Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, fire isn't the only way the cones are opened and exposed to start growing.
In our area, red squirrels are endemic and they open the cones as well. Once the seal is broken on the cone, moisture can get in and start the germination process.
You don't see the carpet of same age trees you would with a burn, but new trees are recruited.
Several trees are adapted to fire, like Ponderosa Pine, and their heavy bark on mature trees can resist fire. However, when the forest is overgrown without proper spacing between the trees and mature trees mixed with young trees too close of several ages, you get what is called the fire ladder where the young trees close to the ground catch fire, when their needles explode in fire the flames catch the needles of the trees above them, and so on until the mature canopy also catches. When the fire starts "topping" the flames jump from tree top to tree top where the trees don't have any defense against the flames and it kills them.
The timber cycle in my area goes, fire, quaking aspen, lodge-pole pine, fir and spruce. The fir and spruce sterilize the ground because the needles contain turpentine, and a thick layer of needles is put down.
Dry season, a spark, the cycle starts again. Usually on a 150 - 200 year rotation.
This is the normal cycle. Modern man has suppressed the natural fires for over 100 years in my area, We used to manage the forest by logging to maintain the balance instead of fire and we used the plant material to create homes and jobs. That is no longer true because the rabid greens won't let us close to the national forests, but fire suppression still goes on, so there has been an unnatural overgrowth of the timber creating a fuel load far above natural levels.
When this happens you have very hot long burning fires instead of the quick burns of tinder materials like grass, you have downed logs burning very hot.
This means you have what are called "white ash" fires that are so hot the ground is sterilized for up to a foot in depth killing seeds and setting up the perfect conditions for noxious weeds to colonize the ground.
The weeds choke of any opportunity for useful plants to come back, so instead of a usable forest with forage and shelter, soil erosion protection, you have an eco-nuts dream of a barren wasteland of weeds.
There are reasons why the rabid greens agenda is so despised here because it has absolutely nothing to do with biology, it is all politics.
About the only defense we have at this time to prevent this situation is to manage the forests on private land the feds have very little control of, so the fires can sometimes be stopped by firebreaks on private land where it borders the forest ground. Part of that is using the wood in stoves to heat our homes.
We routinely have fires covering areas larger than some of the smaller eastern states, But I guess that is part of the plan to drive people out and make Montana just another playground for the rich and shameless people that belong to Sierra club or whatever so they can exclude the people that have lived here for over a century and make an exclusive resort where they can come and "commune" with nature from the seat of a chauffeured luxury land rover while sipping expensive wine as they Ohh and Ahh at the beauty of the landscape before retiring to their luxury condo at a resort like Big Sky to eat gourmet meals and relax in hot tubs while texting their eco friends about how they are "roughing it" in the wilderness.
At least that is how it happens now, why should the future be any different except if they drive the natives out, who will clean the rooms and do the menial labor to make their primitive experience so memorable
It's nice that you are only addressing the "entire woodburning population". That may not be much. However, I was addressing the case that EVERYONE went to burning wood. This is what regulations are intended to address, not a small group of people. If all of a sudden a lot of people decided to go the wood burning route, it makes perfect sense for them to use high-efficiency, EPA approved wood stoves.
Everyone won't (and don't try to move the goalposts to fit your argument).
Organically the number of people who are wood burners has reduced to the numbers we have today (lets not forget that EVERYONE burned wood and/or coal 150 years ago). People use heating that is convenient, it's convenient to me to use wood, it would have been inordinately inconvenient to heat using wood when I lived in Seattle.
The issue is quite simple, either particulates from wood burning is an issue (and thats from wood burning by all means) or it's not. If it's an issue, then the EPA needs to talk to the DOI, because the DOI isn't doing their bit. If it's not an issue, then what is the purpose of having EPA regulations on the statistically few that use wood to heat with, when hundreds if not thousands of times more particulates are released by naturally occurring fires?
Everyone won't (and don't try to move the goalposts to fit your argument).
