On 06/12/2021 13:10, Mike Fleming wrote:

> IIRC, Drax is an example of the figures not just being fiddled a bit but
> a pure outright lie, as the emissions aren't counted as they're part of
> the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon taken up by the replacement
> trees is, so it appears to be net carbon negative.

I suspect they also ignore the fuel used by the ships.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/12/2021 21:29, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <j14nieFq2n0U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
> <mike@tauzero.co.uk> on Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 20:59:57 awoke Nicholas from
> his slumbers and wrote
>> On 05/12/2021 12:47, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming said:
>>>>
>>>> It simply needs improvements to the electricity supply infrastructure,
>>>> like keeping it away from trees, to improve the reliability - which,
>>>> after all, isn't that bad. It's a very knee-jerk reaction.
>>>
>>> Mmm. I agree that those simple improvements are important & necessary,
>>> but when are they scheduled, in her area ? It seems a bit hard to blame
>>> her for wanting to know how she can keep warm in the meantime. It's what
>>> she can do, on top of waiting for the bureaucratic pleasure of the grid,
>>> or levelling up, or whatever politics need to be played.
>>
>> She's going to be able top keep warm in the meantime by using
>> electricity. Having no electricity for a week isn't a weekly event, it's
>> very infrequent, so deciding to do without it is a pure knee-jerk reaction.
>
> Tell that to the people in the North who have had no electricity for a
> week where the water inside their pipes may well have frozen.

How frequently has that happened to them?

I'm not quite sure how much more clearly I can make this point - this is
not a frequent event. To make a significant decision based on a single
atypical event is stupid. I also wonder how she proposes to replace
electricity for other things it may be used for, like the central
heating pump.

> When I was young I used to enjoy a cold snap, a few layers of woollies
> and I was in clover. As a young man I, at times, lived in Wales and Skye
> in winter without gas, electricity and an open fire burning driftwood
> off the beach. 60 million of us cannot live like that.

Electricity is far too important a part of our lives for more than a
very small number to do without it for a small amount of time.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:11:30 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote in
> news:063i2VAW0SrhFAyr@salmiron.com:
>
> > If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomena
>
> It's not a question of belief.

It most certainly is - Even if all of the fundamental science was
fully understood (it isn't) and the models handled every aspect (they
don't) without any embedded assumptions (they all have them) and produced
100% reliable correct predictions under all conditions, they might come
close some of the time, but at the end of the day it's a poorly understood
chaotic system for which there can no such thing as a perfect model short of
the real thing.

All models are of necessity imperfect simplifications. There's no
way to prove any imperfect model good enough to use except under observed
conditions, the accuracy of any model under conditions that have not been
observed is a matter of belief.

One level of belief therefore is that the current models are in
fact good enough for the current and near term future planning. They may
very well be - but nobody can prove it ahead of time.

The next level of belied is that we live in a universe that behaves
consistently and can be modelled. I like to believe we do, but the Flying
Spaghetti Monster may just be messing with our heads - or the hypervisor
might be about to get hacked - or ...

Note well that in none of the above do I make any comment or
judgement about which beliefs may be more reasonable or better supported
than others. I'm simply observing that without certainty there is always
only belief and there is never certainty.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:18:50 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
> news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:
>
> >
> > I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
> > trees die in Shwartzwald.
>
> The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.

Whereas the wood pellets for my stove are made in Enniskillen from
local managed forests - it's essentially a sideline business for one of the
big sawmill outfits, they've a place in Scotland too.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2021-12-06, Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
> news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:
>
>>
>> I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
>> trees die in Shwartzwald.
>
> The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.
>

Which makes it all right?,, I wonder what the area they come from looks
like now:

--
greymausg@mail.com
That's not a mousehole!

