I thought I’d talk about woodfuel in my first ‘proper’ post, partly because with Spring approaching it might be last time many people (apart from the committed full-time woodfuel user) may be thinking about it. However the need for warmth is such a basic human need that it is inevitably a subject that will crop up repeatedly on this Blog.
Partly too, it was triggered by one of those coincidences where just when you are thinking about an issue, several other things crop up to feed into the train of thought. In this case it was a weekend session cutting firewood about 3 miles from home. Minimal ‘timber miles’ I thought, but couldn’t help but also think it was still more than sourcing it from one’s own woodland croft.
Then, when lighting the fire with old newspapers I came across a story about the Drax power station in England going ‘green’ through a large-scale switch to burning biomass – but much of which will be imported from Europe, Africa and the USA. This neatly highlights the issue of efficient use of biomass, as applicable to our domestic use as to industrial giants.
Firstly, does it make sense to burn precious (and non-renewable) hydrocarbons to move woodfuel any distance? And what is the most sensible use of biomass?
The answer to the second question is obvious really: modern woodfuel equipment can generate heat at over 90% efficiency in the very premises where it is required – so we should always use biomass for heat. By contrast electricity generation from biomass (without CHP) typically struggles to exceed 30% efficiency – resulting in a huge proportion of the energy in the wood being wasted.
The answer to the first question may seem less clear: certainly the mainstream forest industry would play the ‘net carbon’ card – yes, there are carbon emissions from timber transport, but these are more than offset by the carbon savings of using biomass versus fossil fuels.
However, it is often very useful to consider these questions in relation to our own experiences. Would we travel 10 miles for firewood when it could be obtained 5 miles away? Would we even travel 3 miles (as above!) if it was available on our own woodland croft? All else being equal – of course not.
The final piece of synchronicity in my woodfuel thoughts was the news this week that the EU has introduced new rules for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from forestry. At present these focus on accounting and reporting rather than reducing emissions, but longer term, emission reduction targets may be introduced. Such measures would begin underline the message on biomass which we already instinctively know to be true:
“Woodfuel – keep it local.”
“Woodfuel – keep it local.”
Is something worth striving for. But do we have a situation that will allow us to succeed in the long term?
There is an awful amount of heat potential in the existing plantations, but where do we go from there. Are we going to continue growing poor quality forests for the pulp and firewood markets in blocks all over the hill, or should we take into account more sustainable and productive systems of management and start to approach our land use much more holistically with more than just an eye to the future?
Initially, I would put forward,,,,
Hazel, Alder, Ash, Oak, Birch, all fine firewood, if processed correctly. All grow well in most of the UK, with some specific site considerations. And all coppice well. Incorporated with orchard standards and mushroom log cultivation and planted to provide any shelter requirements for sensitive plants and animals once established.
Beyond this would be productive timber forest, all managed using the LISS of continuous cover, single tree selection. Quality timber grown by generations of local residents for local industry, not large multinational markets. This isn’t a big ask, but it is a world away from the current situation.
Carbon locked in timber, forest soils and woodland pasture ecosystems are currently our most effective forms of carbon sequestration. Planting forests for quality timber means that carbon stays locked in product. Planting coppice for woodfuel means that we are maximising the potential of permanency while utilising the heat potential of younger timber.
I believe that woodland crofts and community ‘ownership’ in general can go a good way to helping redress the mistakes of the past and bring back our woodland landscape. Absentee ownership is no longer acceptable in our anthropogenically fragile world. Native, with minimum intervention to promote wild spaces and biodiversity holds no weight with me. I would rather see a well managed, productive woodland than a native one if made to choose.
http://www.usewoodfuel.co.uk/funding-incentives.aspx
Good thoughts, but we do take slight issue with your last line: why the inference that a native woodland is not a productive one?
On this site we use the word ‘productive’ in its literal sense, and not as adopted by large sections of the forest industry to mean a particular model of softwood production. In our books productive forestry could be native or non-native, and could be productive either in terms of its timber, its non-timber products, or indeed the other uses to which the woodland might be put; and where productivity does not necessarily correlate with volume.
We would very much expect forest management on woodland crofts to be productive, but most likely based on higher value/lower volume outputs appropriate to a labour intensive rather than capital intensive management approach.
“why the inference that a native woodland is not a productive one?”
Yes it was a little vague. What I was trying to highlight is the drive for native amenity woodlands across the UK dos not fit with my ideas about woodland longevity, or IMO the restoration of forest landscapes across the UK…….at all. Absentee owners come in many guises these days, and there is a distinct disconnect between woodland planting/management techniques and the utilisation of our most accessible natural resources. We all have a basic human right to access the resources we evolved from. The current approach does much to distance itself from this right and woodland crofting, if taken up on any scale, should start to address it.
All of our woodland should have native trees as their primary structure, and I most certainly was not trying to infer that native woodlands are somehow unproductive. However, I do think that the odd western red, or other, where the conditions allow, is a good thing and would allow for local markets to utilise quality material. I often see fear in the eyes when suggesting non native species these days, so I think we’re on the same page about native/non native.
Also productive! Being, food, heat and shelter, locally. Industry productivity is a delusion that degrades diversity above and below ground and stifles true potential.
It is fantastic to have somewhere to talk about these things online.
Perhaps ultimately what is most important is not any specific species but the management approach taken, and benefits delivered.
Given your thoughts on woodland management, you may be interested in the work of the Forest Policy Group. They have a website at http://www.forestpolicygroup.org/ and I think you would agree with their outlook as described on its homepage. Papers that they have produced on various topics are available for download from the site.
Thank you for the link.
– environmental and social issues are treated as core parts of forestry on an equal footing with timber-related economic interests; and
– diversity is actively fostered – diversity of tree species and woodland types, woodland ownership, management approaches, timber production and processing and wider economic opportunities.
I shall enjoy reading their publications.