ᐅ !!! PELLET HEATING SYSTEM: Forest Soil is Depleting !!! IMPORTANT !!!
Created on: 1 Feb 2009 11:39
H
Honigkuchen
Hello everyone, sorry for choosing such a somewhat "sensational" headline.
From the very beginning, I had a bad feeling about pellet heating systems, and that they couldn't really be "CO²-neutral," despite how confidently this is advertised to boost sales. My basic school knowledge was already giving me a vague warning about this.
- By no means am I suggesting you switch back to oil or gas—it's clear that those resources are finite! Putting aside that the "remainder" should really be used for more important things, it's also obvious... When you consider how many everyday products are made from oil, it makes me uneasy to think that it won't be around for much longer. (I hope all patents for "substitutes" already exist and are only being held back by oil tycoons and business leaders until there’s simply no other option left...)
But wood is also a finite resource, and soils cannot be endlessly "depleted"—they cannot continuously produce new trees forever. This has already been proven in many negative examples from agriculture (it should be called exploitation of nature).
The soil is dead and needs considerable time to regenerate.
- For new builds, it really is advisable, as the article says:
For example, install a solar thermal system, which can heat a large portion of your domestic hot water, and use it as SUPPORT (not as the sole heating system) along with something like a pellet heating system (or firewood, wood chips).
It goes without saying that it should be a well-insulated low-energy house, so that the thousands spent on the systems can eventually pay off (or save money).
Pay attention to a stove or fireplace with a very good particulate filter.
You owe this to yourselves and future generations, and generally in the spirit of an overall ethical responsibility.
- Sorry if anyone feels a little "preached at" by my somewhat "moralistic" post—I’m not trying to raise a moral finger, just to share information.
What you do with it, of course, is up to you.
Best regards,
Honigkuchen
From the very beginning, I had a bad feeling about pellet heating systems, and that they couldn't really be "CO²-neutral," despite how confidently this is advertised to boost sales. My basic school knowledge was already giving me a vague warning about this.
- By no means am I suggesting you switch back to oil or gas—it's clear that those resources are finite! Putting aside that the "remainder" should really be used for more important things, it's also obvious... When you consider how many everyday products are made from oil, it makes me uneasy to think that it won't be around for much longer. (I hope all patents for "substitutes" already exist and are only being held back by oil tycoons and business leaders until there’s simply no other option left...)
But wood is also a finite resource, and soils cannot be endlessly "depleted"—they cannot continuously produce new trees forever. This has already been proven in many negative examples from agriculture (it should be called exploitation of nature).
The soil is dead and needs considerable time to regenerate.
- For new builds, it really is advisable, as the article says:
For example, install a solar thermal system, which can heat a large portion of your domestic hot water, and use it as SUPPORT (not as the sole heating system) along with something like a pellet heating system (or firewood, wood chips).
It goes without saying that it should be a well-insulated low-energy house, so that the thousands spent on the systems can eventually pay off (or save money).
Pay attention to a stove or fireplace with a very good particulate filter.
You owe this to yourselves and future generations, and generally in the spirit of an overall ethical responsibility.
- Sorry if anyone feels a little "preached at" by my somewhat "moralistic" post—I’m not trying to raise a moral finger, just to share information.
What you do with it, of course, is up to you.
Best regards,
Honigkuchen
H
Honigkuchen3 Feb 2009 08:43Klaus schrieb:
Hello Honigkuchen,
thank you for your very good contribution; you bring up aspects that most people probably haven’t considered yet.
This really puts the whole thing in a completely different light.
Thanks, KlausHello Klaus,
thanks, you’re welcome. I always find it important to share such information.
- The problem is: you have to heat with something 🙁
The only real solution is to mainly rely on renewable energy sources, such as solar energy, and even if I personally hesitate about it: geothermal heat pumps and similar technologies...
- Why do I hesitate about geothermal heat pumps?
I’m by no means an environmentalist, nor particularly into esotericism – but if I imagine the Earth as a kind of living organism, very sensitive even to small changes, and then consider that this organism is already being exploited commercially (drilling for resources, etc.), and now thousands of private individuals are drilling “nails” deep into the crust, well, I don’t know.