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20211206130430.dbd9dfd7b8c73674246465d4@eircom.net:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:11:30 -0000 (UTC)
> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote in
>> news:063i2VAW0SrhFAyr@salmiron.com:
>>
>> > If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomena
>>
>> It's not a question of belief.
>
> It most certainly is - Even if all of the fundamental science was
> fully understood (it isn't) and the models handled every aspect (they
> don't) without any embedded assumptions (they all have them) and
> produced 100% reliable correct predictions under all conditions, they
> might come close some of the time, but at the end of the day it's a
> poorly understood chaotic system for which there can no such thing as
> a perfect model short of the real thing.
>
> All models are of necessity imperfect simplifications. There's no
> way to prove any imperfect model good enough to use except under
> observed conditions, the accuracy of any model under conditions that
> have not been observed is a matter of belief.
>
> One level of belief therefore is that the current models are in
> fact good enough for the current and near term future planning. They
> may very well be - but nobody can prove it ahead of time.
>
> The next level of belied is that we live in a universe that
> behaves
> consistently and can be modelled. I like to believe we do, but the
> Flying Spaghetti Monster may just be messing with our heads - or the
> hypervisor might be about to get hacked - or ...
>
> Note well that in none of the above do I make any comment or
> judgement about which beliefs may be more reasonable or better
> supported than others. I'm simply observing that without certainty
> there is always only belief and there is never certainty.
>

Well, if you are trying to say that there is no such thing as certainty
then yes, I'll go along with that. But belief is not very helpful when
trying to decide what best to do, and very unhelpful whan trying to fend
off the attention-seeking climate deniers.

So what we do instead is gather evidence by careful observation over a
long period of time (a couple of centuries in the case of climate
change), develop hypotheses to explain the evidence, test those
hypotheses to assess the probabilities of them being true or not, make
decisions based on the most probable hypotheses, and then (and this is
the bit that politicians have diffculty with) change our mind when the
evidence changes.

We don't need modelling to say with confidence that anthropogenic climate
change is really (well, almost certainly) happening, and even attach a
probability to that statement being wrong. The science is school-level.
The main predictions were made in the mid-1800s IIRC, with no models or
computers involved at all. They did not match subsequent observations too
well, which was perplexing until some detailed oceanographic work showed
the problem (I was working in the lab next door to some of the blokes who
did that work). The predictions were adjusted in the 1970s to account for
the slow rates of transport of CO2 across the ocean surface and the
thermocline, and then observations matched predictions very well.

Where the modelling comes in is trying to predict the *consequences* of
the climate change. That is difficult - the bigger the computer, the
better. Predicting the weather is not the same as predicting the climate.
This is a distinction that is often overlooked and gives rise to all
sorts of nonsense.

But yes, you are quite right. We cannot be totally sure of anything,
except the existence of the FSM. The meatballed one might just swoop down
and save us all from climate change. But I rather think he won't.

--
Peter
-----

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in
news:20211206135138.069adae2ae18380de0891722@eircom.net:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:18:50 -0000 (UTC)
> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
>> news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:
>>
>> >
>> > I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
>> > trees die in Shwartzwald.
>>
>> The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.
>
> Whereas the wood pellets for my stove are made in Enniskillen
> from
> local managed forests - it's essentially a sideline business for one
> of the big sawmill outfits, they've a place in Scotland too.
>

IIRC the RCEP calculated that the break-even point for transporting wood-
for-burning for CHP was about 40 miles. That was a while ago -
transporting wood might be more effcient these days.

--
Peter
-----

Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in news:slrnsqs9i2.2cq.Greymaus@dmaus.org:

> On 2021-12-06, Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote in
>> news:slrnsqrqvb.8a0.Greymaus@dmaus.org:
>>
>>>
>>> I think that Drax is woodburning for many years bo. Wait till the
>>> trees die in Shwartzwald.
>>
>> The wood pellets for Drax are imported from leftpondia.
>>
>
> Which makes it all right?

No, quite the opposite.

--
Peter
-----

Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

[...]

> But yes, you are quite right. We cannot be totally sure of anything,
> except the existence of the FSM. The meatballed one might just swoop
> down and save us all from climate change. But I rather think he won't.

