of a firing to say a jet
airliner taking off and flying we are a drop in the bucket.

------=3D_NextPart_000_00A7_01CB0685.C71E2650
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment

Received: by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 15.5)
with spool id 2443183 for Clayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG; Mon,
07 Jun 2010 10:45:17 -0400
Received: from lsv ([192.168.31.36]) by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:45:18 -0400
Received: from [206.190.39.244] by LSV.CERAMICS.ORG (SMTPL release 1.0w)
with TCP; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:26:29 -0400
Received: from [61.86.219.251] by web54202.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon=
,
07 Jun 2010 04:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22659 invoked by uid 60001); Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:05:44 +00=
00
by vms172073.mailsrvcs.net
(Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009))
with ESMTP id <0L3N005PFHLAG452@vms172073.mailsrvcs.net> for
res1lp2f@VERIZON.NET; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:27:19 -0500 (CDT)
Return-Path:
From: "David"
Sender: "Clayart"
To:
Subject: Wood firing footprint
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 06:05:44 -0500
Message-ID: <536927.20855.qm@web54202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/11.0.8 YahooMailWebService/0.8.103.269680
List-Subscribe:
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Help: , :LISTSERV@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG?body=3DINFO%20Clayart>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931

Claudia wrote,

=3DA0the forest burns NATURALLY every 50 or so years

That
is exactly my point. Thank you.

and=3D20
We just finished a wood=3D20
firing last night and I don't feel the least bit of guilt.

My=3D20
Good, me neither.

Robert Harris wrote,
However some of your points are a little skewed.

You and my wife agree on at least one point.
=3DA0

He also wrote,
For starters I am
going to assume that when we talk of a carbon footprint we are really
talking about a method of measuring our impact on global warming through =
=3D
the
"Greenhouse Effect"

No, I am talking about the amount of carbon wood firing puts into the =3D
air.

He also wrote,
In burning at a higher temperature you are certainly burning more =3D
cleanly -
that is more of your wood is being turned into Carbon Dioxide (the main
greenhouse gas) and water. However this actually
means that when you burn a
piece of wood you get closer to the theoretical amount of CO2 that can =3D
be
produced - instead of producing a large amount unburnt (or not quite =3D
burnt)
material. Which of course is more likely to cause respiratory problems =3D
but
adds less to the greenhouse effect.

Clean burning doesn't matter.=3D20
All the studies I have read say all the carbon from a tree eventually =3D
goes
back into the air.The efficiency of the burning doesn't matter for what =3D
I am
talking about. The inefficiently burned wood is in effect being rendered =
=3D
to
a state that facilitates decomposition, that is to say it will return to =
=3D
the
air faster. I would like to see some writing that says that efficient
burning of wood somehow reduces the carbon content. It doesn't. It only
reduces other more visible byproducts such as large and small =3D
particulates.
I haven't read a single mention of methane byproduct from natural
decomposition. Can you provide any studies
that mention methane production in the time frame of natural =3D
decomposition
=3D
active production of methane as an energy source. I don't know enough =3D
it to say anything.=3D20

He also wrote,
If the wood is added to a compost heap then far more of the carbon will =3D
be
trapped (as organic material) than if the wood were burnt. Of course
depending on how it is decomposed some of it might be turned into =3D
methane
which is a far far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

I can't find any data to suggest natural decomposition in situspan> =3D
causes
methane production.=3DA0 I am not talking about disposal of wood in =3D
compost
heaps. I am talking about how much carbon wood firing puts into the air.
Carbon trapped in the soil will eventually return to the air but at a =3D
much
slower rate. This is in keeping with the
natural carbon cycle. Burning it speeds up the cycle. This seems to be =3D
the
crux of the problem. In my last message I had a couple of extracts from
studies that unequivocally say burning wood isn't carbon neutral.=3DA0 I =
=3D
would
like to see some studies that say it is neutral, or that it somehow =3D
reduces
the amount of carbon in a piece of wood. Does anyone have links to these
types of studies? All studies state without question that the time frame =
=3D
is
important.=3D20
Speeding up the time frame renders the tree carbon negative.
Thank you,
Dave
http://togeii.wordpress.com/

------=3D_NextPart_000_00A7_01CB0685.C71E2650--

### Steve Slatin on mon 7 jun 10

You can also get anaerobic decomposition in
earth (i.e., tree roots and such) and in piles
of organic matter (including mulch piles only
a few inches deep).

