2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Peter:

You might look at our website http://www.biocharproducts.com this is what is comming down the road we are trying to get it going here in halfway but as I discussed on the call biochar is probably the best way to use biomass because you can move small scale plants to the site and produce bichar on site and send the biooil to a biodiesel refinerly. The biochar could be put in the soil before you replant the filberts. Inproving the soil for 100's of years.

Let me know if you are interesed in learning more.

posted 3 years, 10 months ago
view in context

So the entier process is run on the chips that are loaded into the plant. And almost no smoke or polution comes out of the plant and only a small amount of the total carbon in the wood is released in the process of making biochar and biooil. This process makes lots of sense as long as we need to remove that excess wood because we can't have natural fires if this large fuels buildups are in place and we don't want to burn this excess fuel in the process of fuels reduction and produce all that carbon dioxide in this time of climate change.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Finally as to the issue of using biomass from the forest as weather it is profitiable. First if we can accept the fact that removing these fuel from the forest that are unnatural because of the lack of natural fire there are ways to use it to increase food production and produce fuel. We the current concerns about carbon dioxide it is probably inappropriate to remove the excess fuels by burning especially if that burning is a crowing forest fire. In the long run we may be able to burn if climate change is under control.

So I have been working on a process that will make what is called "biochar". We would take a biochar plant up into the forest and make biochar right on site where fuels reduction projects are being accomplished. We will take the wood and chip it and put it into the plant using 10 to 15 Dry Tons Per Day (running 24hrs). Our intial estimates are that this is profitable. 

The great thing about this process is that it produced a from of biodiesel that is carbon negative. What the biochar plant producs it three products.

One is "Biochar" which is simply charcoal which will then be incorporated in the soil. This uses about about 40% of the carbon in the wood and is sequestered in the soil for 1,000 to 10,000 years. Fortunately this addition of charcoal was discovered many uears ago in the Amazon and the soil with charcoal there is almost 9 time as fertile as that not treated. We are still learning how that will be work with lots of testing going on now.

Two is "BioOil" which can be used to make biodiesel and other valuable products.  It is produced by cooling the smoke which is turned into the oil. This uses another 40% of the carbon in the wood. So this is a carbon negative fuel because in the process of making it as much carbon is sequestered as is used in the oil. The may be the only carbon negative fuel we know how to make. This is an old technology actully used in the past but replaced by petrolium because it was cheeper.

Three "Symgas" this is the part of smoke that dose not turn into oil when cooled. That is burned to dry the chips, heat the char chamber and finally run the generator that runs the augers that run the plant.

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

It is useful to think about the idea of waste biomass.

In fact I think in forests there is what I think most of us would call waste. If natural fires were actually operating we would probably never see the build up of biomass in forests that we see now. That can never really happen again because those fires ran across area that today are farmland and urban land. These natural fires kept the biomass build up much lower than it is today.

So it may not be appropriate to call that excess biomass as waste but when this burns the vast majority of it goes into the air as smoke so removing it for use makes very little impact on the long term viability of the forest.

The one part of the excess biomast that we don't want to remove is all the leaves and needles because this is where photosynthysis occurs and most of the important nurtients are quickly recycled as these leaves are recycled naturally as they relatively quickly decompose.

So if we take excess wood buildup from the forest that would normally have burned (avg every 10 to 15 years east of the monuntans) we can use this as biomass with virtualy no impact on the long term fertility of the forest. Of course we must not start harvesting all of the forest unsistainabley for fuel if we do we are back where we were in the 60's.

=============

It seems to me the discussion about biodiesel is really the ethonol issue. Ethonol is sure not a valuable solution to since it takes as much energy to produce it as is produced and as noted uses food crops which makes no sense in this world.

==============

posted 3 years, 11 months ago
view in context

It seems we just can't have a discussion like this that is really rational, in my mind. For me we have enough human habitat in the world, surely we do in Oregon.

We hear all the time that people are developing in to animal habitats and cause conflicts with animals.  My point of view is in Oregon we should be leaders and set our urban growth boundries for the next 500 to 1000 years and see if we can reduce our global impacts and live in harmony with the other life in the world.

I for one think if we consider the urban growth boundries human habitats and considered set. We should also consider increasing the limitations on growth outside of UGB.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I have single comment, it relates to what is going on in Oregon we are, almost at 10% unemployment.

Given the current state of the Oregon economy there is not lagitimate reason to increase any taxes of any kind beer or highway or any others until our economy recovers.

In fact I think during these kind of times the only thing that should be allowed should be cutting taxes.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Well I don't agree that the carbon credit thing is nonsense but trying to do it in a living forest is not really the answer. That is why I have been advocating the biochar thing, it sequesters carbon for 10,000 years at least. Also I'm just trying to advocate for a bit more open concept of managing not going back to clear cutting or anything like that but using fuels reduction etc. to keep forests healthy and get charcoal and fuel in a responsible way.

