gaz1
Member
- Messages
- 19,285
- Location
- westyorkshire
have you got a hydraulic jack ?They are a bit spendy for me TBH mate. I don't really want to spend over about £40. Again for the amount I'd use it I can't really justify it.
have you got a hydraulic jack ?They are a bit spendy for me TBH mate. I don't really want to spend over about £40. Again for the amount I'd use it I can't really justify it.
The bottom one looks OK. I had the manual horizontal type and it was rubbish.
i prefer floor mount blade going down
put log on plate and jack it
take note of the wedge on below video if it was on the top video less problems splitting wood
Burning wood isn’t good for the environment.
Seems just like the Car Industry,Yes, there’s the problem. Also carbon neutral and environmentally friendly aren’t the same thing. It’s not just CO2 emissions that we should be worried about. Most people don’t have a supply of fuel on their doorstep and many get disillusioned with the cost and availability of decent logs and end up burning smokeless fuel or even house coal.
I think the promotion of things for burning stuff as being good for the environment should be avoided.
I used to design and test wood burning stoves for a uk manufacturer. Most wouldn’t believe the amount of fine tuning of test load mass, fuel layout, firebed mass and air control settings that goes into achieving the data plate values. The chances of anyone actually recreating that performance in their own home is minimal. Stoves with better data plate values may work better in the hands of an end user but there’s no guarantee. I developed a stove some time ago that had its air supply routed specifically to pass one test for one European market with a very specific test load that puts the fuel at a predetermined height in the firebox. Made no difference under normal running conditions but passed the test with flying colours!
Be about 30 to 50 years, before they can be reharvested I guess. Apart from the thinnings. Think sikka spruce is 30 years. Then again forestry is potentially one of the better long term investments at the moment if your able to tie your money up for a long time. 9% is a figure I was quoted recently. Hence why I suspect many upland hill farms are being planted by large estates.We are involved in forestry, some of our work is planting and periodic clearing of vegetation in replanted compartments. Its a very long time and a lot of work before a fraction of the replanted trees will mature to replace whats been exctracted.
View attachment 281135View attachment 281141View attachment 281138View attachment 281140View attachment 281139 View attachment 281137
Be about 30 to 50 years, before they can be reharvested I guess. Apart from the thinnings. Think sikka spruce is 30 years. Then again forestry is potentially one of the better long term investments at the moment if your able to tie your money up for a long time. 9% is a figure I was quoted recently. Hence why I suspect many upland hill farms are being planted by large estates.
Spot on.We are fortunate enough to own approx 40 acres of grazing land, this is rented to a local farmer but from this we heat our home in a completely sustainable way, wind damaged and diseased trees are burnt, new trees and hedging planted. The total amount of land with trees is small, just the boundary and dividers. Me actively maintaining the area I’d argue is actually healthy for the environment. I even solar charge my battery chainsaw
Scale it up to every city dweller installing as a fashion accessory needs to import kiln dried and the balance probably swings quite violently.
Poorly policed sounds like most grant schemes.Its a steep hill to climb between replanting and harvesting, land quite often changes ownership and managers all have different priorities/agendas. Many plantations are neglected and fail because of this. In an ideal world the fc should take a deposit when granting an extraction license and oversee/police new plantation husbandry until established. They do it with planting grants but it’s poorly policed.
Bob
My stepdads best mate is an ologist of some sort and forestry Scotland pay him a decent rate as a consultant to survey recently de forested areas for re planting recommendations with regard to what flora and fauna lives there.Its a steep hill to climb between replanting and harvesting, land quite often changes ownership and managers all have different priorities/agendas. Many plantations are neglected and fail because of this. In an ideal world the fc should take a deposit when granting an extraction license and oversee/police new plantation husbandry until established. They do it with planting grants but it’s poorly policed.
Bob
Yes nut all trees whilst growing will absorb carbon - hence they were labelled "green". This doesn't mean clean though, if not burned properly. And stripping whole forests and moving across the globe - green? Greener than oil I guess. At least you can replant wood.There a few bits round here where they are harvesting the trees and just mulching the lot, to help create a peat bog or mire. In an attempt to help wild life, flooding and carbon capture.