This is readily discernible to those experienced
in mulching, who will recognize the difference
between the anaerobic smell (sort of ammonia-
like or sulphery) and the sweeter smell of
aerobic mulching (more like the smell of a
freshly sawn plank of wood).

The products of the two types of decomposition
are different, and the anaerobic process
gives you a material that can actually burn

The solution to the anaerobic decomposition
is, of course, to turn the mulch over often
and allow it to be exposed to oxygen in the
air.

Steve Slatin --

--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Robert Harris wrote:

>
> I only mentioned methane because it can sometimes, under
> specific
> conditions, be a product of decomposition - i.e. rotting
> leaves at the
> bottom of a pond - yes these are anaerobic conditions.
>
> Secondly decomposition of organic material is never going
> to release the
> same amount of CO2 into the air as burning - otherwise you
> would not get
> your nice fertile (organic - i.e. contains carbon atoms)
> topsoil.
>

### James Freeman on mon 7 jun 10

David...

I'm not going to get involved with this discussion, but I will mention
two things:

First, it is my understanding that methane is produced through
anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, so a tree rotting on the
forest floor or in a compost heap would not produce methane.

Second, there is a fly in the ointment when arguing that burning wood
is neutral because the trees would have rotted anyway. Trees grow
very slowly in a natural forest situation, and are replaced only when
a hole opens up in the forest canopy. When wood is grown for fuel (or
timber), it is grown very quickly and is replaced very often, thus
much more of it is burned (or rotted) than would ever have been the
case in nature, putting more particulates into the air than otherwise
would have occurred.

The entire matter seems pretty silly to me, though, since everything
that happens on earth, including human activity, is completely
neutral. Nothing goes away, and nothing new is created. So I burn a
tree or some oil, and it releases carbon and other stuff. Where did
that carbon and other stuff come from? The earth. It was all here
before, and will all be here after, endlessly recycled. The growing
tree sucks carbon and other stuff out of the air and soil and uses
those atoms and molecules to build itself. When we burn the tree, it
just goes back to where it came from. A plant sucks chemicals from
the air and soil. An animal eats the plant, transferring some of the
chemicals to it's own body, returning the rest to the earth and air as
poop. A person eats the animal, transferring some of those chemicals
to himself, returning the rest to the earth. The person dies, rots or
burns, and returns all of the borrowed chemicals to the earth and air.
The cycle repeats endlessly. The earth creates coal or oil out of
stuff that was already here. We burn the coal or oil, thereby putting
the stuff right back where it came from. No atoms are created and
none go away (excluding the insignificant amount of nuclear activity).
The matter is simply recycled.

In 1935, the great pioneering conservationist Paul B. Sears wrote the follo=
=3D
wing:

"The face of the earth is a graveyard, and so it has always been. To
Earth each living thing restores when it dies that which has been
borrowed to give form and substance to it's brief day in the sun.
From Earth, in due course, each new living being receives back again a
loan of that which sustains life. What is lent by Earth has been used
by countless generations of plants and animals now dead, and will be
required by countless others in the future... No plant or animal, nor
any sort of either, can establish permanent right of possession to the
materials which compose it's physical body."

Make your pots. Fire them any way you see fit. None of it matters a
whit. Nothing is "green"; and everything is "green".