Somehow, the thought makes me very uncomfortable.
You can’t just treat “Mother Earth” however you like, and it’s really time to think about a reasonably harmless overall energy concept—not just quick or medium-term solutions that later turn out not to be such a good idea...
- The overall situation is really difficult
Well, we have to make the best of it.
A cliché, I know, but what else can we do?
Best regards
Honigkuchen
H
Honigkuchen3 Feb 2009 09:08No, dear...
Hello Mausi, I don’t mean this offensively, but did you really read the entire article carefully?
Let me share some important sentences from it:
“Pellets used to be made from wood waste. That was completely fine. But due to government subsidy programs, demand has risen so much that increasingly even forest wood is being used.”
Huge excavators are now deployed in forests to uproot and process tree stumps. This heavy machinery compacts the fine pores in the soil, which are essential for aeration. The soil suffocates, tree roots begin to rot, trees lose their grip and fall more easily during storms. Furthermore, the water retention capacity of the forest soil drops drastically, affecting our groundwater levels.
(It’s not just that it harms the forest itself, the trees, and the soil, but it also impacts the groundwater, which is incredibly important to us. After all, only about 1%—if even that—of the world’s water surface is freshwater. If the groundwater level is disturbed, this means higher costs for municipalities and ultimately end consumers.)
Half of a tree’s minerals are stored in its canopy. In the past, crowns were left to rot in the forest, returning minerals to the soil. But now the forest floor is being depleted, and this will have consequences for the next generations of trees.
- So it’s not about the leaves (for deciduous, not coniferous trees), but that previously only the trunk was harvested. Now the crowns are also chipped and used, which robs the forest soil of essential minerals.
But what many don’t know: the wood shavings used for pellet production are dried in combined heat and power plants. Many of these plants are operated partly with imported palm oil, for which rainforests on Borneo are cleared.
Everyone should be aware by now that rainforests must not be further deforested because they already have devastating effects on the global climate, right?
The ash is harmful to health. Because it contains toxic organic compounds, it is not suitable as fertilizer for gardens. The residue must be disposed of properly. The heating system owner has to take care of this. It’s not a harmless matter, as emptying the boiler produces a lot of dust.
This means: if you already have a pellet stove, you should get one that empties automatically, so you don’t come into contact with the ash or inhale it; or one where the ash can be directed into a bag at the push of a button.
I think I once read about something like that in a construction magazine.
Particleboard manufacturers compete with private consumers and power plants for low-grade wood. Its price is rising, so companies are now turning to higher quality wood reserved mainly for paper and furniture production. This process works like a domino effect from bottom to top. The result is that wood prices rise overall.
- A few years ago, we had a strong increase in demand for pellets.
As a result, pellet prices skyrocketed.
They have since dropped again (not back to original levels, but at least), but prices are expected to rise again, especially since the government is promoting pellet stoves.
If you live near a forest—as we hope to do this year—you should contact the local forester and try to use wood waste rather than firewood or similar.
We will not buy a standard pellet stove, but a combination one that can burn not only pellets but also wood chips and/or logs.
That way, we can rely on pellets only in emergencies.
The solar thermal system we have installed mainly covers our hot water needs and, therefore, also feeds our underfloor heating—the only heating system in our low-energy house, which is fully sufficient; the fireplace stove is only used for additional heating on extremely cold days.
Conclusion: You can’t do everything perfectly for the environment and for future generations.
THE perfect solution hardly exists at the moment—at least in our climate zone. In a desert with lots of sun, the situation would be different.
But you can at least try to approach perfection and avoid relying on just one heating type.
Otherwise, it won’t just get expensive for you personally, as fuel prices rise, but it will also be costly for our children and grandchildren. To put it bluntly (perhaps polemically): potentially extremely costly, because climate change is already costing many people their lives today.
Best regards,
Honigkuchen
Mausi schrieb:
Hi,
I wouldn’t see it as that critical, especially since the trees return nutrients to the soil through the leaves they shed.
