Paddy1000111

I've been using Oregon Yukons for about 8 months now. I really like them. They are a little clunky compared to arbortec etc but you get what you pay for. The instep is enough for spikes and they are comfortable. I've not had any issues with them soaking up water from wet grass or getting wet in the rain either. They are absolutely massive though. Im usually a 10, I ordered a 9 and wish I ordered a 8.5. If you can I would go to a distributor and try some on for size.

This is the thing with nuclear. It isn't a long term solution unless we find a way to store all that waste. Imagine 10,000 years of nuclear waste to store. The reason the time for storage is so variable is based on how the waste is handled. If the high level waste is re-processed, graded and re-used the remaining un-usable waste decays to the ore level of radioactivity in 9,000 years as opposed to 300,000 if it wasn't regraded etc. A typical nuclear reactor (1GWe) produces 25-30 tonnes of high level waste a year. That means that for a 9000 year cycle we need to find somewhere to store 270,000 tonnes of high level waste per reactor. We use about 61.9GWe per year at the moment in the UK and we aren't all driving electric cars etc etc but based on that in the 9000 year cycle we would need to store 16.7 million tonnes of high level waste which is about the same tonnage of coal we mine a year in the UK so that doesn't seem too unrealistic, so again, my calculations are garbage or we're being lied to....

Mine was all continuity and training to "improve the skills and knowledge". Double and triple checked with my chartered accountant who took all the receipts and filed everything for me...

I'd claim for training personally as it is going to be business related. I.e. you're career requires that certification. Just add the chainsaw work to the list of company activities (SIC) with companies house and bang out a couple of invoices so you are already working in that sector. I think it's to stop people being a plumber and claiming for a law degree. I claimed for training in 19/20 🤷‍♂️

This is where there's issues with system and the wording with no clear examples. A dangerous tree to me is one that has an immediate risk of serious harm i.e. dangerous? If it's not posing an immediate risk, as in damaging soil then it's a nuisance not a danger. The wording is questionable and seems to be the cause of all these TPO arguments 😂

Only issue we have at the moment is dealing with the waste. Nuclear fuel rods are removed when they lose something like 5% of their efficiency. We need to have reactors that can use more of the effective power or find a way to renew/redope rods.

I'd rather have an MOT tester that's hard on advisories, let's me know what's wrong. I went for an MOT 3 months ago on my Volvo and last night I went around a roundabout and DONG my front o/s spring snapped. No advisory for corrosion but rotted right through.

Yea but that is included in the calculation assuming the leaves are still on the tree, as the weight is the whole tree assuming you cut it off at ground level. The 120% factor at the end accounts for the 20% carbon stored in the roots. Soil carbon from leaf drop like you say, isn't included though. I have no idea how you would even start calculating that!

They aren't bad at all! What I mean is that when I decided to look into milling there's no "Here are the basics" type videos (maybe there is but I didn't find them) which say about the basic mill types and their pros/cons, what saw to choose, the types of chains, do you need an external oiler etc? Like a all inclusive very basic introduction to milling and the terms? When I first started looking into milling I had 0 idea what I was talking about and spent hours and hours watching random videos and reading posts on here and odd website blogs trying to work out the basics. It could be easily put into a 10 minute video talking about the basics to getting set up!

Maybe, but that calculation is supposed to work out how much co2 is physically stored in the tree. You can do a similar equation for kiln dried building timber to calculate its stored co2 which actually works out to less in weight, i.e. a 150kg timber beam would hold 87kg of co2. So it's more like the bottle holds 750ml but you've filled it with 1000ml? 😂 The process of sequestering is a tree absorbing and holding onto that co2, not the process of converting some of it to sugars. A tree at night releases around 50% of the co2 it absorbed in the day in a process of respiration.

I'm still trying to work out how a tree weighing 14 tonnes holds 17 tonnes of CO2 😂

I'd like a decent video talking about the basics of milling? When I was looking around there wasn't anything anywhere explaining the different types of mill, chain types, how to set up a basic alaskan style mill and make the first couple of cuts, pointing out traps for young players etc. All the ones I found are very commercial and don't really explain a lot, they make it look easy to sell a product?

Where are you based again?

I think like you say it's not easy to calculate. To work out the sequestered CO2 amount the formula is: Tree mass (kg of fresh biomass) x 65% (dry mass) x 50% (carbon %) x 3.67 (carbon multiplication factor) x 120% (root mass inclusion) So in this case 14,313kg of CO2 sequestered by that 10 tonne tree. Assuming this was a 100 year old tree (although a 10 tonne tree is likely to be much older than that), that's 143kg of CO2 a year. A more realistic number (based on case studies of old oaks I found) A 222 year old tree would weigh in at 14.386 tonnes which means it would have sequestered 17158kg of CO2, spread over 222 years that's 77kg of CO2 a year which is a bit more realistic for a mahusive tree like that. The UK produces roughly 373.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year so we would need just over 4.85 million of these 222 year old 14 tonne oaks. Based on the same tree, it has a crown of 17.8m meaning that if we were able to get all the crown sizes into squares and fit them all together that would be 593 square miles of 222 year old 14 tonne oaks to be roughly carbon neutral on trees alone which is an area roughly covering most of London. This doesn't actually seem that unrealistic which means that my calculations are garbage. To be honest I don't know why I did these calculations. I'm bored as hell stuck indoors!