...James

James Freeman

"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne

http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM, David wrote:

I haven't read a single mention of methane byproduct from natural
decomposition. Can you provide any studies
> =3DA0that mention methane production in the time frame of natural decompo=
si=3D
D1 t=3D
alks about active production of methane as an energy source. I don't know e=
=3D
nough about it to say anything.
>
> He also wrote,
> If the wood is added to a compost heap then far more of the carbon will b=
=3D
e
> trapped (as organic material) than if the wood were burnt. Of course
> depending on how it is decomposed some of it might be turned into methane
> which is a far far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
>
> I can't find any data to suggest natural decomposition in situspan> cause=
=3D
s methane production.

### Robert Harris on mon 7 jun 10

A few points -

I completely agree with James that matter is neither created nor destroyed
(within a closed system) and on the human timescale the earth is a closed
system. The "problem" (if it is indeed a problem) is what form that matter
takes. When people talk about being carbon neutral they are not talking
about the element carbon (either graphite, diamond or fullerenes), but
rather carbon dioxide neutral. which adds to a CO2 layer in the upper
atmosphere that prevents cooling of the earth (much like glass in a
greenhouse). Which then leads to the current bugbear - global warming.

The current problem is that carbon sequestration (that is carbon that is
pulled from the atmosphere (as CO2 by photosynthesis) is currently far
outweighed by the turning of previously sequestered carbon (in the form of
gas oil and coal - organic compounds) into carbon dioxide. Since this carbo=
n
was sequestered on a geological rather than human timescale we are adding
far more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other period in human (or recent
geological) history. Hence more CO2 rises to the upper atmosphere and takes
part in the greenhouse effect.

I only mentioned methane because it can sometimes, under specific
conditions, be a product of decomposition - i.e. rotting leaves at the
bottom of a pond - yes these are anaerobic conditions.

Secondly decomposition of organic material is never going to release the
same amount of CO2 into the air as burning - otherwise you would not get
your nice fertile (organic - i.e. contains carbon atoms) topsoil.

In addition when we think of carbon sequestration we need to consider where
the CO2 is going. At the top of a nice hot chimney it is going straight up
in nice tall plumes into the atmosphere - where it has a much higher
likelihood of going further up to join the greenhouse gases. In this case
I'm not really talking about kiln chimneys but rather tall industrial ones.
In a forest the CO2 produced is more likely to stick around a bit a get
reabsorbed by trees.

Frankly however since trees live (more or less) on a similar timescale to
humans, they are (assuming they are replanted) essentially carbon neutral.
Any wood that comes from a forest that is not replanted, is however NOT
carbon neutral.

Robert

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 12:42 PM, James Freeman m
> wrote:

> David...
>
> I'm not going to get involved with this discussion, but I will mention
> two things:
>
> First, it is my understanding that methane is produced through
> anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, so a tree rotting on the
> forest floor or in a compost heap would not produce methane.
>
> Second, there is a fly in the ointment when arguing that burning wood
> is neutral because the trees would have rotted anyway. Trees grow
> very slowly in a natural forest situation, and are replaced only when
> a hole opens up in the forest canopy. When wood is grown for fuel (or
> timber), it is grown very quickly and is replaced very often, thus
> much more of it is burned (or rotted) than would ever have been the
> case in nature, putting more particulates into the air than otherwise
> would have occurred.
>
> The entire matter seems pretty silly to me, though, since everything
> that happens on earth, including human activity, is completely
> neutral. Nothing goes away, and nothing new is created. So I burn a
> tree or some oil, and it releases carbon and other stuff. Where did
> that carbon and other stuff come from? The earth. It was all here
> before, and will all be here after, endlessly recycled. The growing
> tree sucks carbon and other stuff out of the air and soil and uses
> those atoms and molecules to build itself. When we burn the tree, it
> just goes back to where it came from. A plant sucks chemicals from
> the air and soil. An animal eats the plant, transferring some of the
> chemicals to it's own body, returning the rest to the earth and air as
> poop. A person eats the animal, transferring some of those chemicals
> to himself, returning the rest to the earth. The person dies, rots or
> burns, and returns all of the borrowed chemicals to the earth and air.
> The cycle repeats endlessly. The earth creates coal or oil out of
> stuff that was already here. We burn the coal or oil, thereby putting
> the stuff right back where it came from. No atoms are created and
> none go away (excluding the insignificant amount of nuclear activity).
> The matter is simply recycled.
>
> In 1935, the great pioneering conservationist Paul B. Sears wrote the
> following:
>
> "The face of the earth is a graveyard, and so it has always been. To
> Earth each living thing restores when it dies that which has been
> borrowed to give form and substance to it's brief day in the sun.
> From Earth, in due course, each new living being receives back again a
> loan of that which sustains life. What is lent by Earth has been used
> by countless generations of plants and animals now dead, and will be
> required by countless others in the future... No plant or animal, nor
> any sort of either, can establish permanent right of possession to the
> materials which compose it's physical body."
>
> Make your pots. Fire them any way you see fit. None of it matters a
> whit. Nothing is "green"; and everything is "green".
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
> should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
> -Michel de Montaigne
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM, David wrote:
>
> I haven't read a single mention of methane byproduct from natural
> decomposition. Can you provide any studies
> > that mention methane production in the time frame of natural
> production of methane as an energy source. I don't know enough about it t=
o
> say anything.
> >
> > He also wrote,
> > If the wood is added to a compost heap then far more of the carbon will
> be
> > trapped (as organic material) than if the wood were burnt. Of course
> > depending on how it is decomposed some of it might be turned into metha=
ne
> > which is a far far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
> >
> > I can't find any data to suggest natural decomposition in situspan>
> causes methane production.
>

