Over the river and thru the woods

[maple flats]

No I'm not going to grandma's house, today I'm headed to visit mountainvan. His posts and methods have interested me for years, today I go to visit. Hopefully I can learn from the master. I have to see a little of how he manages to handle so many taps with minimal help. I have loads of questions but I don't want to ask so many I have no way of remembering even a few of the answers. It will be a great visit I'm sure.
Dave

[maple flats]

My Brother in Law and I had a great visit with mountainvan yesterday.
Van, you are truly an inspiration. I'm one step closer to making the switch to oil. You're the second one I've talked to this summer who recently made the switch from wood to oil. Both had nothing but good to say about the change and both seem to have ended up with a 20-25% increase in their evaporation rate. That is one big reason, another is the time savings and physical labor saved with oil.
With mountains as steep as you tap on, I'm not sure how you can even do it, but we're glad you do.
May your health continue to improve, God bless!
We're recharged to do the prep work and expansion we want in the coming months.
Dave and Dave

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[DrTimPerkins]

Unfortunately the calculation isn't that simple. Burning wood does use oil/gas/electricity in the cutting, transferring/skidding, and splitting for wood, and often for forced ventilation of the arch, so that option is not completely carbon-neutral. If wood is cut and left to lay on the ground, it will rot very slowly, releasing the stored carbon over many decades rather than instantly up the fluepipe.

[johnallin]

New Thread maybe? It's worth discussing and is bound to be a long windy one for sure.

I figure I can cut over a cord with a gallon of gas. Splitting is done with a Mantis SwiftSplit Electric Log Splitter. No longer made but a great machine as it only runs when you hit the button.
Yeh, I'm a wood guy, but oil starts to look better as each cake gets another candle.....

[maple flats]

Not that I need to justify why I might start to use oil, a few energy facts. The US only imports at this time 25% of it's crude oil, and over 43% of that imported oil comes from Canada.
I've heated my house for over 45 years with wood, 100% for 40 of those, since 2012 only burn wood if it is cold enough, my new home gets too hot if not under 20F when I burn wood. For 12 of the years I burned wood I also used draft horses to pull the wood out of the woods, no carbon footprint there. I also have a total of over 8000 watts of solar, 6320 at my sugarhouse and 1710 at my house. The excess produced at the sugarhouse is credited to my home bill. How many have done that much to reduce oil use? At 71 years of age, I think it's time I can start to use some oil and use less wood, but, since I'll still thin my sugar bush, I'll be selling some firewood to help others use less oil. I just did most of my reduced oil consumption from age 24-65. All this time I own about 30 acres of woods plus 4.5 acres of blueberries, sequestering CO2.
I think I've earned the right to burn oil if I so choose, when you get to the point to the point when you have reduced your carbon footprint as much as we have, you can switch to oil too.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[maple flats]

Directly from the US Energy Information Administration (USEIA): "In 2016, U.S. net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum from foreign countries were equal to about 25% of U.S. petroleum consumption. This percentage was up slightly from 24% in 2015, which was the lowest level since 1970."
However, you certainly have the right to question all posts and I fully support that right. The quote above comes from the USEIA latest report. However that does not mean we should over use oil.
While I do own a 1 ton diesel to enable me to haul enough sap (rather than driving a 1/2 ton and taking 4 trips to haul what I do in one trip with the 1 ton and a gooseneck trailer., I also own a Prius which regularly gets 42-44 MPG and on a trip it gets 48-50 MPG. We also do some local driving using a totally electric Car, 24V batteries and solar charged. It uses no gas. Apparently they are no longer in production I did a search and didn't find them, it is called a "Palmer Car", but is slow, can only be driven legally on roads with a top speed of 35 or less MPH.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[mountainvan]

Thanks flats. No walleye yesterday, just largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, pickerel, and rock bass. Maybe I need to ho out with Dave.

[maple flats]

No, thank you. Side note, I ordered the taps from Tom, thanks for the input.

