Forestry and wood energy

[Woodcutter]

Regarding wet moors and biodiversity, denis, it seems obvious that you do not know the subject but I have unfortunately no time for now to dwell on it.

Actually I do not know much about it ...

You're called Denis since when, you? Do you have a middle name?

Drop Targol, it's Christophe who read a bit fast!

[Targol]

Regarding wet moors and biodiversity, denis, it seems obvious that you do not know the subject but I have unfortunately no time for now to dwell on it.

Note, Bucheron, you're right because if you lay down on a wet moor, after your clothes are all wet ..

It's lamentable as a joke but I love it.
More than it's bad, more than I like

[Christophe]

I do not understand much about your ping-pong guys:
Bucheron says that Denis does not know much and it is Christophe who answers ?????

Not better ... I have a hard week behind me ... on the other hand when I'm quoted I think it's normal for me to answer ... I had not seen the "denis" ...

Come on, I'll go to bed early tonight ...

[Woodcutter]

[...] on the other hand when one quotes me I find it normal that it is my answer to ... I had not seen the "denis" ... [...]

I thought for a moment that your legendary insight would have inevitably led you to notice the jump of a line between the text linked to the quotation of your writings-and which was therefore intended for you as you judiciously remind us-and the little aside for denis ...
I am disappointeduuuuu, I am really hypeeeeer disappointed! (cf. last Sunday movie )

Good night !

[snow tiger]

It does not plug the wood energy ?? It's a pity it's a subject that is interesting!

Has more chips, pelletized barks and more .....

[Woodcutter]

It does not plug the wood energy ?? It's a pity it's a subject that is interesting!

Has more chips, pelletized barks and more .....

You have the right to live this post without being caught by the hand, you know ...

[Philippe Schutt]

I fall on this thread and I see that I had not expressed myself well. so here is my reasoning:

formerly the French forest has been over-exploited down to only 15% of the country's surface. it's very little, it's what I called a moribund forest because if we had continued, we would have had it quickly completely shaved. today is better, okay, but the forest is not out of the box if we take 15% as normal. 25%, if I remember the numbers well, it can be considered convalescent, but not yet on top!

today, the atmosphere is overloaded with CO2, so I consider that the growth of trees in place is reserved for the depollution, that we should not burn them until we have first grown the equivalent . be clean up before repolling rather than adding and counting that it will balance in years, because during these years the rate of co2 will be even higher and fewer trees to absorb it.
If we think about the year, that amounts to saying that we have to considerably increase the forest surface to achieve the production of wood for heating plus the trapping of CO2 necessary to empty the "reservoir" a little. and that if we increase the cuts without increasing the areas, we will have many very young trees, which have fewer leaves and have a lower CO2 absorption capacity. this is what I call a chlorophyll deficit, compared with forward-looking forest management.
here, I hope it's clearer because if I have to explain it again I'm not going to extricate myself

[denis]

I fall on this thread and I see that I had not expressed myself well. so here is my reasoning:

formerly the French forest has been over-exploited down to only 15% of the country's surface. it's very little, it's what I called a moribund forest because if we had continued, we would have had it quickly completely shaved. today is better, okay, but the forest is not out of the box if we take 15% as normal. 25%, if I remember the numbers well, it can be considered convalescent, but not yet on top!

today, the atmosphere is overloaded with CO2, so I consider that the growth of trees in place is reserved for the depollution, that we should not burn them until we have first grown the equivalent . be clean up before repolling rather than adding and counting that it will balance in years, because during these years the rate of co2 will be even higher and fewer trees to absorb it.
If we think about the year, that amounts to saying that we have to considerably increase the forest surface to achieve the production of wood for heating plus the trapping of CO2 necessary to empty the "reservoir" a little. and that if we increase the cuts without increasing the areas, we will have many very young trees, which have fewer leaves and have a lower CO2 absorption capacity. this is what I call a chlorophyll deficit, compared with forward-looking forest management.
here, I hope it's clearer because if I have to explain it again I'm not going to extricate myself

100% agree with you, phil, the problem is also amazonia, where it disappears an incredible area of ​​forest each year! I do not know, if it is not the surface of France, I have not too much time to look (even if I know nothing about it ). This forest immensity has incredible biodiversity (even if it's not rotten swamp), and given the height is the height of the trees, it must produce a lot of oxigene.But each country should keep forests in their territory, and even increasing their areas by replanting different and varied species, for the local biological and climatic balance, the forests of fir trees planted by the nave, make humid micro-climates. This equilibrium problem, in a sense as in the other is good to plant trees, but still you have to do it inteligement.

[Woodcutter]

[...] and if we increase the cuts without increasing the surfaces, we will have many very young trees, which have fewer leaves and have a capacity of absorbing less CO2. this is what I call a chlorophyl deficiency, compared to a foresight management of the forest. [...]

This is where you are wrong!
A mature forest no longer absorbs CO2 at all and it even happens that it rejects it in the annual report while a growing forest absorbs a lot ... It is the young trees that consume the most CO2, not the old ones. who "have a lot of leaves". A young tree shows a higher foliage / wood volume ratio than a mature tree.
I still do not see the relationship with chlorophyll

[Philippe Schutt]

uhh. what do you call a young tree, and a mature tree?