Big J

Well worth setting up your own. It's not expensive, and easily pays for itself on the first run, even compared to getting someone else to do a run for you.

Not quite. Chatting to a colleague, recently back from New Zealand, the whole logging industry there is at a standstill due to 90% of it going to China ordinarily. I know we're not in that boat, but it doesn't take much to upset the apple cart.

I think that the corona virus disruption will cause a substantial economic downturn, which potentially combined with (worst case) an increase in availability of housing due to mortality in the highest risk groups (70+). Italy is in lockdown, and I don't think it'll be the only European country to go down that route. England is the most densely populated country in Europe and the potential for transmission is better here than almost anywhere else.

If it's good quality, you'll be getting an PM from the various hurley stick makers that frequent this forum in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1........ ?

I very much doubt it. Extenuating circumstances, act of God, whatever you want to call it. It's just one of those mildly existentially threatening ballaches. We'll get through it. On the plus side (for us), we almost bought a house before Christmas and I'm really, really glad that we didn't now. Entirely selfish I know, but you have personally have to look on the bright side of life, as a great man once said

Good to know. Without toilet paper, it's no fun going Commando ?

I don't ever clean it. To an extent, the stove you have will determine how clear it stays (our old Jotul style stove requires cleaning every few weeks, our current Woodwarm doesn't) but mainly how you operate the stove influences it. Shutting down a fire to the point where it's smoldering will cause a soot/ash buildup on the glass. Having a stove thermometer on the flue makes a huge difference, and I'd recommend it for anyone.

My weather forecaster friend sent me this. It shows that drier weather (the red) has been on the forecast horizon for weeks now, but just won't get any closer!!

What is the justification for felling the timber? If it's 50 acres and 500t, it's not plantation softwood. If it's broadleaf, it's likely to be older, larger trees, in which case they aren't ideal for biomass and there is a moral question to be raised in clearing them. Forestry work entails buying standing timber and selling it at roadside to make your money usually. If you're not equipped to do the job, it's probably best to get in touch with a forestry company to help.

That article is a year old and the prices are considerably lower now. If in any doubt as to the lack of sustainability in the UK forestry industry, the high log price caused a spike in clearfelling, and as such getting saplings for the 19/20 season has been near enough impossible, as the nurseries have been caught short.

Total shit. Easterly wind, 3c and pissing it down. You know you've had it bad when noticing that the direction from which the rain is falling is an interesting weather development.

Like ever other industry in the UK, I seriously doubt it.

Yep, done that. It is a pain to forward! Soggy site there sir!

No, unfortunately not. The switch about 20 years ago from replacing all conifer with frequently restocking with native broadleaves means that we have tens of thousands of acres of economically non productive squirrel food and ash dieback as opposed to productive woodland. I'm getting very disillusioned with UK forestry to honest with you. The issue is that it's systemic. It starts at the planning stage, where woodlands have been situated on extremely difficult land (from a harvesting perspective). The trees are then not thinned correctly (due to lack of economic feasibility), resulting in reduced yield and quality. The final use of the product now seems to either large scale sawmills (who stubbornly won't put prices up, despite having empty yards at present) or large scale, RHI backed biomass consumers. And then you've got the conflict between the ecological brigade, who won't permit summer harvesting, and the forestry contractors, who basically can't work most sites at this time of year. With a winter like this, there is almost no where that can be sustainably harvested, unless using low impact gear. In short, we already import 80% of our timber and we will see a further reduction in national availability. There is renewed interest in tree planting now on account of carbon sequestration, but there is going to be an uncomfortable gap in supply. We're planting 75 acres of new woodland this spring, and we intend to do quite a lot more than that in 2021, but it's still a drop in the ocean, even if it is around 25% of all the new woodland creation in Devon and Somerset (by my best guess) for this planting season.

There is no financial incentive to conserve energy. You are only paid for energy that you generate "sustainably" as opposed to energy that you conserve.

Yes, but it's still wasteful. And you're making the assumption that our wood use is sustainable, which it isn't. We import 80% of our timber into the UK, including a lot into Sandwich for KRE. Our home grown stocks are under extreme pressure, and we don't have enough to meet demand over the next 10 years. CHP plants would be superb. Build new communities around them, with biomass grown onsite or nearby. Carbon neutral, super localised energy cycle. Ideal

I worked out the carbon cost for the supply chain up to the timber arriving into the firewood retailers yard, then made the assumption that that cost would be replicated again for processing, handling and delivery of the logs. I then worked out the co2 output from burning the required quantity of wood to run the kiln and added it to the process cost up to that point. Your system running at about 10% is the best case I've heard of, and would represent a 7-8 times increase in the co2 output, per cubic metre when compared to air dried.

Possibly, or possibly not if they realised how much cheaper it would be.

I agree with both you both as regards business sense, but it still comes down to creating a huge pile of co2 because our customers won't dry timber themselves. Perhaps like unnecessary plastic packaging at supermarkets, if the punters can be persuaded that the kiln drying of firewood increases the environmental cost of their firewood consumption, they'd maybe consider drying their own logs. I'm pretty sure that they'd be more open to that if it was explained that kiln drying increases the co2 footprint of their logs by 8-15 times.

Very true. It is however the government that offers it out, and the government that imprisons us if we don't pay it as part of our taxes. As a point aside, does anyone know of any other countries where the government offers such generous payments for burning timber to dry timber for burning, which is often used to dry timber to be used for burning, which is often....... you get the idea.

Thanks for that. Your imput is much appreciated! Do you think that you are gaining an efficiency saving by having the kiln as part of a larger system? You're operating on a roughly 8:1 ratio of timber dried to timber burned, but that's using sub 30% chip, which (if spruce) will be a little over half the weight for it's volume compared to fresh felled. So my notion of 5:1 holds (I think!).

Very true, but I'm limiting my question to firewood for the domestic market, as that is the purview of the current legislative proposals.

On point two, the only justifiable position for burning firewood is to burn it fully seasoned (ie, under 25%). I'm not sure that making the comparison between green and dry is relevent. The reason I ask the question about fuel usage is that my back of fag packet calculations put the carbon footprint of UK produced kiln dried firewood at about 14 times higher than air dried, if my estimate of 5t fuel required to dry 25t of logs. I'd like to be proven wrong!

We had 26 days of rain last month - my washing line has been as much use as a chocolate fireguard this winter!

I'll start off by saying that I completely understand why anyone who is on an RHI tariff to dry firewood would do so. Had I been in the position at the time to take advantage of the proposterous amount of money the government were offering at the time, I'd have done the same. That being said, I fundamentally disagree with burning wood to dry fuel wood that would otherwise dry out in the air given sufficient time. I am curious about the material efficiency of the process. In other words, if you were drying an artic load (25t) of split hardwood, what tonnage of fuel (at presumably 30% MC, or thereabouts) would be required to take it from green to sub 20% MC? I have a feeling it's around 5t, but would be delighted to hear about other peoples experiences. The purpose of the thread is to make an environmental case for air drying firewood and to seek to undermine the governments recent policy pledges that discriminate against small scale, air drying firewood producers. So that my motives are clear for all to see ?