Time to kiln dry firewood down to 20%

[arboriculturist]

I'm still not sold on the idea if I have not made a decision by the end of the month it all be made for me as it will not be viable

Government have subsidised industry before and then ripped the contract up less than half way through the term.

 

It appears that this year has taken its toll on several with kilns due to slow sales. The kiln still has to be paid for in the good and bad times.

 

Also as more kiln dried appears there is sure to be a price war for 'kiln dried' but this time all the kilners will be on a level playing field as they are selling the exactly the same dry product, unlike some air dried retails some of whom sell green/damp wood.

 

The established kiln dryers with assets can afford to drop their prices for a couple of years and that will destroy several of their competitors.

 

This could follow a similar model to the supermarkets and small retailers - not a great situation for the independants.

[aesmith]

That as well. But are they giving out grants for tumble driers?

To those with solar PV panels on the roof - YES

Not quite the same, the FIT is a subsidy for generating electricity not for using it. RHI is the only subsidy I think that's based on consumption.

[ballibeg]

I can see this becoming an example used against the RHI. Paying people to burn wood to dry wood will sound daft to the majority of listeners.

[Mike Dempsey]

If it was up to me I would stop all subsidies on all form of energy production. If the renewable sector is as good as all the tree huggers say it is, then it would be able to stand on its own feet without getting a bung. Its the only industry where you get paid twice for producing something, and the vast majority of it going overseas. I really object to subsidising this through my fuel bills at a cost of about £100 or so a year. This is utter madness and the public are being conned. This is Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor to pay the rich.

I have been wanting to say that for ages on here as I know the are plenty of members here picking up up good money!

[R5log]

If it was up to me I would stop all subsidies on all form of energy production. If the renewable sector is as good as all the tree huggers say it is, then it would be able to stand on its own feet without getting a bung. Its the only industry where you get paid twice for producing something, and the vast majority of it going overseas. I really object to subsidising this through my fuel bills at a cost of about £100 or so a year. This is utter madness and the public are being conned. This is Robin Hood in reverse, robbing the poor to pay the rich.

I have been wanting to say that for ages on here as I know the are plenty of members here picking up up good money!

 

 

So you don't claim RHI?

[growforest]

RHI is a massive con for taxpayers, paying for heat installations for big, dilapidated country piles. We're paying people to use up more of our natural resources, when we should be offering incentives to people who use less, save energy by living off-grid, living in super-insulated homes etc

Those Arbtalkers who are getting their RHI whack won't be worried by the thoughts or opinions of the "tree-huggers", but the eventual negative effect on the sustainability of UK forests will be there for all to see.

US are already complaining to DECC about UK's effect on US forest wildlife of the wood pellet trade

IEEC (Euro Enviro Policy bods) said way back that there is no evidence that UK renewables policy will save any carbon emissions

[Mike Dempsey]

I dont claim RHI because I use a normal wood burning stove in the workshop and all I burn is air dried logs and sawdust, offcuts and shavings from my own kiln which I use to dry my slabs of timber.

The politicians dont have any incentive to stop the RHI bandwagon because they or their friends and relatives are claiming it. Its morally, environmentally and financially wrong.

[briquette_seller]

Britain on benefits

[skyhuck]

We are giving all this money to Europe anyway, so getting a little back is no bad thing, IMO.

[Duffryn]

My understanding is (and I could be wrong ) that the RHI was designed to help us meet the targets set under the Kyoto treaty. The cost of the RHI scheme was a fraction of the fines we would have to pay if we didn't reach the renewables target.

 

I think there can be very few arguments that the scheme actually helps the environment.

 

However given that the scheme exists those that have opted for it (including me) cannot really be blamed for doing so.