[maple flats]

According to the Energy Information Administration (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6), the US imports 50% of its crude. That number is also on the rebound from the economic disruption of 2008-2009, so soon we will again import more than we produce domestically.



This comment assumes that I do nothing to analyze my own consumption. I have been overly aware of such since my subscription to the reality of Peak Oil in 2001. It was then I started my journey into living alternatively. Solar was a no brainer, until I researched the Energy Returned on Energy Invested. Since that time it has come to light that the average PV takes five years of generation to create as much energy as went into its production. At installation a PV will convert about 15% of the total energy falling onto it into electricity; which is the same efficiency as an internal combustion engine. 20 years after installation the coating is so scratched and embedded with dust, that panel will only produce about 20% of the electricity it did at incept. Since the coating is integral, there is no refurbishing of the product. It also has a low rate of elemental recoverability, so most of the panel winds up in the landfill. Given all of these uncertainties, modern studies are concluding that PV might be a net energy sink, not a source of energy (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066).

The battery technology associated is also rife with pitfalls. The production process is highly toxic; to whit we regulate it to the point that manufacturers R&D here, but produce overseas to imperil someplace else for our benefit. At their end of lifecycle, they too suffer from a low rate of recovery in heavy earth metals, so the bulk of their contents are sequestered in a land fill; how well is anyone's guess. Overall, the alternatives are not the solution, lower energy intensity is. To that end, up to the age of 45, I split my heating wood by hand.

My original comment contained a caveat that it was a back of the envelope calculation. I fully intend to visit a Land Grant Institution to plumb the depths of the library for articles on varying sequestration rates in woodlots experiencing varying rates of harvest. The calculation will also require me to document usage of fossil fuels in my saw, tractor and splitter as I put away next years wood this fall. Question remains, do I need to account for the fuel used to fuel me? Still, on it's initial premise, the hypothesis that a considered operation using wood can be more environmentally sustainable than oil seems plausible.
You had better start cutting your wood with a 1 or 2 man saw and split it using an ax or splitting maul, you certainly don't want to use oil in any form to make your wood pile. Using an electric splitter unless you are off grid also in one way or another uses oil or coal. The grid is one huge pot, powered by nuclear, water, coal, oil and natural gas, the only way to know you are not adding to the problem is if you use your own energy.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[buckeye gold]

I have serious doubt about all this carbon footprint debate. 100-150 years ago America suffered from severe deforestation and carbon based fuels were the norm for everyone.....why aren't we already a greenhouse globe? By some of the hypothesis I have read the globe should already be dead and burnt to a crisp. we, in America have more carbon consuming green plants than our ancestor's did. I hear a lot of talk about carbon generation, but I would ask all these "experts" where does this carbon came from? The earth was created (yes I believe it was created by God) with a set amount of carbon and today that number is constant, we have no more or no less. It only changes form and the more volatile forms precipitate into environmental consumption rather quickly on an "age of earth timeline". I would venture our plant inventory and total weight of Live carbon consumers is greater today than it was 100 years ago. I believe this great earth is able to heal very well, however the thing that will kill it is not carbon, but manufactured poisons that have either synthesized natural elements or concentrated elements to lethal dosages. I am less worried about the air I breath than the water I drink! We worry about our planet killing us when it is in fact a greedy society and moral decay that we should worry about. Our environment will take care of and heal it's self with good stewardship. Now that does mean we watch what we pump into the air and water, but reasonable and normal use of environmental resources will not doom us. I think what little carbon we release from our sugar shacks is easily absorbed by our own bushes that the sap came from. Some one mentioned horses...I have heard more than one environmental extremist state that more "greenhouse gas (methane)" is released by cattle than cars. So go figure, I am for being responsible, but I am not going to go to extremes to the point of using more energy to say I am being environmentally proactive.

So if a man wants to reduce his work load and try to increase his efficiency by converting to oil for the evaporator, than I say go for it. Your little evaporator than runs for 6-8 weeks a year for half a day at a time through that short period will not doom our planet. At best we are no more than a hiccup on the global scale....so flip that switch and let her rip!