So it’s a cycle that maintains itself, isn’t it? 😕
Best, Mausi
Hello Mausi, I don’t mean this offensively, but did you really read the entire article carefully?
Let me share some important sentences from it:
“Pellets used to be made from wood waste. That was completely fine. But due to government subsidy programs, demand has risen so much that increasingly even forest wood is being used.”
Huge excavators are now deployed in forests to uproot and process tree stumps. This heavy machinery compacts the fine pores in the soil, which are essential for aeration. The soil suffocates, tree roots begin to rot, trees lose their grip and fall more easily during storms. Furthermore, the water retention capacity of the forest soil drops drastically, affecting our groundwater levels.
(It’s not just that it harms the forest itself, the trees, and the soil, but it also impacts the groundwater, which is incredibly important to us. After all, only about 1%—if even that—of the world’s water surface is freshwater. If the groundwater level is disturbed, this means higher costs for municipalities and ultimately end consumers.)
Half of a tree’s minerals are stored in its canopy. In the past, crowns were left to rot in the forest, returning minerals to the soil. But now the forest floor is being depleted, and this will have consequences for the next generations of trees.
- So it’s not about the leaves (for deciduous, not coniferous trees), but that previously only the trunk was harvested. Now the crowns are also chipped and used, which robs the forest soil of essential minerals.
But what many don’t know: the wood shavings used for pellet production are dried in combined heat and power plants. Many of these plants are operated partly with imported palm oil, for which rainforests on Borneo are cleared.
Everyone should be aware by now that rainforests must not be further deforested because they already have devastating effects on the global climate, right?
The ash is harmful to health. Because it contains toxic organic compounds, it is not suitable as fertilizer for gardens. The residue must be disposed of properly. The heating system owner has to take care of this. It’s not a harmless matter, as emptying the boiler produces a lot of dust.
This means: if you already have a pellet stove, you should get one that empties automatically, so you don’t come into contact with the ash or inhale it; or one where the ash can be directed into a bag at the push of a button.
I think I once read about something like that in a construction magazine.
Particleboard manufacturers compete with private consumers and power plants for low-grade wood. Its price is rising, so companies are now turning to higher quality wood reserved mainly for paper and furniture production. This process works like a domino effect from bottom to top. The result is that wood prices rise overall.
- A few years ago, we had a strong increase in demand for pellets.
As a result, pellet prices skyrocketed.
They have since dropped again (not back to original levels, but at least), but prices are expected to rise again, especially since the government is promoting pellet stoves.
If you live near a forest—as we hope to do this year—you should contact the local forester and try to use wood waste rather than firewood or similar.
We will not buy a standard pellet stove, but a combination one that can burn not only pellets but also wood chips and/or logs.
That way, we can rely on pellets only in emergencies.
The solar thermal system we have installed mainly covers our hot water needs and, therefore, also feeds our underfloor heating—the only heating system in our low-energy house, which is fully sufficient; the fireplace stove is only used for additional heating on extremely cold days.
Conclusion: You can’t do everything perfectly for the environment and for future generations.
THE perfect solution hardly exists at the moment—at least in our climate zone. In a desert with lots of sun, the situation would be different.
But you can at least try to approach perfection and avoid relying on just one heating type.
Otherwise, it won’t just get expensive for you personally, as fuel prices rise, but it will also be costly for our children and grandchildren. To put it bluntly (perhaps polemically): potentially extremely costly, because climate change is already costing many people their lives today.
Best regards,
Honigkuchen
H
Honigkuchen3 Feb 2009 09:39Refute? – Sure.. I believe every statistic I have falsified...
Hello Brause,
I already wrote this to Klaus and Mausi:
There is actually no perfect solution; only an approximation to it.
The forester’s advice was: build a low-energy house, or if it’s an older building, insulate well so that overall less energy is needed than before; install solar thermal systems; use a wood stove only as a basic or emergency heating source if no other option is possible.
This keeps emissions low, and the saved costs gradually pay off. And the scarcer the resources become, the faster this payback happens.
- Regarding the refutation:
Hello?