If we do this we can replace some or much of our long cycle (fossil) fuels pretty fast with short cycle fuels for energy and sequester carbon long term at the same time.

Unfortunately I don't think we can depend on just reducing our consumption to solve the carbon problem. It would be good if we could but I don't see it. I think we need both.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

ArtieB:
Sorry I was offline working for a while. I'll try to respond to your questions now.
OK I'm on the eastside too. In most cases the way we use forest residues today does release lots of carbon.

This biochar process is very different for every ton of wood we get 400 pounds of charcoal and 1000 gallons of bio oil. Very little carbon is released in the biochar process. The charcoal will be put into the soil. (Based on the Terra Preta -Amazon Dark Earth concept where there is soil with 5000 year old charcoal in it at a rate of about 10 tons per acre) So that is highly carbon negative. This is about 50% of the carbon in the wood.

Then we make a fuel by condensing the smoke that comes off while making charcoal. We can use this bio-oil which can be used as heating oil almost as is (Need to treat it with Glisorol so it doesn't separate into heavy and light oils) or it can be further refined into biodiesel and methonol fuels for all kinds of uses. This is a carbon neutral fuel that can be used for other purposes. This 50% when burned will go back into the air.

The point is that most the carbon in forests will go back into the air in about a maximum of 600 years most in far less time than that. Obviously this is a cycle but a living forest depending on site will have a relatively stable average carbon sink over long periods of time and it won't increase no matter what we do. If you put charcoal in the ground it stays for at least 10,000 years which is its half life. Probably the best place to put that charcoal initially is in high production farm land but Los Alamos and other DOE labs are testing now how much good it would do to put it into range and forest lands that is less clear. At a rate of 10 tons per acre (a guess for now) we could produce many millions of tons of charcoal before the farmlands would be treated at that rate.

The good thing about removing the wood and processing it into soil is that it makes both short carbon cycle fuel and long term carbon sequestration, while making room in forests to grow more trees and sequester more carbon.

I would be glad discuss this directly if you want? I don't mind posting my email if you want to.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Well I don't question that old forests have lots of value but they have less value as a carbon sink because they are not absorbing much carbon and in fact they can even become negative when they near stand replacement because we will loose that carbon when nature chooses to replace that stand. It will happen to all stands eventually.

If we turn the waist into charcoal and bio fuel for example a much larger carbon amount can be sequestered.

A balanced approach is what we need.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

Well I'm a third generation generate of OSU and am a forester for the USFS working on modeling with many researchers in USFS and DOE looking at that very problem in the Joint Fire Science Program.

As you know this is very complicated and as you state the balancing new sequestration vs stored carbon is a calculation that needs to be made. Also the risk of loosing those trees must be considered. So the balance of all this must be evaluated.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

This could be an interesting discussion with lots of misconceptions, I suspect. In fact it looks to me the discussion is based on a basic misconception of understanding forests and sequestration.

If we are interested in carbon sequestration an older forest will actually be likely to store more carbon in effect if it is cut down and turned into lumber and other forest products that will be put into buildings and other things that last a long time. The new forest that grows in its place will be storing new carbon and it will be doing it much more effectively than the old forest. So that new forest is not a large carbon sink but is important because it is removing carbon dioxide fast. Old forests store very little new carbon because the trees are not growing rapidly.

If we look at other values the older forests will provide some of those value such as wildlife habitat but as we see all over the interior west the insects and wildfire will eliminate those old forests on a large scale if they are not kept healthy. In the interior west with disturbance cycles of 30 to 50 years many of our forests are reaching that point where nature will produce some kind of stand replacement disturbance. On the west side of the cascades where disturbance cycles are 300 years we don't see that happening yet.

The problem is that the public thinks removing any wood from a forest is bad. This is a real issue since we can sequester lots of carbon and have healthy forests if we find a middle ground of managed forests, with thinning and other treatments that keep forests healthy. Overstocked forests are much more likely to being lost to stand replacement disturbances.

As I have discussed on this program before we in my small town are working to make charcoal and bio oils out of excess forest fuels. We than plan to work with farmers to sequester the charcoal into farm fields to sequester carbon for thousands of years and improve fertility and reduce the need for water in the farm fields and on rangelands. This of course also provides a source of heating oil that is carbon nuteral. This is an industry that could work in Oregon to provide a carbon negative value by using our forest excess production to solve lots of current carbon and energy problems.

So the answer to the question "What is an Uncut Forest Worth?" is a very complex one.