[maple flats]

Buckeye, thanks, my feelings exactly.
While I agree the climate is changing, moving to a warmer one, I have serious doubts how much humans affect that. Over the last several thousand years, our earth has gone thru at least 5 ice ages, where glaciers reached down well into what is now the US. This was all before there were people to ruin it, or at least before there were enough to. Then in the periods following a each glacier it had global warming for extended periods. At the warmest times between 2 such ice ages, there were even lush plants growing on the north slope of what is now Alaska and the Yukon, along with the rest of the area around the globe north of about the 40th parallel, which is proven by the existense of fossilized large dinosaur bones, ones that were only able to survive in warm climates.
This again was without the help or hinderance of human activity.
I believe the human activity still has an extremely minor affect if any. The things man does is tiny compared to what just one active volcano does to the atmosphere.
Yes, oil reserves are being depleted, but water is not, and the technology to break water into hydrogen and oxygen will be here long before the oil reserves get too low. Along with that, other clean sources of energy will also be developed, of that I am convinced.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[amaranth farm]

Radio Silence.

[johnallin]

. A decent entry point for these realities is through the basic writings of Immanual Velikofsky, specifically Earth in Upheaval and Worlds in Collision.

Controversial fellow to be sure....

Discussing merits of wood vs oil can get volatile if we don't keep it civil. I sailed boats for 35 years (built my own 32' sailboat) while lots of good people motored around on boats. I didn't feel the need to justify my means of propulsion as we were all enjoying the water, and chose not to judge others.

The temp in here is starting to slowly rise. Since we all make syrup; how we do it should not as important as how good the final product is.

[markcasper]

I find this thread offensive, it has grown to be politically incorrect, and it is hurting my feelings as an individual.

[maple flats]

Sorry, mark. With that comment in mind I will close the thread.

[maple flats]

This thread has been re-opened. After getting some P.M.'s asking why I closed the thread, that they were enjoying the thread. I guess I acted too soon, even markcasper sent me a message that he had not seen a reason to close the thread.
Let's however refrain from trying to preach our opinions in either direction and just enjoy making syrup however each of us sees fit. Do not use this thread to push your agenda.
If you want such a thread, start your own, but if it gets too far away from the intent of this forum, it will be closed.

[buckeye gold]

I appreciate your efforts and direction mapleFlats. I think you are spot on keeping us directed at keeping it Maple related. Feel free to let me know if I ever cross the line, and I will do my best to comply. I know global warming is a hot topic that has as many opinions as people involved. I do enjoy the discussion and there is good information and points brought up by all. Topics that make us think are good, but we all should do our best to be civil and understanding.

As for environmental issues, they certainly do impact us. The effects of warmer temps directly impact our sap flows. Acid rain affects the trees and probably the sap. I do wonder if converting to oil fired evaporation is a significant issue to sugar camps or the environment. We are just too small a fish in the pond. Pollution in all forms is an important issue. In my former career I saw first hand the catastrophic effects uncontrolled pollution causes.

Originally this post was about a visit to see a converted operation,wasn't it. I guess we all need to focus on staying on topic :)

[johnallin]

Yeh, I'm a wood guy, but oil starts to look better as each cake gets another candle.....

Thanks for re-opening Dave.
Going back to your original post. We all know that good wood and consistent firing time are critical, but due to the constant heat source provided by an oil burner, it would seem that oil would be more efficient or at least provide a higher evaporation rate on the same rig. 2x6 Leader patriot with Revolution pans, in my case.

[DrTimPerkins]

I find this thread offensive, it has grown to be politically incorrect, and it is hurting my feelings as an individual.

It is difficult to understand posts sometimes without the benefit of really knowing the person quite well, and without them standing there in front of you, however I took this statement as sarcasm, although I can see it being interpreted by folks either way. In any case, civil discourse is fine, but we can trust Dave to keep an eye on things and make sure the conversation doesn't get out of hand.

[buckeye gold]

You takin bout me WILLIS?

Sarcasm font and "Hollywood quote Marks" for those who never saw the show