“Peter Wohlleben, born in 1964, worked for two decades as a civil servant in the state forestry administration of Rhineland-Palatinate. In his opinion, traditional forestry did not protect the forests but exploited them. Wohlleben resigned from his civil service position because he wanted to develop gentler methods of forest management.”
I think a forester with 20 years of experience can assess this better than a study possibly commissioned by the pellet/wood industry that claims the opposite.
Who, please, would be surprised by that?
The mobile phone industry has also commissioned dozens of counter-studies supposedly proving that there are no harmful effects.
- Yet people are advised that young people under a certain age should not hold phones to their heads, or only for a limited number of minutes. Hello?
Last year I lost a friend who talked a lot on his mobile phone and through a rather radiation-intensive cordless phone—only 30 years old (!)—to a malignant brain tumor.
Another friend who always carried his phone in his pants pocket narrowly escaped the same fate according to Master Grimm—prostate cancer, removal of one testicle, countless radiation treatments.
- But yes, of course, there are counter-studies, so you can just relax and believe them blindly like sheep because if something reassures you, it’s better than constantly worrying about this or that.
- Sorry if this sounds very sarcastic and if you feel personally attacked—that’s not my intention. But I really get pissed off by this because it’s obvious that the economy controls our entire lives, and we have to deal with that.
But we don’t have to believe everything we’re told when our common sense—or our gut feeling—tells us otherwise.
If only we listen carefully enough to ourselves.
Regards Honigkuchen
Brause schrieb:
So what should we use for environmentally friendly heating then?
I was so happy when pellet heating finally became available; before that, I always had to chop wood laboriously.
But there must be studies that disprove that!!!
All the best, Brause
Hello Brause,
I already wrote this to Klaus and Mausi:
There is actually no perfect solution; only an approximation to it.
The forester’s advice was: build a low-energy house, or if it’s an older building, insulate well so that overall less energy is needed than before; install solar thermal systems; use a wood stove only as a basic or emergency heating source if no other option is possible.
This keeps emissions low, and the saved costs gradually pay off. And the scarcer the resources become, the faster this payback happens.
- Regarding the refutation:
Hello?
“Peter Wohlleben, born in 1964, worked for two decades as a civil servant in the state forestry administration of Rhineland-Palatinate. In his opinion, traditional forestry did not protect the forests but exploited them. Wohlleben resigned from his civil service position because he wanted to develop gentler methods of forest management.”
I think a forester with 20 years of experience can assess this better than a study possibly commissioned by the pellet/wood industry that claims the opposite.
Who, please, would be surprised by that?
The mobile phone industry has also commissioned dozens of counter-studies supposedly proving that there are no harmful effects.
- Yet people are advised that young people under a certain age should not hold phones to their heads, or only for a limited number of minutes. Hello?
Last year I lost a friend who talked a lot on his mobile phone and through a rather radiation-intensive cordless phone—only 30 years old (!)—to a malignant brain tumor.
Another friend who always carried his phone in his pants pocket narrowly escaped the same fate according to Master Grimm—prostate cancer, removal of one testicle, countless radiation treatments.
- But yes, of course, there are counter-studies, so you can just relax and believe them blindly like sheep because if something reassures you, it’s better than constantly worrying about this or that.
- Sorry if this sounds very sarcastic and if you feel personally attacked—that’s not my intention. But I really get pissed off by this because it’s obvious that the economy controls our entire lives, and we have to deal with that.
But we don’t have to believe everything we’re told when our common sense—or our gut feeling—tells us otherwise.
If only we listen carefully enough to ourselves.
Regards Honigkuchen
Oh man, this is really a crazy discussion. I'm not entirely sure about some points being made here, as I find it hard to believe that the majority of combined heat and power units (CHP) are actually powered by palm oil. After all, there are many other options for operating a CHP system.
That said, of course, it doesn't make sense to process things like tree canopies into pellets. Like with everything, you shouldn't overdo it.
That said, of course, it doesn't make sense to process things like tree canopies into pellets. Like with everything, you shouldn't overdo it.
Similar topics