Jonti
Yes, it is a problem, so very hard to compare like for like. Makes working out the £/GJ almost impossible.
But using 16 MJ/kg and density between 500-800 kg/m^3 we can estimate that a m^3 has about 10.5GJ (for solid lump of timber). If we allow for 15% being air in a stacked pile, then we have 9 GJ/m^3. Does that seem reasonable?

Blimey,
Now to find my chain saw, I have loads of fallen trees in my area. The problem is finding out who owns them, unless anyone has a silent chain saw? Only kidding, its impossible to run with arms full of logs and a saw under the other! I can manage about 200 mtrs but no more!
No seriously, I feel it is such a waste looking at the timber rotting. Although it does provide habitat etc,
Gusty.

Fostertom- have you got shares in Soltan?

Posted By: JontiEven breathing has an impact

No - it's taken care of within primeval natural cycles.

Posted By: JontiSolar panels are using energy that would otherwise have been disapated into the natural world

True - that's why solar is in principle zero-impact - the dissipation is merely postponed as you've intercepted the cycle. Actually, that's not quite true - solar panels are by definition unusually absorbent, compared to typical reflectivity of 'normal' objects, so they do increase the planet's temp by a smidgeon, in order for it to be able to re-emit to space all that it receives.

Posted By: JontiIf there is a forest fire do you consider that impact neutral?

Yes- again, it's taken care of within primeval natural cycles.

Posted By: JontiWere all wood left to rot the number forest fires would increase as well.

True, but they'd be small, self-limiting ones. Whereas half a century of 'forest management' and zero-tolerance of forest fires has left forests unnaturally full of dead 'fuel', which is why nowadays forest fires are so catastrophic when they do take hold. There's a whole new way of thinking in forestry, as a result of this realisation.

Thank you S Tea

Ah Fostertom,

taken care of in 'primeval natural cycles'? Wot tosh!!!!

I am not trying to pick an argument with you but would point out the following

Has there been any research into what, if any detrimental effects solar panels have on the environment? Not as far as I am aware. GSHP are also thought by many to be only positive but there are some who are concerned about the lowering of ground temperature that they cause and its long term implications. I would also suggest that the emissions from forest fires are just the same as from a WBS.

Jonti

You are incorrect to think that all ancient forest fires were small contained affairs. Many were not.

Posted By: JontiHas there been any research into what, if any detrimental effects solar panels have on the environment?

Not that I know of other than land usage change, which is possibly having a larger affect on climate than CO2 emission.
Would be interesting to see if there is a local weather effect associated with them. More or Less cumulo nimbus maybe.
It will defiantly have had an effect on local wildlife, water run off/absorption, pollen levels, nitrates, CO2 absorption/sequestration and so forth.

Changes to land/habitat are hard to compare as they are, by very nature price except, not as if bees and bunnies use cash. We can put a price on it as humans though in a number of different ways.

How much are we prepared to pay for the loss.
How much are we willing to pay to preserve.
How much are we willing to pay for the change,
How much are we willing to pay for alternatives.
How much are we willing to pay to export the problem.
How much are we willing to pay to import the problem.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: SteamyTea</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jonti</cite>Has there been any research into what, if any detrimental effects solar panels have on the environment?</blockquote>

Not that I know of other than land usage change, which is possibly having a larger affect on climate than CO2 emission.
Would be interesting to see if there is a local weather effect associated with them. More or Less cumulo nimbus maybe.
It will defiantly have had an effect on local wildlife, water run off/absorption, pollen levels, nitrates, CO2 absorption/sequestration and so forth.

Changes to land/habitat are hard to compare as they are, by very nature price except, not as if bees and bunnies use cash. We can put a price on it as humans though in a number of different ways.

How much are we prepared to pay for the loss.
How much are we willing to pay to preserve.
How much are we willing to pay for the change,
How much are we willing to pay for alternatives.
How much are we willing to pay to export the problem.
How much are we willing to pay to import the problem.</blockquote>

There's bound to be a big local climate effect, at the micro level, from PV installations. I first learned to fly gliders, around 35 years years ago now, and the lift over large concrete structures, or especially sewerage farms, was quite noticeable.

A big PV array (the field sized arrays) will be kicking a lot of heat into the air above it, more than 80% of the energy from the sun hitting the panels will be heating the air around the panels, rather than being absorbed into the ground. This must have some effect on climate, but whether it's significant in the overall scheme of things I don't know.

Posted By: JSHarrisA big PV array (the field sized arrays) will be kicking a lot of heat into the air above it, more than 80% of the energy from the sun hitting the panels will be heating the air around the panels, rather than being absorbed into the ground

Surely, PV or wet panels absorb more heat and duct it away, compared to 'normal' surfaces. Don't tell me that 2m2 of field absorbs more solar energy than a panel - if so the panel manufs have a thing or two to learn!

SteamyTea So at the moment we have: (From what Peter says 1 solid m^3 is really 1.7m^3 delivered, have I got that right, is that what the 'forestry' means)

Yes, it is called 'forestry' m3 to distinguish it from any other type of m3.

I have a friend who, with a property in Italy, drives his lorry from Hungary to Italy loaded with fire wood to sell and he reckons the extra price pays for the trip.(ref Gotanewlife £91.30/tonne) No comment about the environmental cost of this exercise!!
Peter

JSH, I realised that overnight (sad!) - the ground and other heavy objects absorb a lot and re-emit it at night, whereas panels don't have that thermal capacity so do everything 'now'.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Brianwilson</cite>We are aware bulk woodchip is 19% air plus water, pellets require energy input for moisture removal ( understood to have 6-8% water content) and energy input needed to maintain condition in bulk storage so question becomes which is preferred form for transporting fuel thousands of miles to UK?</blockquote>

By sea is probably the most environmentally friendly way of transporting it, I'd have thought. In fact, transporting things like fuel, that are more or less continuous demand cargoes, by water, whether inland or off shore makes a lot of sense. It's a pity our canal network doesn't carry more stuff like this, as it's a pretty fuel efficient way of delivering bulky cargo, where delivery journey time isn't important.

Because speed isn't important (all that matters is that the flow rate of cargo matches the demand) building solar powered, slow, cargo ships might even be an option. The power needed to propel a ship goes up in proportion to the cube of its speed, so a ship that travels at 10kts, rather than 20kts, only uses 1/8th of the power.

Here (Mid Italy) I have a friend who has a Hungarian wife and a wood business here (her family run a big wood business in Hungry) who imports most of his wood (structural) from Hungry, but fills up any space on the lorries with firewood sold in wooden crates by the M3. I'll ask him what he sells it for tomorrow as I will see him.

Having had occassion to look in on the Arb forum, I do despair of the organic shambolic confusing marketing of firewood, why why why not simply market it per m3, and no guys a builders bag is NOT a m3, despite the apparent belief that because it is rated as a tonne bag it will hold a m3,.....& scratches head in disbelief.
Plus the not uncommon inability to work ot the cubic capacity of a rectangular/cuboid trailer.
I pity the average wood buyer.
If I ever get round to selling firewood it will be in bulk bags, of stated dimensions & capacity, and ideally 1m3, with a tethered moisture meter so that the customer may check moisture content themselves.
But cash sales only, with a proper reciept of course.
Right , wheres my halo?