4 ms·

It takes a lot of physical work to stack logs, sure. I figure it's my annual gym exercise when I get the delivery from my neighbour. I really should upgrade to

by tpmx 4y ago

It takes a lot of physical work to stack logs, sure. I figure it's my annual gym exercise when I get the delivery from my neighbour. I really should upgrade to a motorized/automated burner that can eat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_briquette though. There is a plant that makes those about 30 km away.

cinntaile 4y ago
I doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.
- tpmx 4y ago
  I think you problably never witnessed the brutal effiency of modern logging machines. It's quite a sight to behold. These are very expensive machines, so they are typically not owned by the people owning and maintaining the forests. Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
  - landemva 4y ago
    > These are very expensive machines Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour. > they'll probably start to be battery powered Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks. When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Agreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that. And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    Your claim was CO2 neutral, it's what I originally replied to. I'm sure the machines are more efficient compared to older machines and maybe your neighbour knows approximately how much fuel he has to put in to get a a certain number of cubic meters of wood. It would be sort of interesting to know, you can find some data online but it's very situation specific so it's probably not representative. What happens to all the waste? Does most just turn into mulch? I don't think we'll see battery powered forestry machines any time soon, the batteries would have to be enormous but most importantly there would be no way to charge them.
    - tpmx 4y ago
      Fight the big wins, not the very very small ones. I.e. be a pragmatic, not a fundamentalist. Also: If you feel like you don't really understand a particular context: please do feel free to stay quiet until you have aquired an understanding of said context.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        I don't really get where your passive aggressive reaction suddenly comes from? The main claim, that it's CO2 neutral is false, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of your specific situation and we can maybe also do some napkin math. To do that, you need to provide some details such as what happens to the material that doesn't get turned into wood logs. And if you also know how much gas is being used to provide a certain amount of cubic meters of logs that's even better.

by tpmx 4y ago

cinntaile 4y ago

I doubt your neighbour has a machine that requires no energy input to go from tree to logs.

tpmx 4y ago
I think you problably never witnessed the brutal effiency of modern logging machines. It's quite a sight to behold. These are very expensive machines, so they are typically not owned by the people owning and maintaining the forests. Yes, it's not zero, but when comparing the extra co2 cost these machines add compared to the fossil fuel alternatives, it might as well be. In a few years they'll probably start to be battery powered, charged via clean nuclear and water power.
- landemva 4y ago
  > These are very expensive machines Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour. > they'll probably start to be battery powered Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks. When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Agreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that. And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  Your claim was CO2 neutral, it's what I originally replied to. I'm sure the machines are more efficient compared to older machines and maybe your neighbour knows approximately how much fuel he has to put in to get a a certain number of cubic meters of wood. It would be sort of interesting to know, you can find some data online but it's very situation specific so it's probably not representative. What happens to all the waste? Does most just turn into mulch? I don't think we'll see battery powered forestry machines any time soon, the batteries would have to be enormous but most importantly there would be no way to charge them.
  - tpmx 4y ago
    Fight the big wins, not the very very small ones. I.e. be a pragmatic, not a fundamentalist. Also: If you feel like you don't really understand a particular context: please do feel free to stay quiet until you have aquired an understanding of said context.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      I don't really get where your passive aggressive reaction suddenly comes from? The main claim, that it's CO2 neutral is false, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of your specific situation and we can maybe also do some napkin math. To do that, you need to provide some details such as what happens to the material that doesn't get turned into wood logs. And if you also know how much gas is being used to provide a certain amount of cubic meters of logs that's even better.