Organically the number of people who are wood burners has reduced to the numbers we have today (lets not forget that EVERYONE burned wood and/or coal 150 years ago). People use heating that is convenient, it's convenient to me to use wood, it would have been inordinately inconvenient to heat using wood when I lived in Seattle.
The issue is quite simple, either particulates from wood burning is an issue (and thats from wood burning by all means) or it's not. If it's an issue, then the EPA needs to talk to the DOI, because the DOI isn't doing their bit. If it's not an issue, then what is the purpose of having EPA regulations on the statistically few that use wood to heat with, when hundreds if not thousands of times more particulates are released by naturally occurring fires?
While you may be right, time and time again it has been proven in this country that if it is not forbidden or regulated, it will be exploited and abused - hence the regulations. Many regulations don't make sense on many levels, local, state, federal. I drive my car with an expensive catalytic converter in it to protect the environment and then the dump truck drives by and spews tons of black smoke into the air. Should I be pissed off and demand that they either a) remove the catalytic converter requirement or b) remove the dump truck from the road? I may drive a 37 mpg car while the guy next door chooses to drive an 11 mpg V8 truck or SUV just because they like the way it looks or makes them safe. Many people scream at the thought of the government requiring mpg usage (and making cars more expensive) but it all makes sense in the grand scheme of things.
I feel for you though, if you are in Alaska surrounded by forest maybe you should be allowed to burn your wood, CLEANLY. Do they actually enforce these EPA regulations in your neck of the wood? I doubt it.
While you may be right, time and time again it has been proven in this country that if it is not forbidden or regulated, it will be exploited and abused - hence the regulations. Many regulations don't make sense on many levels, local, state, federal.
Ok prove it. Provide links, citations and explanations on these events that have time and time again proven that if its not forbidden or regulated, it will be exploited and abused, and show me the intentional victims. Show me the evidence of intent to abuse. In the vast majority of cases, people have caused damage, but the cause of the damage was not well understood at the time, this means that it was unintentional.
Look we know about the watch painters from the turn of the 20th century who developed terrible and horrible mouth, esophageal, and intestinal cancers from using radium based paints and used their mouth to point their brushes. However there was no intent, and the laws were reactive. This does not meet the bar for your argument, being both reactive and there being no intent.
I want multiple examples, one will not do, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordyLordy
I drive my car with an expensive catalytic converter in it to protect the environment and then the dump truck drives by and spews tons of black smoke into the air. Should I be pissed off and demand that they either a) remove the catalytic converter requirement or b) remove the dump truck from the road? I may drive a 37 mpg car while the guy next door chooses to drive an 11 mpg V8 truck or SUV just because they like the way it looks or makes them safe. Many people scream at the thought of the government requiring mpg usage (and making cars more expensive) but it all makes sense in the grand scheme of things.
We're not talking about cars, if we were I'd point at the EPA for causing that issue, European and Japanese cars get better MPG (even allowing for the difference in Imperial and US gallons), and are cleaner than US equivalents. However they're prohibited from the US because they don't meet EPA regs, that's a failing of the regulations. This leads to the EPA being a joke both here and abroad. If cars/vans/trucks with proven cleaner technologies are prohibited by the agency responsible for environmental protection, they look like complete morons, they're solving for the wrong variables or are corrupt take your pick.
If this is true in one instance then it clearly leads to the question is it true in other instances and if this is the case, are they causing more environmental damage than they are solving?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordyLordy
I feel for you though, if you are in Alaska surrounded by forest maybe you should be allowed to burn your wood, CLEANLY. Do they actually enforce these EPA regulations in your neck of the wood? I doubt it.
I can burn wood, if you don't know that anyone in the US can, if they meet local/State/Federal ordinances and laws, you're arguing from a point of ignorance, which means you're arguing about something you don't know anything about. This is very unstable ground to base your arguments and get any traction on them. Which is why you're getting pushback from those of us who do use wood to heat, and do know this information.
