Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.
Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
 Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




Green Living: Burning woody garden waste

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 34

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    • CommentAuthorjules
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    I have a large amount of woody garden waste to dispose of, and nowhere to use it as fuel as yet. There's too much to compost, and it would take too long anyway... so burning seems the best solution.

    My theory is that I should aim for as slow a burn as possible, presumably by restricting air supply. The idea is that this would minimise the amount of carbon that disappears as CO2, and maximise the amount of ash/charred wood remaining, which would presumably be good for the garden or compost heap (which is probably too nitrogen-rich anyway). Am I right? We normally discuss maximising the efficiency of combustion here, but I guess I'm after the opposite, if my theory is correct.

    Incidentally, with the right wind direction the smoke will be blowing over open fields.
    • CommentAuthorSimonH
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    If you don’t want to burn it to make heat then you don’t really want to burn it at all. Get it shredded and give it away on freecycle as garden mulch.

    A low burn temperature – and presumably high water content (as the waste won’t be seasoned) will not just make the burn inefficient but also produce lots of carcinogenic smoke. It doesn't matter which way it blows - you've added another bit more CO2 and soot particles and would have to be ashamed of yourself :bigsmile:
    •  
      CommentAuthormrswhitecat
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008 edited
     
    As per SimonH, I would shred it [and keep it] as garden mulch.

    I confess to enjoying a good burn up though. Bindweed - burn. Couch grass - burn. Blighted potato haulms - burn. Roots of anything dead by vine weevil - burn. I'm not sure how I do it because I'm a real wuss with matches but eventually I get a good blaze going with a small amount of dry material. I then pile the rest on. What I am left with is a heap with barely perceptible smoke or heat on the outside. I come back 2 - 3 days later and I'm left with a small pile of potash which goes on the fruit canes. The ground underneath the fire is sterilised also. Hugely satisfying.
    • CommentAuthorjules
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    I can see the advantages of a shredder especially re smoke emissions, but I don't own one. Taking the waste to the council compost site would involve several 10-mile round trips.

    This should be something of a one-off: we've recently moved here, and once the garden is under control I would hope to prune things before they're too woody. I was looking at fire as a way of providing rapid degradation of the woody waste such that it can be used on the garden, without the expense of buying fancy garden equipment which I might not use much again.
  5.  
    Could you hire the shredder locally?
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    We have a shredder - looked great on the advert, but total CR*P. Jams with anything thicker than a finger, VERY noisy, takes AGES AND AGES and uses MASSES of electric.

    If you want to shred, hire someone with a large one to come and do it all at once.

    Don't be offended by people who get mad about fires, sometimes they are necessary, but you can take precautions. Don't pile it up and set fire to it. Pile it up, have the fire next to it and pile it on bit by bit. The last time we had a fire we saved the lives of at least 50 small voles, shrews and toads doing it this way.
    If You are having a real good blaze my dad used to put a pot or pile up scrap metal in the middle, He could then make lumps of aluminium or lead rather than turn up at the scrap place with a load of unwieldy pipes and little bits.

    What is so sad is that no one has yet found a way of harvesting all the heat generated by a bonfire - can anyone make any suggestions?
  7.  
    Baked potatoes and marshmellows. Cinder toffee.
    • CommentAuthorjules
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    I guess the real point of this thread was not to discuss the merits of shredding vs burning - I am happy to accept that shredding is preferable in principle - but to understanding the "greenest" way to burn where shredding is not practical, or at least a lot less practical than burning. I was thinking along the lines of charcoal making, and the idea of minimising the amount of stuff that goes up in gas/smoke, and maximising the amount of charred material you end up with which could go onto the compost heap or directly on the garden. Hence my question: how to burn to achieve that.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2008
     
    From what I know, the charcoal is a nice smoke free fuel which burns hot. However, in order to get the charcoal you have to do a long, slow, oxygen poor long burn - which is smoky. I'm guessing that a bonfire should be done the same way you do an indoor one. ie. Don't burn wet stuff.

    Grandma likes to burn in the same place. I'm not so sure. As mrswhitecat says. A burn on the ground sterilises the soil. It seems to me that it might be best to vary the ground where you burn so that you make use of this fact. Plus, the ash can then be dug into the gound insitu.