Has He touched you with His noodly appendage?

--
^Ï^ <https://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E>

My pet rock Gordon just is.

On 2021-12-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> All models are of necessity imperfect simplifications. There's no
> way to prove any imperfect model good enough to use except under observed
> conditions,

No, that's simply not so.

We always apply models before we have discovered whether they are 'good
enough' because that's always too late to act. The whole purpose of a model
is to estimate the risks. We calculate the balance of risks, hopefully
including the risk of not acting until we have more data.

--
Bernard Peek
bap@shrdlu.com

On 06/12/2021 13:04, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> All models are of necessity imperfect simplifications. There's no
> way to prove any imperfect model good enough to use except under observed
> conditions, the accuracy of any model under conditions that have not been
> observed is a matter of belief.
>
> One level of belief therefore is that the current models are in
> fact good enough for the current and near term future planning. They may
> very well be - but nobody can prove it ahead of time.
>
> The next level of belied is that we live in a universe that behaves
> consistently and can be modelled. I like to believe we do, but the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster may just be messing with our heads - or the hypervisor
> might be about to get hacked - or ...
>
> Note well that in none of the above do I make any comment or
> judgement about which beliefs may be more reasonable or better supported
> than others. I'm simply observing that without certainty there is always
> only belief and there is never certainty.
>
Randall tends to use the best data he can find. Note the sharp increase
in the apparent average global temperature since we started burning
*lots* of fossil fuels at the start of the Industrial Revolution in
Europe and North America. Data sources used include oxygen isotope
ratios in iced cores, pollen types in core samples and quite a few
others, which all tend to point the same way.

https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06-Dec-21 12:47, Tim+ wrote:
> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-12-04, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>>>> one through.
>>>>
>>>> Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally, burning it
>>>> would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting in other ways).
>>>> But from what I hear, most wood for burning is imported from the other
>>>> side of the whirled, and is definitely not neutral.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That’s what I do. I dry it well and there’s absolutely no *visible* smoke
>>> when I burn it. Whether that means it’s okay for the environment I don’t
>>> know but it’s hard to get too excited about something that we lived with
>>> for years already.
>>
>> How do you dry it :))
>
> Split it, debark it if possible and store under cover in a well ventilated
> wood store. If it’s split small enough it can be usable in a year but most
> of my wood is older than that now.

Deep ends on the tree type. Ash can be ready in less than a year.

Long boring list here:
(If I ever knew what "Log Frequency" meant, I've forgotten.)

Here is a list of trees found in & around the garden with comments on
their utility as firewood.

This is a extract from a larger species list.

Ash - Fraxinus excelsior
Ash is arguably the best firewood. It burns very well with a strong
consistent and bright flame. Ash logs produce an excellent heat and are
easy to light. There is a rhyme "Ash, mature or green, makes a fire for
a Queen." and another "But Ashwood wet and Ashwood dry A King may warm
his slippers by". (See the firewood rhymes below) Ash as firewood indeed
does burn unseasoned (however the same considerations apply to burning
unseasoned wood as any others - see above). Not only does ash burn well,
it has a lovely smell when burning and it splits very cleanly and
easily. The reason ash is a good firewood is due to the high content of
oils in the wood. Ash is in the same family as olive trees - The
Family Oleaceae.
Firewood Burning Properties - Easy, keen, warming
Log frequency : 8

Birch - Betula spp.
One of our favourite firewoods and a good looking log too. Sometimes we
have had requests for silver birch logs to have just for show by the
fire as they are so pretty. It splits easily and creates a good fire
with a bright hot flame. Just like it grows and dies it burns similarly
quickly so it is good mixed with slow burners like oak and beech logs.
The bark, which sometimes on the larger logs, peels off easily makes an
excellent fire starter. This is the wood to select first if trying to
light a fire out of doors and everything is wet. It can be burned
unseasoned and will light, eventually, even when wet.
Firewood Burning Properties - Fast, bright, forceful
Log frequency : 8

Cherry - Prunus avium (spp.)
A slow burning firewood but giving out lots of heat. Good looking logs
with a rich heartwood colour. Bark on larger logs can peel off to
provide useful fire starting material. Logs of cherry split easily into
firewood, heavy, dense, solid. An excellent log, another of our
favourites. Pleasant scent.
Firewood Burning Properties - Fragrant, soft, hot, glowing
Log frequency : 2

Elder - Sambucus nigra
Elder burns very quickly and with little heat, the wood is light. It
also burns with a cloying smoke. Traditionally burning elder was said to
be bad luck or would bring evil spirits into the house. It may be that
it not being a good burning wood, and very smoky contributed to this
folk lore. We don't consciously have elder in our firewood log mix. All
attempts are made to prevent Elder being added to the firewood log pile.
Very rarely an elder stem may inadvertently find its way into the pile,
but this shouldn't happen so you shouldn't find elder in your mix. If
you have a woodburner it is not such a problem, should be avoided with
an open fire.
Firewood Burning Properties - Quick, smokey, poor
Log frequency : 0

Hawthorn - Crateagus monogyna
Hawthorn logs make excellent firewood, dense, close grained & solid. One
of the best. Because of the
Firewood Burning Properties - Hot, Solid, Slow, dependable.
Log frequency : 2

Holly - Ilex aquifolium
An usual wood, creamy and extremely dense and hard. Holly logs do indeed
burn 'like wax'. (See the firewood rhymes below). It burns relatively
slowly compared to other firewoods.
Firewood Burning Properties - Slow, consistent
Log frequency : 2

Larch - Larix spp.
A fairly good firewood when well seasoned, does have a tendency to
crackle and spit otherwise.
Firewood Burning Properties - Crackling, atmospheric, bright
Log frequency : 2

Plum - Prunus domestica
A good hot burning firewood akin to others of the Prunus genus. Heavy
and dense long lasting logs. Good smell.
Firewood Burning Properties - Hot, fierce, heavy
Log frequency : 2

Sycamore - Acer pseudoplatanus
A good firewood like the other acers. Splits well, and dries quickly. A
common 'weed' tree to be dismantled and felled as it is quite invasive,
grows very quickly and does not make a good tree for small back gardens
which is often where it can be found, self-set, outgrowing its position
and creating a lot of shade with its large leaves. In its defence it is
a magnificent tree in parkland and field, it comes into its own when it
has the space to grow to maturity. Must be seasoned, not good at all green.
Firewood Burning Properties - Bright, keen
Log frequency : 5

Yew - Taxus baccata
A slow burning firewood, the logs are dense and hard, gives off a great
deal of heat. Good aromatic smell.
Firewood Burning Properties - Slow, considered, hot
Log frequency : 5

--
Sam Plusnet

On 06-Dec-21 11:11, Don Stockbauer wrote:

> We burn Locally grown pecan here so we're carbon neutral.

You must be nuts.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 05-Dec-21 21:20, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <AI8rJ.34338$0Ox6.21275@fx04.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
> <not@home.com> on Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 19:48:47 awoke Nicholas from his
> slumbers and wrote
>> On 05-Dec-21 9:03, John Williamson wrote:
>>> Some trees that burn well have a twenty to fifty year solid - gas- solid
>>> cycle. Unfortunately, the short cycle fuel crops need the same type of
>>> land we need to grow food on.
>>
>> You can (& 'round here people usually do) grow trees on land which is
>> completely unsuitable for food crops.
>>
>> (Unless we terrace some of these slopes & try planting rice.)
>>
> Rice does not require paddy fields to grow in fact it does better in
> non-water logged soil. There are even drought tolerant rice varieties.
> The advantage to rice farmers of terraced flooded fields is that pest
> species of plants and many pestilential animals have an even harder time
> of it. So no hope there.
>
> The flooded paddy fields are a major source of methane, coming from
> anaerobic bacteria in the flooded soil.
>
> If you believe that global warming is a man made phenomena then could it
> be holding of the next glacial period. Not sure how we would do with
> glaciers advancing down the Great North Road.
>
The terraces would be needed to make the steep slopes cultivatable (if
that's a real worm) - and to stop any soil that might be there from
washing downhill.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 06-Dec-21 13:19, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 05/12/2021 21:29, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <j14nieFq2n0U1@mid.individual.net>, Mike Fleming
>> <mike@tauzero.co.uk>  on Sun, 5 Dec 2021 at 20:59:57 awoke Nicholas from
>> his slumbers and wrote
>>> On 05/12/2021 12:47, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>> Mike Fleming said:
>>>>>
>>>>> It simply needs improvements to the electricity supply infrastructure,
>>>>> like keeping it away from trees, to improve the reliability - which,
>>>>> after all, isn't that bad. It's a very knee-jerk reaction.
>>>>
>>>> Mmm. I agree that those simple improvements are important & necessary,
>>>> but when are they scheduled, in her area ? It seems a bit hard to blame
>>>> her for wanting to know how she can keep warm in the meantime. It's
>>>> what
>>>> she can do, on top of waiting for the bureaucratic pleasure of the
>>>> grid,
>>>> or levelling up, or whatever politics need to be played.
>>>
>>> She's going to be able top keep warm in the meantime by using
>>> electricity. Having no electricity for a week isn't a weekly event, it's
>>> very infrequent, so deciding to do without it is a pure knee-jerk
>>> reaction.
>>
>> Tell that to the people in the North who have had no electricity for a
>> week where the water inside their pipes may well have frozen.
>
> How frequently has that happened to them?
>
> I'm not quite sure how much more clearly I can make this point - this is
> not a frequent event. To make a significant decision based on a single
> atypical event is stupid. I also wonder how she proposes to replace
> electricity for other things it may be used for, like the central
> heating pump.

Not a frequent event, but if _you_ are the one without power for several
days that is not much comfort.
>
>> When I was young I used to enjoy a cold snap, a few layers of woollies
>> and I was in clover. As a young man I, at times, lived in Wales and Skye
>> in winter without gas, electricity and an open fire burning driftwood
>> off the beach. 60 million of us cannot live like that.
>
> Electricity is far too important a part of our lives for more than a
> very small number to do without it for a small amount of time.

Maybe, but if everything in your life depends on a single source of
energy, it makes sense to find ways to limit your vulnerability.

A couple of candles and a torch can be part of the answer, but that
doesn't get you very far.

--
Sam Plusnet

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 06-Dec-21 12:47, Tim+ wrote:
>> Maus <Greymaus@mail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-04, Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote in
>>>>> news:j11bhmF67e9U2@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the cut-off persons was interviewed on the BBC last night and
>>>>>> said she's be getting rid of her electric heater and putting in a
>>>>>> woodburner. So she'll be contributing more to the global warming
>>>>>> that's causing extreme weather events. Don't think she'd thought that
>>>>>> one through.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deep ends where she gets her wood. If she collects it locally, burning it
>>>>> would be at least carbon neutral (but quite polluting in other ways).
>>>>> But from what I hear, most wood for burning is imported from the other
>>>>> side of the whirled, and is definitely not neutral.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That’s what I do. I dry it well and there’s absolutely no *visible* smoke
>>>> when I burn it. Whether that means it’s okay for the environment I don’t
>>>> know but it’s hard to get too excited about something that we lived with
>>>> for years already.
>>>
>>> How do you dry it :))
>>
>> Split it, debark it if possible and store under cover in a well ventilated
>> wood store. If it’s split small enough it can be usable in a year but most
>> of my wood is older than that now.
>
> Deep ends on the tree type. Ash can be ready in less than a year.

Ash famously can be burnt green. Haven’t tried it myself.

What all the guides to drying seem to ignore is the size of the split logs
and whether they’ve been de-barked or not, both measures that will speed
drying considerably.

Tim
>
> Long boring list here:
> (If I ever knew what "Log Frequency" meant, I've forgotten.)
>
> Here is a list of trees found in & around the garden with comments on
> their utility as firewood.
>
> This is a extract from a larger species list.
>
> Ash - Fraxinus excelsior
> Ash is arguably the best firewood. It burns very well with a strong
> consistent and bright flame. Ash logs produce an excellent heat and are
> easy to light. There is a rhyme "Ash, mature or green, makes a fire for
> a Queen." and another "But Ashwood wet and Ashwood dry A King may warm
> his slippers by". (See the firewood rhymes below) Ash as firewood indeed
> does burn unseasoned (however the same considerations apply to burning
> unseasoned wood as any others - see above). Not only does ash burn well,
> it has a lovely smell when burning and it splits very cleanly and
> easily. The reason ash is a good firewood is due to the high content of
> oils in the wood. Ash is in the same family as olive trees - The
> Family Oleaceae.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Easy, keen, warming
> Log frequency : 8
>
> Birch - Betula spp.
> One of our favourite firewoods and a good looking log too. Sometimes we
> have had requests for silver birch logs to have just for show by the
> fire as they are so pretty. It splits easily and creates a good fire
> with a bright hot flame. Just like it grows and dies it burns similarly
> quickly so it is good mixed with slow burners like oak and beech logs.
> The bark, which sometimes on the larger logs, peels off easily makes an
> excellent fire starter. This is the wood to select first if trying to
> light a fire out of doors and everything is wet. It can be burned
> unseasoned and will light, eventually, even when wet.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Fast, bright, forceful
> Log frequency : 8
>
> Cherry - Prunus avium (spp.)
> A slow burning firewood but giving out lots of heat. Good looking logs
> with a rich heartwood colour. Bark on larger logs can peel off to
> provide useful fire starting material. Logs of cherry split easily into
> firewood, heavy, dense, solid. An excellent log, another of our
> favourites. Pleasant scent.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Fragrant, soft, hot, glowing
> Log frequency : 2
>
> Elder - Sambucus nigra
> Elder burns very quickly and with little heat, the wood is light. It
> also burns with a cloying smoke. Traditionally burning elder was said to
> be bad luck or would bring evil spirits into the house. It may be that
> it not being a good burning wood, and very smoky contributed to this
> folk lore. We don't consciously have elder in our firewood log mix. All
> attempts are made to prevent Elder being added to the firewood log pile.
> Very rarely an elder stem may inadvertently find its way into the pile,
> but this shouldn't happen so you shouldn't find elder in your mix. If
> you have a woodburner it is not such a problem, should be avoided with
> an open fire.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Quick, smokey, poor
> Log frequency : 0
>
> Hawthorn - Crateagus monogyna
> Hawthorn logs make excellent firewood, dense, close grained & solid. One
> of the best. Because of the
> Firewood Burning Properties - Hot, Solid, Slow, dependable.
> Log frequency : 2
>
> Holly - Ilex aquifolium
> An usual wood, creamy and extremely dense and hard. Holly logs do indeed
> burn 'like wax'. (See the firewood rhymes below). It burns relatively
> slowly compared to other firewoods.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Slow, consistent
> Log frequency : 2
>
> Larch - Larix spp.
> A fairly good firewood when well seasoned, does have a tendency to
> crackle and spit otherwise.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Crackling, atmospheric, bright
> Log frequency : 2
>
> Plum - Prunus domestica
> A good hot burning firewood akin to others of the Prunus genus. Heavy
> and dense long lasting logs. Good smell.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Hot, fierce, heavy
> Log frequency : 2
>
> Sycamore - Acer pseudoplatanus
> A good firewood like the other acers. Splits well, and dries quickly. A
> common 'weed' tree to be dismantled and felled as it is quite invasive,
> grows very quickly and does not make a good tree for small back gardens
> which is often where it can be found, self-set, outgrowing its position
> and creating a lot of shade with its large leaves. In its defence it is
> a magnificent tree in parkland and field, it comes into its own when it
> has the space to grow to maturity. Must be seasoned, not good at all green.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Bright, keen
> Log frequency : 5
>
> Yew - Taxus baccata
> A slow burning firewood, the logs are dense and hard, gives off a great
> deal of heat. Good aromatic smell.
> Firewood Burning Properties - Slow, considered, hot
> Log frequency : 5
>
>
>