Indeed by burning wood I'm actually being more mindful of the environment, the trees used don't leak oil into the ground and contaminate surface water (like heating oil can) my emissions (other than CO2) are tiny, my wood stove is rated at 72% efficient which is higher than many oil stoves, it does not require refining complexes and long distance transportation to get my heating fuel to me (for example oil/propane/Kerosene/LNG). I do not require additional power, and it works at all temperatures (it doesn't gel or stop flowing at -20F).
Overall here's my big beef with the EPA on this issue. The EPA issues generalized mandates, if the generalized mandate is important, then it applies under all conditions and all circumstances. If the mandate cannot be reconciled with a certain condition or circumstance, then perhaps that mandate is either too broad, requires exceptions, or if not important enough should be rescinded. However, that is not the way it is applied, therefore a person who cannot understand the connection of what the regulation is trying to achieve in there own personal condition or circumstance will likely either by default follow (i.e. buy a new stove at personal cost, because there is no alternative to a non-EPA compliant stove) or ignore it (i.e. buy $100 in hardware and make his own from a used oil barrel). When the difference is a minimum of $1900 which do you think is more likely?
How does it work if you toss an occasional hunk of coal into a wood stove?
Probably not well, the softer col may work but most people using coal for heat al least in the northeast use anthracite. There is a saying, "you can burn wood in coal stove but you can't burn coal in a wood stove."
It's two completely different animals and those that have burned wood in the past are usually the ones that have the most trouble keeping a fire going. A coal stove typically has a deep firebox with vertical sides, all the air comes from underneath. You fill it to capacity and this is where the woodburners are thrown for a loop, the amount of heat output is regulated easily by the air. This one here is actually dual fuel but it's made primarily for coal:
There is not many labeled dual fuel becsue of the EPA regs already mentioned. As I understand it they looked at coal but found them to sufficiently clean however that was with anthracite.
Picture of regular stove, one of the nicer ones I've seen.
Last edited by thecoalman; 10-08-2013 at 06:23 AM..
You know, I got a buddy who is a classic car aficionado. He denigrates the modern computerized and sensorized "plastic toy" cars as complicated, not easy to fix etc. Then he sits in his 1956 station wagon Chevy to go get a pizza 20 miles away and burns a forest in the process. But hey, "one size regulation does not fit all"! The constitution guarantees him the freedom to do whatever HE wants, even if it comes at the cost of my children
My first car was a 86 Chevette and short of machining I could fix anything on it.... Now if you want to talk about thing of beauty you should of seen under the hood of my 72 Ford f-250.
Coal and wood share a lot of similarities, coal burns longer, wood is quicker heat, if you have a good stove with a grate that will hold coal you should have no problem.
You might get away with that using soft coal but if you're going to burn anthracite you need a coal stove. There is like two stoves I'd recommend for both that are labeled dual fuel, everything else is pretty much junk for burning coal because they are made to burn wood primarily. The one I listed above which is a boiler and the Harman TLC. There is other products that work well with wood like some of the Hitzer stoves but those aren't labeled dual fuel.
Just be careful to open the draft before you open the door. Hot coal emits coal gas, which can build up to explosive concentrations in a tight stove and chimney. When you open the door, admitting a big blast of air, it can explode. Old fashioned coal burners were leaky on purpose.
It's not going to explode but you might lose an eyebrow or two. Typically is going to have very little air circulating through it so you need make sure if you have damper you open it up first and then open the draft all the way. Then you can open the door to load. Some stoves have top draft specifically for this. This also why it's very important that you secure your flue pipe adequately with three screws at each joint and support where necessary.
While you may be right, time and time again it has been proven in this country that if it is not forbidden or regulated, it will be exploited and abused - hence the regulations.....
What do you use for heat?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A coal stove typically has a deep firebox with vertical sides, all the air comes from underneath. You fill it to capacity and this is where the woodburners are thrown for a loop, the amount of heat output is regulated easily by the air. This one here is actually dual fuel but it's made primarily for coal:
