[LadyRuby]

Great, we're already going back to burning wood for heat. There goes the environment and trees.

From the Washington Post: link

There are plenty of ways to tell that the market for firewood has taken off here. Wood-burning stoves are selling out in stores, the price of split wood has jumped past $200 a cord and would-be woodsmen are filling up classes on lumberjack skills. ...

Chrisenton said he can barely stay ahead of the demand now -- as New Englanders stunned by the high price of oil flock back to a fuel source as old as the colonial forests. "The stuff I'm cutting today will either be delivered this afternoon or tomorrow," Chrisenton said. "We can't keep up with it." ..

In modern times, the last heyday of the New England firewood market was in the late 1970s, when oil shortages drove up the price of oil for home furnaces. Wood stoves and split logs sold like crazy. This year, as the region enters the traditional late-summer season when winter wood is laid up, the boom times are back. "It's becoming very much like 1979 again," said Richard Wright, a New Hampshire editor of a trade magazine for the business called Hearth & Home. ...

In New Hampshire, for instance, state figures show that a gallon of heating oil has jumped from $1.28 in late 2003 to about $2.67 today. ...

"All of them say the same thing, 'Oil is too high,' " said Wil Labbe, whose County Stove Shop in the far northern town of Caribou, Maine, has roughly tripled its stove sales of last year. "They don't trust the oil." The demand has meant big changes for the region's staid firewood industry, whose small-time operators customarily let their wood dry for months before depositing it on customers' lawns in late summer.

Suddenly, nobody has time to wait. Chrisenton, Maxine's owner, started cutting trees a month earlier than usual this season, and still couldn't keep up. Instead of three or four orders a week, he was getting 12 a day. "It's never been like that," said Ginny Chrisenton, his wife. For the first time in years, the couple stopped advertising their firewood in the state's larger newspapers, she said. "Now, it's just the local paper, because it's just too many calls."

Peter Lammert, an official with the Maine Forest Service, serves as a kind of unofficial Dow Jones for firewood, tracking the price per "cord" -- a stack four feet by four feet by eight feet. He said that, in the span of a year, the price of good-quality dried wood has gone up from $190 a cord to $205 and beyond, and even "green" wood, which is freshly cut and hard to burn, has jumped by $30 to $170 or more. ...

But the area's firefighters see a downside: They believe that an increase in wood burning will lead inevitably to an increase in people setting their homes on fire. ... "People are going to do funny things not to pay that money" for oil, said Raymond Parent, the fire chief in Sanford, Maine.

[backstop]

Lady Ruby -

surely the impact on the woodlands depends on what standards of forestry are upheld ? At best, that is true Coppice & Standards, some of the best biodiversity of any temperate ecosystem is accomodated.

It plainly needs a well organized trade assoc., working with local authorities, to establish conventions over harvesting cycles, permanent cover, moisture content, marketing of sustainability accreditation, etc.

Without that oversight for the common good I'd agree that anywhere within 3hrs drive of a city is going to be cleared as PO tightens - so where are the foresters' organizations on this ?

regards,

Backstop

[shortonoil]

But the area's firefighters see a downside: They believe that an increase in wood burning will lead inevitably to an increase in people setting their homes on fire.

Having lived in Vermont for about 40 years, anyone one who burns their own house down with a wood stove is either an idiot or a lazy ass. Good riddance either way!

[shortonoil]

Without that oversight for the common good I'd agree that anywhere within 3hrs drive of a city is going to be cleared as PO tightens - so where are the foresters' organizations on this ?

The city of Burlington, VT has been supplying the areas power with a wood fired power plant for about 25 years. The area has seen a considerable improvement of the regions forest areas as a result of the forest management programs that have been instituted.

[backstop]

Shortonoil -

A friend visited the Burlington plant last year and told me just how impressive it is, and remarked on the standard of forestry they aim to maintain.

Shows what can be done given the will and the commitment to the full term.

Maybe Lady Ruby is right in expecting there'll be a bunch of hackers moving in to the trade as the cord-price rises, but you clearly know it doesn't have to be like that. I wonder what are the prospects for raising the sustainability issue in the media over there ?

I'm fairly sure that both VT & NEng are among the states developing carbon control plans - maybe the prospect of forest-decline hitting their carbon scores might be encouraging some useful action ?

regards,

Backstop

[frankthetank]

Atleast, if implemented correctly (not likely), that it could be sustainable. Sooner or later, us northerners, will have to switch to wood. Heck, since most of Alaska is burning anyways, might as well import it from them!

[Overlyhonest]

Having come from New England paper mill/timber country I would have to say this- It is not the small town and cities “if you can even call places like Caribou, Bangor, or even Portland cities” of New England switching back to wood that will be a problem. It is when NE is asked to supply outside of NE that the problems will really start but maybe not. It is private individuals cutting on their private wood lots that are supplying the market right now. If it was to go larger in scale they would be accessing public lands like the paper mills and timber companies already do. They would have to comply to the same standards of land care as these industries and also compete with them.

[peaker_2005]

Atleast, if implemented correctly (not likely), that it could be sustainable. Sooner or later, us northerners, will have to switch to wood. Heck, since most of Alaska is burning anyways, might as well import it from them!

So true. Trees are the only carbon source which can be (relatively) easily regenerated well within a generation.

They also have the potential to reduce rural problems like salination issues, and are great as windbreaks.

Indeed, we've already developed the best way of mass-harvesting: the plantation. We just need to implement it more. Using plantations would be advantageous: one can place a plantation near distribution networks.

[thor]

Great, we're already going back to burning wood for heat. There goes the environment and trees.

Indeed. There is simply no way in hell we could plant our way through this energy crisis without severe ecological problems.

[MrBean]

Atleast, if implemented correctly (not likely), that it could be sustainable. Sooner or later, us northerners, will have to switch to wood. Heck, since most of Alaska is burning anyways, might as well import it from them!

Why not heat-pumps?

[shakespear1]

The problem is bigger.

I currently live in Poland and I see houses around which are 2 level and only have 2 adults and perhaps 2 kids living in them. Well the energy usage ( thinking heating ) of a building like that must be stupid.

Thus I am for, use wood BUT optimize current and future homes for minimum heat loss. This is certainly not true in parts of US where I have lived.

[shakespear1]

Now that my brain is working a bit more. Couldn't the gov. give people a incentive to use less gas/electricity by having them show a year over decrease in usage that would be rewarded by a reduction in their taxes? Or perhaps tie it to a reduction in their monthly gas/electricity bill?

[Ludi]

Indeed, we've already developed the best way of mass-harvesting: the plantation. We just need to implement it more. Using plantations would be advantageous: one can place a plantation near distribution networks.

Plantations aren't the greatest idea. Mixed-age -and-species forests are much better for ecological diversity and tree health than one-species plantations. One can certainly plant mixed-species "forests" but of course a real forest develops over time.

[frankthetank]

Heat pumps would help too. I feel that wood could be a viable heating alternative in many parts of the north...although air quality is surely to diminish..especially when an inversion layer sets up in the winter.

I still think pellet stoves are the way to go. Any American joe blow could operate one of them and they can actually be set up with a hopper large enough to burn for a couple days. I'm not sure of the EROEI is of wood pellets.

[Ludi]

There are quite efficient and less-polluting woodstoves available, and are mandatory in some areas, but they are more expensive and I doubt there's much enforcement. The really cheap little cast-iron woodstoves aren't very efficient and can be quite polluting.

[peaker_2005]

Indeed, we've already developed the best way of mass-harvesting: the plantation. We just need to implement it more. Using plantations would be advantageous: one can place a plantation near distribution networks.

Plantations aren't the greatest idea. Mixed-age -and-species forests are much better for ecological diversity and tree health than one-species plantations. One can certainly plant mixed-species "forests" but of course a real forest develops over time.

Hmm. Didn't know that. I don't pretend to be an expert. My main point was the distrbution one though. Forests are all well and good, but what's the point if you can't get it to market? Fortunately we don't need much warming here in Australia (piling on the blankets will usually suffice when it does get cold) but much of our prime forests lie away from rail lines (thankyou for the short-sightedness, Feds)...

[Ludi]

With the global warming issue, it's important to keep in mind the problem of carbon sequestration. If we're harvesting more trees than we're planting, we'll be releasing even more CO2. Young growing trees sequester carbon fairly efficiently, though less efficiently I think than perennial grasses. Once they reach maturity, though, trees don't sequester as much carbon and can even become a source of CO2 as they decay. We've managed to destroy a couple of big carbon sinks - most of the world's forests and most of the prairies in North America, and grasslands elsewhere. We'd better think seriously about renewing these carbon sinks if we want to have a liveable planet in the future.

[Heineken]

I heat my modest dwelling entirely with wood and don't think twice about it. I have so much heat that I have to keep my windows partly open most of the winter. I own my own little forest, so my supply is essentially infinite. Now, if only I could figure out how to eat the stuff.

I harvest only diseased trees or trees that are crowding other trees. Thus, my woodcutting activities are good for the woods, or at worst neutral.

I don't think it will ever be practical for the urban and suburban masses to do most of their home heating with wood. It is too bulky, and the rising costs of processing and transporting firewood are bound to make it prohibitively expensive (this trend is already well under way). Wood is not very efficient compared with other fuels, and most of the millions of houses that have been built in the past decade are relatively huge, with dramatic space-heating requirements. (The stupid McHouses thus go hand-in-hand with the stupid giant SUVs.) These houses would require multiple wood stoves. A wood stove requires fairly frequent checking and adjustment. When there's nobody at home because everybody's at the office, who will do that?

Air pollution is indeed an issue. I find myself coughing more during the winter---I'm sure wood stoves are bad for my lungs because they do raise the ambient particulate concentration, even with a good draft. Millions of wood stoves coming on line are bound to make our air much worse.

[Heineken]

With the global warming issue, it's important to keep in mind the problem of carbon sequestration. If we're harvesting more trees than we're planting, we'll be releasing even more CO2. Young growing trees sequester carbon fairly efficiently, though less efficiently I think than perennial grasses. Once they reach maturity, though, trees don't sequester as much carbon and can even become a source of CO2 as they decay. We've managed to destroy a couple of big carbon sinks - most of the world's forests and most of the prairies in North America, and grasslands elsewhere. We'd better think seriously about renewing these carbon sinks if we want to have a liveable planet in the future.

Ludi, I agree. This country---this world---needs to embark on a massive tree-planting program.

[Tyler_JC]

I live in a suburb of Boston (about 20 miles south of the city).

There are plenty of trees around here to heat all of the homes with fireplaces in the winter. However, most people don't have nearly enough fireplaces to heat their entire house.

The very old houses usually had more than one fireplace and were much smaller. These McMansions would be virtually impossible to heat with wood unless they dramatically changed the interior design. Also, we would have to be less picky about protecting wetlands and state parks.

I'm lucky, my house located on a large (11 acre) lot of land and is surronded by acres of "protected wetlands". That means plenty of free firewood.