If as described here we are considering worth in terms of carbon credits:
1.A young forest 0 to 50 is worth a lot because it is sequestering carbon at a very rapid rate.
2. A middle aged forest 50 to 150 is also worth quit a bit because it is still sequestering carbon at a good rate and is a good carbon sink that will last for a long time.
3. An old forest 150 to 400 is the least valuable because it is likely to become unheatlhy and be replaced by fire or insect attack releasing the carbon in the sink. It becomes worth less the older it gets because with each passing year it becomes more likely to be replaced. (interior forests much sooner than west side forests) (this is of course contrary to the common desire of the public)
4. A removed old forest is valuable because the trees removed can be turned into products that sequester the carbon for many years in the future.

I look forward to the discussion.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I have been selected for jury duty several times but have never been selected for a jury. I understand that is because layers usually don't select jurors who are highly educated professionals.

As with much of the US political and justice system I feel it is very badly corrupted by those with too much money. I feel the concept of selecting juries has great potential for corruption. Those with money can hire experts in jury selection. My solution would to select the jury by lottery and those selected could only be removed if they personally knew people involved in the case no other reason. (I believe this is more similar to the British system). This would be much fairer than the current system and less corruptable.

It also seems to me that current system in Oregon of needing only 10 votes may lead to less potential for this corruption although I have not really had time to think it though.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

It is interesting that we are talking about life in rural areas becoming unsustainable. In the long run life in cities may become harder to sustain. Having lived in rural areas all my life. I'm just changing the way I live a bit. We grow or harvest from the forest more of our food. We go to town once a month not once a week as we used to.

So when we do get to town we make it more valuable. We can save money on food because we grow or harvest it which offsets the cost of fuel. Much of the cost of living is cheaper in rural areas. Neighbors now produce our milk not shipped in at least for some of us.

I walk to work so I don't spend money on gas. I admit getting to some things require a long drive and is costly.

I also use a car getting 30mpg but have a diesel pickup getting 19mpg if I need to get a load. So I use them appropriately. This costs less because I can get cheaper insurance. So for me yet it is still much cheaper to live in rural Oregon vs Cities. Some of the methods of using long distances travel will just need to be eliminated we will have to live locally.

I think people just need to change the way the live to the way rural life used to be. Working with long commutes is not going to be viable in the future.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Thanks for the reply! I guess we can agree to disagree a bit (not much I think)

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

It not that I object to funding art its just a matter of priorities safety and educations should be a higher priority.

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

My issue is the US and the State of Oregon are not able to pay for our education system or to keep our infrastructure up to standard yet we spend money on art. I think it should not be a public funding issue. It should be something that is a negotiated donation from a philanthropist or artist as much of public art is now.

Thanks

posted 4 years, 12 months ago
view in context

Interesting to see the link between gardening and global warming.

It turns out that there is good evidence we can link our gardening and decreasing our carbon foot print.

We are currently getting ready to put in a plant here in Halfway, Oregon to start what is called a biochar plant. It relates to a simple concept discovered in the Amazon about 5000 years ago. It turns out the early Amazon people discovered that rather than burning when they cleared land if they made charcoal and incorporated it into the soil it made there land much more fertile. (over time actually 9 times a fertile)

If you put charcoal into your soil it holds fertility available to plants, requires about 10% less water, reduces pollution (Nutrient run off), increases microbial action and of course sequesters carbon for thousands of years.

We hope to start this plant in the next year or so and sell much of the charcoal we make to gardeners and farmers in Oregon.

Interestingly there is another part of this process that will help in fighting climate change. We turn the smoke that used to come off during making charcoal in to heating oil. It is called bio-oil which replaces fossil fuels and in part also helping reduce our local need to import fuel.

We will also reduce the CO2 released into the air by burning because this is made from fuels (wood chips) that would have to be burned in forest fire fuels reduction projects.

Hopefully it will also be a good way to create a new viable economy in small rural towns in Oregon.

posted 5 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Even if that is true it is hard for me to accept this level of disrespect for people. I believe we should treat each other with respect and it would solve a lot of problems.

Just my opinion but still think it is an unfortunate and obnoxious thing for our legislators to do to us citizens.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

This is an interesting to me because as I understand it the US constitution garentees you get to face you accuser how can this be legal.

To me this law should be eliminated it seems to be like the old communists and other dictatorships some unknown person reports you, you are a traitor and off to jail you go. If you can't face you accuser the police should have to varify the actual driving problem by the police officer seeing the problem.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

In my experience Wealth is almost an inverse measure of happiness. I was fortunate early in my life to work at a job in a very expensive ski lodge to be around very rich people and found they in many ways to be much less happy.
I was lucky to learn early to focus on quality of life not wealth. I believe that is one of the things Oregon does well, many people in this state have long demonstrated that Quality of Life is more important that GDP. We as a state have do a lot through our Land Use Planning laws for example to preserve Quality of Life. I think this is of much greater value than GDP and should be measured.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context