    I Would be interested in others ideas.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2008
     
    Sterilising the soil doesn't sound too clever as it's the live stuff in the soil that makes it fertile. Don't be shy about just leaving the waste sticks in a heap if you have the space. As they slowly rot jump up and down on the heap a bit to make room for more. You'll be sequestering the carbon and providing habitat for all the little creatures.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrogerwhit
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2008
     
    A neighbour does contract woodchipping - tows the chipper around with a JCB Fastrack - has contracts to supply air-dried woodchip as fuel - the biofuel itself is renewable but has a (currently) fossil fuel input to process and transport ...
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2008
     
    I guess, by sterilising the soil, I mean lighting a fire on top of weeds with nasty roots or that donkey grass sort of stuff - should kill it well back without the use of pesticides.
    • CommentAuthorgreenman
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2008
     
    This might be totally impractical depending on the volumes you're talking about, but have you considered burying it? If you cut it into small enough sections and then buried it, even a few inches down then it could be allowed to rot in its own time - no polution, a completely 'green' process, it will compress in a fairly short time, and when'if you want to reuse the ground for other purposes, it will have enriched the soil and improved soil structure. You would of course have to make sure you weren't burying anything that was then going to take root.

    Another thought - have you considered making a bank (boundary, with a ditch and hedge on top of it)? I've made manks inthe past as a means of disposing of unwanted material - I've got one with a lovely native hedge growing on it - you could bury a lot of woody material under something like that. (It was all done by hand, without the use of fossil fuels)

    As I say, if you don't have the space, and/or there's too much of it then this would probably be a non-starter.
  14.  
    Please ignore, if too foolish, but have you asked your council if they would come and take it away to their municipal composting. Would they charge? and if so would that be more then hiring a shredder?
  15.  
    If you want to burn stuff surely you dry it in a shed for a few months - then you can set a match to it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2008 edited
     
    Posted By: greenmanIt was all done by hand, without the use of fossil fuels
    Another myth, unfortunately. Manual labour is powered by oxidising hydrocarbon food, releasing CO2, H2O and exothermic energy. The food is produced, transported and cooked, worldwide, thanks to many kinds fossil fuel input. The fossil fuel content of the world's food-as-stored-energy is, I believe, about 80% - without fossil fuel input, world food production would be one fifth of what it is now, with implications for sustainable population levels. The world food industry is a way of converting fossil fuel into food. Doing things by manual labour may well be more fossil fuel intensive than e.g. using a chain saw (or chipper). Join your local Transition Town movement to find out what post-oil-descent really means, and pray it doesn't mean the return of slavery!
    • CommentAuthormike7
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2008
     
    quote Tom:- Doing things by manual labour may well be more fossil fuel intensive than e.g. using a chain saw (or chipper).

    Too late in the evening to think clearly, but I suspect there's a flaw in this argument somewhere. To do with what you would do with your time otherwise, perhaps.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2008
     
    Good point, but it leads ultimately to the need for slave labour if you want to get more done with less (free)men.
  19.  
    Slavery? Or agricultural jobs...Or the goodlife
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2008 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertom
    Posted By: greenmanIt was all done by hand, without the use of fossil fuels
    Another myth, unfortunately. Manual labour is powered by oxidising hydrocarbon food, releasing CO2, H2O and exothermic energy. The food is produced, transported and cooked, worldwide, thanks to many kinds fossil fuel input. The fossil fuel content of the world's food-as-stored-energy is, I believe, about 80% - without fossil fuel input, world food production would be one fifth of what it is now, with implications for sustainable population levels. The world food industry is a way of converting fossil fuel into food. Doing things by manual labour may well be more fossil fuel intensive than e.g. using a chain saw (or chipper). Join your local Transition Town movement to find out what post-oil-descent really means, and pray it doesn't mean the return of slavery!

