Are people getting fussier about their logs?

[treequip]

If the tree is being cut down any way its is actually carbon negative, because if you landfill the timber it will release just as much carbon as burning it, if you burn it for heat the carbon you would have released burning coal/gas will not be released, meaning a net reduction in carbon

 

Landfilling timber doesn’t release significant amounts of gaseous carbon but it does release Methane which, as greenhouse gasses go is way worse than carbon.

[Clada]

But its sold by volume.

 

There are lots of threads on here discussing issues relating to volume/weight of firewood. I wonder can you substantiate your statement?

 

My point is that softwood has a 1-2% higher energy component, resulting from resins, than hardwood has when compared scientifically.

[Fahrenheit]

Definitely misinformation is a nightmare. Same with any trade or product.

 

likeitorlumpit - Why is my first statement untrue? Okay maybe 25% is a bit high. 20% would be ideal but 25% is the absolute max.

[Justme]

I wonder can you substantiate your statement?

 

My point is that softwood has a 1-2% higher energy component, resulting from resins, than hardwood has when compared scientifically.

 

Read some threads on here about firewood sales. You will soon see that most on here sell by either m3 or by the load (which is a volume) apart from the chancers that are selling "tonne" bags. I dont know anyone that sells by an accurate weight (IE weigh bridged) at a guaranteed moisture content.

 

Why is weight more scientific than volume?

 

Unless you can guarantee that the moisture content is consistent through the log & full load doing it by weight will not be scientific.

[Sam Thompson]

Why is my first statement untrue?

 

Hawthorn.

[Clada]

Read some threads on here about firewood sales. You will soon see that most on here sell by either m3 or by the load (which is a volume) apart from the chancers that are selling "tonne" bags. I dont know anyone that sells by an accurate weight (IE weigh bridged) at a guaranteed moisture content.

Why is weight more scientific than volume?

 

Unless you can guarantee that the moisture content is consistent through the log & full load doing it by weight will not be scientific.

 

I am not going to get into a line by line reply to your post which attempts to misinterpret what I've actually said.

[gensetsteve]

I sell by volume. I am not worried in the slightest about % moisture. If people want bone dry wood buy it 2 years before you need it. If you buy green processed beech from me now it will be 20% by November. Why are we buying cord and sitting on it for 12 months in the hope of making a 20% margin. If I borrow the money to buy the cordwood it will cost me 16%. It will be the same this year people ringing round in October trying to get the lowest possible price for the driest wood. Come December they will take anything they can get.

[skyhuck]

Hawthorn.

 

 

If you mean Hawthorn will burn green, then yes it will, (as will some other timbers) but it still tars up your chimney.

[Fahrenheit]

Hawthorn?

 

Gensetsteve - i totally understand what your saying and it would be great if everyone bought a year or two in advance but they're not going to so the folk selling dry wood will be busier.

 

I've seen the effects of burning wet wood and it's a nightmare. A decent modern stove will keep it's glass clean providing the wood is dry. Wood more than 20% will tar the glass and cause excessive tarring of flue.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Fahrenheit

[Sam Thompson]

 

If you mean Hawthorn will burn green, then yes it will, (as will some other timbers) but it still tars up your chimney.

 

 

True. However I read somewhere that due to lower levels of something () it produces less tar than other green woods, and less than some seasoned. This may be very wrong, thinking about it. If it is I will eat my hat. But the book seemed good