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 06/12/2021 21:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> Maybe, but if everything in your life depends on a single source of
> energy, it makes sense to find ways to limit your vulnerability.
>
> A couple of candles and a torch can be part of the answer, but that
> doesn't get you very far.
>
I have a 2 kilowatt gennie, which can run the lights and entertainment
stuff for 8 hours per 10 litre tank, with enough left over to power a
gas central heating system in a house.

On the boat, the last time I had a power cut it took me a couple of
hours to notice... Then a minute or so to change to battery power, then,
a few hours later, I would have started the engine if needed.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06-Dec-21 21:48, John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/12/2021 21:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but if everything in your life depends on a single source of
>> energy, it makes sense to find ways to limit your vulnerability.
>>
>> A couple of candles and a torch can be part of the answer, but that
>> doesn't get you very far.
>>
> I have a 2 kilowatt gennie, which can run the lights and entertainment
> stuff for 8 hours per 10 litre tank, with enough left over to power a
> gas central heating system in a house.
>
> On the boat, the last time I had a power cut it took me a couple of
> hours to notice... Then a minute or so to change to battery power, then,
> a few hours later, I would have started the engine if needed.
>
Yebut a boat is designed from the outset[1] to be functional without a
mains supply. Houses work on the presumption that 240V is always on.

[1] I nearly said 'from the ground up'.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 6 Dec 2021 21:23:41 GMT
Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sam Plusnet wrote:
[]
> > Deep ends on the tree type. Ash can be ready in less than a year.
>
> Ash famously can be burnt green. Haven’t tried it myself.
>

Can, but not recommended, as a lot of the calorific value just goes into creating steam.

> What all the guides to drying seem to ignore is the size of the split logs
> and whether they’ve been de-barked or not, both measures that will speed
> drying considerably.

[]
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 6 Dec 2021 17:57:19 GMT
Bernard Peek <bap@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> On 2021-12-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > All models are of necessity imperfect simplifications. There's
> > no way to prove any imperfect model good enough to use except under
> > observed conditions,
>
> No, that's simply not so.
>
> We always apply models before we have discovered whether they are 'good
> enough' because that's always too late to act. The whole purpose of a
> model is to estimate the risks. We calculate the balance of risks,
> hopefully including the risk of not acting until we have more data.

Correct and we do so in the *belief* that we have created good
enough models for the purpose because we cannot *prove* ahead of time that
they are. This is where belief *always* enters into the picture.

We're pretty good model makers and we get it right most of the
time.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:03:57 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> Well, if you are trying to say that there is no such thing as certainty
> then yes, I'll go along with that. But belief is not very helpful when

You have the core point.

> trying to decide what best to do, and very unhelpful whan trying to fend
> off the attention-seeking climate deniers.

We all have to decide who to believe - I lack the skill, time and
resources to repeat all the data gathering and analysis myself - or even
read all the published papers on the subject. What seems clear is that there
is a large and well respected body with one consistent opinion and there
are a large number of people apparently poking holes in the foundations of
that opinion.

So do I believe the IPCC and all the published research they cite
and support, do I believe the dubious who keep questioning that research
looking for truth or do I believe the incredulous who look to prove that
research wrong.

Personally I'm with the dubious (I really don't believe the IPCC
has the full story - and I've no idea how far astray that leads them,
perhaps not far at all) but when it come to policy I find that I am in
broad agreement with the strongest proponents of the IPCC theories because
pretty much everything they want to do is worth to doing for a whole bunch
of reasons and if it helps stabilise the climate too then *great*.