--
----------------------------------------------------------

### Lee Love on mon 7 jun 10

Robert,

A big thing you overlook in wood as fuel, is the carbon
sequestered in the roots which is release very slowly over time.
Firing with wood is 2 to 3 times more effective than wind or solar
power in eliminating the produciton of carbon. 63% of the carbon
held by a tree is sequestered in its roots.:

http://www.treepower.org/globalwarmingresearch.html

Short quote here:

As a Global Warming/Greenhouse Gas mitigation strategy, co- firing
energy crop biomass at existing coal-fired power plants achieves the
greatest reduction of any renewable energy resource option, where:
Electricity produced from biomass fuel is carbon cycle neutral --
just like wind or solar energy.
However, unlike other renewable energy options, tree energy crop
biomass also sequesters carbon (a sustainable long-term storing)
through the trees' root system.
Co-firing energy crop biomass fuel in base load power plants direct=
ly
displaces/reduces coal use, which achieves almost two times the
Green-house gas reduction benefit of placing wind or solar power
facilities on an intergrated electricity power grid.

Below ground Carbon Sequestration of Tree Energy Crops: In December
2001, Common Purpose/University of Florida excavated 14 month old
whole eucalyptus trees at our Energy Crop Plantation. The trees
averaged ~20 feet in height, and had ~ 3 inch trunk diameters at their
base.

The proceedure used a Caterpillar back-hoe to excavate whole trees
including their root system.

--
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

### Lee Love on mon 7 jun 10

The important factor is to realized that you can improve the
"greenness" of your fuel by following certain procedures and
practices. If you think it doesn't matter what you do or you don't
care (as is our indoctrnated cultural state of mind), then it is
--
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

### Lee Love on mon 7 jun 10

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:05 AM, David wrote:
> Clean burning doesn't matter.

Clean burning DOES matter. Complex hydrocarbons, that are sometimes
carcinogens, are broken down at high temprature. Burning at high
temp is the recommended procedure for disposing of composite woods
that vent formaldihydes into the environment.

--
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

### ivor and olive lewis on tue 8 jun 10

Concerning Methane.
Colloquially known as Marsh Gas
Of the places where this has been generated, areas which store the greatest
volumes are the Tundra regions of Canada and Siberia.
Canadians among our members may be able to confirm the degree to which
Global Warming is influencing the release of Methane from Arctic regions.
Could this be a perturbation of a Polydecadal oscillation ?
Regards,
Ivor Lewis,
REDHILL,
South Australia