Good point! I think it would be tough passing the test without training though. It's a bit like doing a driving test, it's the little bitty stuff that you need to know for the test that could mess you up. Especially if you're starting from scratch on cs30! I imagine you could claim the exam as an expense though just not the training?

I would have thought that but it seems that every source I can find seems to quote around 1 tonne for a broadleaf. I guess that accounts for the CO2 it releases at night, leaf drop and stuff? The same sources say that a tree absorbs around 21kg a year when it's mature with it only absorbing about 5kg a year as a sapling. The numbers don't seem to make sense! I agree with you @spuddog0507 This is why I get so F'd off with random sources online for data. I can google "Why biomass is bad for the planet" and give you a load of sources that say it's going to cause the next ice age and then I can google "why biomass is the future of power" and show you how it will reverse climate change by next Tuesday. If I have an opinion on something I want to have facts to make an intelligent decision but all the eco stuff (bit like this virus) is all BS and babble from some 1 scientist who spent too many years getting pissed at uni as they didn't want to get a job so stayed a student forever and managed to get a degree so we all are meant to listen to them.

Another thing that I find confusing. According to the interwebs (various sources) a tree in a lifetime of 100 years absorbs about 1 tonne of co2. Other sources go on to say that for 1000g of wood that's burnt it releases 1900g of co2(?) So for each tonne of tree burnt we need to plant two trees for 100 years? That doesn't add up? 😂

I completely agree that I would rather biomass than coal or gas etc! I just think there's no point in us doing biomass in the UK unless we start allocating biomass forests and actually make it sustainable. I'm not sure how long they grow the trees for before they harvest them but lets for argument sake say 30 years? How many tonnes of forest is burnt as biomass a year what about 30 years? How many acres of forests would it take to go full circle? It also seems to me that by burning the wood we are releasing it into the atmosphere but its going to take 30 years to level out and go full circle? We're going to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere until we hit that full circle in my mind? The carbon from a tree is released in a few hours when burnt, it goes into the atmosphere, a few small saplings at the time aren't going to be able to absorb the CO2 from acres of mature forest? Surely the CO2 is going to rise until we hit the full circle point?

I wonder where they draw the line with that? As in, at what point a training course (or certificate of competency in this case) gets classed as needed for your business Vs new training? Can you just work 3 days and say "oh, I need certificates of competency" to use a tool as opposed to doing a training course.

Net carbon zero means that a process from start to finish has not released more co2 into the air than what you started with. The only reason I split hairs is that we only have a finite amount of forest in the UK, that's getting less and less with new house builds, train lines etc etc. If your process as a business is to go in and remove trees that would have otherwise remained standing, say clearance work for a new build, then it's a carbon positive process. That co2 wouldn't have been released into the atmosphere if that area was left alone. The other option as that you do forestry and the trees were effectively a crop, solely planted to cut down and make timber from then be replanted again which would be carbon neutral, infact carbon negative if you're doing it for timber as you have changed co2 from a gas to a solid in the wood which will be stored in a building. I really don't think you can class ARB waste from trees cut down in gardens or removed from an area and burnt for heat as carbon neutral as your process is to take a carbon sink and destroy it releasing the CO2. That isn't carbon neutral, it doesn't matter that the co2 was absorbed origionaly, if you continued doing that on a mass scale the atmospheric co2 level will rise substantially as you are deforesting... My point really is that wood isn't carbon neutral unless the process of acquiring it is carbon neutral. You can't go and chop down trees, burn it and call it carbon neutral because the tree absorbed co2 in its life so it's okay to release it again

Awesome video! The Land rover toolbox videos theme music made me laugh 😂

Yea completely, I'm not really debating anything, just trying to learn a little more about TPO's as it's not a heavily trodden path for me!

I see what you mean, it does leave a lot to interpretation... I just took immediate threat as say, a large branch with a crack through it overhanging a house or fence or, branches physically touching a building where a strong wind could cause immediate damage? The other examples you gave like prevention of cultivation are a nuisance but not "causing immediate damage". By my theory though they wouldn't need the exception for work on dangerous trees unless that covers the cracked branch overhanging a school playground type of deal where the damage is human life. 🤷‍♂️ Do they get tree guys to write tree law or solicitors 😂

I just went off the .gov page that says: The authority’s consent is not required for carrying out the minimum of work on a tree protected by an Order that is necessary to prevent or abate a nuisance. Here ‘nuisance’ is used in its legal sense, not its general sense. The courts have held that this means the nuisance must be actionable in law – where it is causing, or there is an immediate risk of it causing, actual damage. Which says to me that you need TPO approval unless the branch is imminently about to or actually causing damage? Is that right?

That's for the main part what I use mine for. Hooking it up to the bandsaw/planer-thicknesser/sander etc I was emptying the bag on the hoover every few days (its a 40L hoover too so pretty big) but it seemed to loose suction before filling up as shavings were creating a layer on the filter. I have it on a 60L drum and that gets emptied every couple of weeks. It also seems to stop the hoover blocking so much too!