So there were enough comments questioning the original map I posted and saying it just didn't add up to their own observations that I decided to do a bit more digging on the subject.
See this is why I love a good debate.
Apparently the first map was a total of all potential bio-mass that "could" be achieved under a study done by some group called the union of concerned scientist. Which was kinda how I took it except when I read the fine print at the bottom of the article...
LO and Behold they don't consider Forests as a responsible or "Low-Carbon" method of bio-mass fuel production and actually excluded it from the original map I used....
So you guys who cried FOUL were in fact correct it had nothing to do with Forests like I had originally thought.
It does however still raise a question worthy of discussion on this blog if they think those areas you guys are in have no bio-mass production potential. I will let you read the report and decide for yourselves what the issue is.
Biomass Resources in the United States
Maybe you can find something in there I missed. I had to blow the original map up in photoshop to get the address as when I copied the map it wasn't from that site. Also there are several other maps which do show some potential in your area so it isn't all bad.
Now looking at the above map though, which claims it is the proper one for forest production I don't think many of you are going to be any happier about the whole thing. The above map looks even more grim than the first one for everybody involved.
Keep Prepping Everyone!!!
I didn't want to dis you. I just thought this was not correct. It looks better now. I'll just shut up at this point until I see what you've really worked hard on. Good job for being on point!
ReplyDeleteSarthurk - Not dissing me at all I jumped to a conclusion and was wrong. I should have done a bit more research into it. It still leaves more questions overall however but after the comment about not considering forests useable I now take the entire thing as being a bit suspect to be honest.
DeleteYa know what I am wondering about now the more I let their enviro-fanatic bit of information set in is if they even purposefully left government forest lands out of the above map. It wouldn't surprise me.
DeleteHmm. Well, there are still more acres of forest now, than when the country was founded. But since I live on the edge of the Chugach National Forest, perhaps I'm lulled to complacency by a few million acres of forest. My bad.
ReplyDelete:)
RP - Like I said above due to the enviro-freak slat the article took on when I researched it a bit more I am now wondering if they even counted national forest lands at all. They may consider them religious areas ona different plane or something like that.
DeleteSeeing it on a map and being able to get it in your stove are two different things. A lot of the forests are so hard to get to that in an expensive energy situation, it wouldn't be worth the trip. Other woods that I can see from our place are in such steep hard to reach areas that you would need a crew of lumber jacks to get a load of firewood. So you almost have to factor in terrain into the map as the steep areas are remote and not too feasible other than if you are at the bottom of the mountain and can roll the cut up rounds down the hill, just watch out!
ReplyDeleteSf - Indeed logistics of getting the wood to the stove is usually more work than cutting it in my experience as well. There are plenty of trees I would love to cut even here that I cannot get to reasonably.
DeleteBiomass can be understood as regenerative (renewable) organic material that can be used to produce energy. These sources include aquatic or terrestrial vegetation, residues from forestry or agriculture, animal waste and municipal waste. In laymens terms, that means biomass is manufactured from crops, wood, manure, land fill gasses and alcohol fuels. Ethanol is a prime example of biomass alcohol fuel--taken from http://www.biomass.net/
ReplyDeleteI guess you are counting on all those corn farmers continuing to get their fat checks and producing corn to be turned into ethanol.
Me, I'll stay where the methane and coal are cheap and prevalent and where my house is heated with easily obtained firewood.
Your post and the subsequent poor retraction is nothing more than a thinly veiled jab at jwr. You can look at satellite photos for free on your computer and see that much of the areas you so gleefully point at has having no fuel, are COVERED with forests so thick you can't run from a charging bear.
I'm happy you continue to display grade school level oneupmanship, as it has finally worked to reduce my reading. I don't prep, I live a more self-sustaining lifestyle, so I don't need to. But you should be thankful for all the people who have been motivated to do so by other bloggers, even those that you are for some strange reason jealous of. Those people won't be knocking at your door.
Your personal prepping and your knowledge about what you do endorse, is commendable. I just think your personal war on other bloggers ridiculous.
Best wishes to you.
Anon - My desire is to make sure facts are submitted across the board and people are not lead astray by thinly disguised cheerleading and those who wish to make money off it.
DeleteI would point out the very fact that you can post an opinion under an anonymous tag directly to a site not designed to sell you something and covered with adds as a sign. Yet I doubt you will see it.
Frankly I think a lot of Rawles advice will get you killed but you are of course free to do and believe whatever you like.
And there is no retraction here I misread the first map and have even questioned the original article now as even being on the up and up in it's accuracy. I believe the entire thing has some hidden agenda to be honest.
As for your last paragraph thank you. Jealousy has nothing to do with it however when I believe a few basic precautions are being intentionally ignored just to make a few bucks. Again believe what you like and pay the price, both now and later.
And best wishes to you as well.
And furthermore. I had to come back to this. I am certainly not the one who started pushing one specific region of the country as "Ideal" over all others now am I?
DeleteOne that I just happen to have a business that goes out looking for land to sell in that region for a profit.
I believe Mr. Anon you have your priorities a bit skewed.
As I said best of luck.
Pioneer, It's hard to be accurate when you don't know what the criteria a group uses. I have always thought the "Concerned Scientists" as one of the more liberal groups so I take the data with a large grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteIt seems on both maps that SW Idaho has no "biomass" thought it is big on agriculture.
I think Idaho is a great place but like everywhere it has both good points and bad.
MASR - You are 100% correct and I have never said differently as a matter of fact as I have always said there are perfect locations everywhere. I unlike some have never tried to say otherwise although I do believe rainfall and natural ground water is the most important regional aspect.
DeleteAlso as I delved deeper into it I found out you are correct the concerned scientist guys do have a hidden agenda of some sort. I wonder why they are excluding Idaho so much though?
Light green on the east coast is the many many acres of small farms that are no longer in production.
ReplyDeleteRev. Paul is correct, but maybe not in the way he would like to be. By 1776 we had been cutting down our woodlands at an insane pace for a century, and that is not exactly a healthy point in time to bench mark.
Russ - That is a very good point. Also another point I notice as I continued to think about it is the scientist (if they are that) are claiming renewable production potential. Perhaps certain locations take so much time to actual renew that they don't count. For instance my current location is only light green despite being very forested. Those trees would take a while to grow back.
DeleteNot many know how to coppice, not many have or have even heard of kachelofens.. Even fewer have planted trees for fuel/ wildlife fodder/ ecology improvement/ etc.
ReplyDeleteHow many know that forests directly impact a region's precipitation? That while they are growing- they are carbon sinks.. but that changes once they die and especially when they are burned (inefficiently.)
Woodstoves only utilize 30% or so of the energy of the wood that is being burned. Most of it- goes up in smoke.
Most water is already polluted.
Small farms are making a comeback- but many are micro-farms. That's good in that they are more diversified vs the monster mono-croppers.