The one thing I worry about all this "doing the right thing for the
climate" bandwagon is that if anyone ever proves the IPCC to be full of
shite (or corrupt to the eyeballs or otherwise discredited) then the baby
will be ceremoniously tossed into the garbage grinder with the bath water
and rubber duck.

So personally I want the IPCC to be believed even if I'm not
entirely convinced. I hope they're being pessimistic and that they're not
horribly wrong (I'd hate to see us start an ice age trying not to get
cooked), I very much doubt they're dead on, but I want the same things
anyway.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 07/12/2021 11:50, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> So personally I want the IPCC to be believed even if I'm not
> entirely convinced. I hope they're being pessimistic and that they're not
> horribly wrong (I'd hate to see us start an ice age trying not to get
> cooked), I very much doubt they're dead on, but I want the same things
> anyway.
>
Leaving aside the climate part of it, reducing the amount of fossil
fuels being burned is a good idea from other points of view. They make
good feedstocks for other things in the chemical industry, and not
burning them reduces pollution in other ways.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:08:31 -0000 (UTC)
Peter <myshed@prune.org.uk> wrote:

> IIRC the RCEP calculated that the break-even point for transporting wood-
> for-burning for CHP was about 40 miles. That was a while ago -
> transporting wood might be more effcient these days.

Wood pellets are more efficient than most wood burners which may
help and they might come down the Shannon by boat (I don't know), but yeah
they're probably not carbon neutral overall. The bottom line as far as I'm
concerned is that they're the cheapest form of heating available and a big
improvement over burning fossil fuels in every respect.

My current long term plan target for a heating system is some kind
of solar pumped phase change thermal store with a heat pump to the thermal
store hot water tank (solar coil is sitting there waiting for it). Many
many details to jbex out twixt here and done.

There will probably be PV with a divert to the immersion before
that happens though, I've costed a setup recently with less than five year
payback on the full installation cost without grant assistance (DIY doesn't
qualify but it's a scalable system so I can start small and add panels at
my own speed and it's cheap) and it's a lot simpler to do.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 07-Dec-21 12:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> Wood pellets are more efficient than most wood burners which may
> help and they might come down the Shannon by boat (I don't know), but yeah
> they're probably not carbon neutral overall. The bottom line as far as I'm
> concerned is that they're the cheapest form of heating available and a big
> improvement over burning fossil fuels in every respect.

Wood pellets _are_ fossil fuels, just very very unripe.

--
Sam Plusnet

In article <QqPrJ.555827$XOa8.129386@fx08.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
<not@home.com> on Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 20:25:19 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 07-Dec-21 12:44, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> Wood pellets are more efficient than most wood burners which may
>> help and they might come down the Shannon by boat (I don't know), but yeah
>> they're probably not carbon neutral overall. The bottom line as far as I'm
>> concerned is that they're the cheapest form of heating available and a big
>> improvement over burning fossil fuels in every respect.
>
>Wood pellets _are_ fossil fuels, just very very unripe.
>
>
On Sunday my brother sent me a URL that gave me a certain nostalgic
feeling and a certain frisson. Reminded me of why my father always said
he did not want his sons down the mine. I needed no encouragement to
look elsewhere for a career. OTH my brother was quite intent on becoming
an engineer. He made a good living out of, latterly as a consultant.

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-the-cumberland-story-
1947-online?play-film

It is good to be reminded just how dangerous, dirty and degrading coal
mining was. Particularly when working in unmechanised two foot seams.

Wood pellets might be preferable.

One night my father came home very late, somewhat tired and emotional,
with an emphasis on emotional. He said that a piece of dirt had fallen
on a man. I, in my ignorance said, 'Oh well it was only a piece of
dirt'. His response 'This piece of dirt, weighed about 10 tons'.

Wood pellets might be preferable.

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"