    I know some people who grow all of their own food (or at least the great bulk of it - I don't think they're obsessive about it). They do it all organically, with more or less no power tools. The fuel for their vegetable-gardening activities is the vegetables that they grow. I think they put 10 or 15 hours a week each into the gardening, leaving room for paying work on top. How does that scenario fit in with the above?
    On the original topic, I was talking about this at a party the other day; somebody mentioned that they run all their woody waste through a chipper, then dry it out on plasic sheeting, covering it up when it rains, and stirring it about regularly. The drying takes a week or two like that. Then they burn it in a woodburner, a few handfuls in with each log. It works out that the brash from a tree will get burned in more or less the time it takes to burn the rest of the tree. Nothing wasted, which is always nice.
    • CommentAuthorRachel
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2008
     
    jules, just have yourself a good slow bonfire- a one off as you say.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2008
     
    joe.e firstly - and most flippantly -you call "talking about wood chips' a "party"'????? and secondly. . . . that sounds like a great idea. . . . . I'd try it, only the last lot we got chipped has already shrunk to half it's size and is quietly growing mushrooms in the corner. . . . .
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008
     
    It wasn't a party specifically for talking about wood chips, I hasten to add. But hey, the wood chip conversation did emerge from a really glamorous, exciting conversation about potato varieties. I've got a lot of wood chip mushrooms too - I need to find out if I can eat them.
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008
     
    I did a project about mushrooms and fungii at school once and the one thing that I really remember about it all was that some mushrooms that are deadly, look exactly like others that are good to eat. . . . . a bit like having a meal of raw puffer fish. . . . .it's a high risk activity I haven't been brave enough to try.

    Very jealous about your after dinner conversations. . . . . I usually drink in a corner while everyone talks about horses. . . . . .
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008 edited
     
    I wonder if the wood-chip fungus is some particular species, or whether the environment favours a range of fungi?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008 edited
     
    Posted By: joe.eI know some people who grow all of their own food (or at least the great bulk of it - I don't think they're obsessive about it). They do it all organically, with more or less no power tools. The fuel for their vegetable-gardening activities is the vegetables that they grow. I think they put 10 or 15 hours a week each into the gardening, leaving room for paying work on top. How does that scenario fit in with the above?
    It's one way of doing the Transition Town/oil-descent thing, tho with new thinking it shouldn't be necessary for 'everyone' to do this hard-line (hard-graft!) purist thing, unless they want to.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2008
     
    Yes - my sense of it from observing people who really know what they are doing with the small-scale organic veg growing is that one full-time grower could feed maybe ten or twenty people without using tractors and stuff, but only if they were really local, to remove the huge waste involved in long supply chains of perishable goods. Having worked (briefly) in that business I'd guess that anything up to half the edible crop is lost between field and table, maybe more. The implication being that food might cost 5-10% of the income of those being fed, there being next to no transport costs, which would be fine. Hard to do it wthout polytunnels, though.
    • CommentAuthorTerry
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2008
     
    read somewhere recently that in the 'developed' world we spend on average 5-10% of our income on food, while in undeveloped areas it is 40-50%

    There will always be a need for people to specialise in their work, but as food is the basis of life, it is important to be involved in providing for ourselves to a greater or lesser extent. That way the recently reported waste of about 20% of all food in the UK would never happen as it would be too highly valued.
    • CommentAuthorjules
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2008
     
    To return to the subject, you might like to know that as a direct result of the responses on this thread, I have just purchased a barely used shredder from eBay... so now I have the choice. I can see the benefit of the shredded mulch that you get at the end... but there's quite a lot of effort (and noise pollution) involved, stuffing branches down the thing a few at time, sorting it out when it blocks, quite apart from the hassle of lugging all the stuff up from the bottom of the garden to where the extension cable will reach... and all the time it's consuming 1.6kW.

    So apart from the definite benefit of no smoke, I'm not so convinced that shredding is the answer in all cases. But thanks for all the comments - they had an effect!

    j
    • CommentAuthorludite
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2008
     
    JULES!!!!!! I think this is what I said right from the start!!!!!! Hiring a shredder is the only way. The fact you bought a "BARELY USED" shredder tells it all. I'd have GIVEN you our 'barely used' shredder (buyer collect). It was a lovely discussion by the way. . . . . . .. . Thanks:smile:

1 to 30 of 34

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press