Dousing flames in two key hot spots

Timber has been fighting fire on two fronts recently, so far with varying degrees of success.

In the last few years a number of dramatic, headline-grabbing blazes on timber frame construction sites have threatened to blacken the reputation of building with wood in the UK, and, potentially, the fire-safety of timber generally. Fortunately, none of the fires have been fatal, but the seeds of doubt were sown and the flames were eagerly fanned by competitors in the masonry sector.

However, the UK Timber Frame Association (UKTFA) has taken the bit firmly between its teeth. First came its Site Safe initiative, a code of conduct for timber construction site contractors. Now it has unveiled broader fire safety guidance, which has received the blessing of the Chief Fire Officers Association. The document covers the various timber frame construction types and the fire retardants and materials they should use and details flame spread rates and heat emission to neighbouring structures in the event of fire. The result is comprehensive advice for timber construction in any location in the country.

The other fiery issue preoccupying the wider timber sector is how much wood should be burned for energy, as the UK and other economies worldwide strive to increase use of renewable heat and power. While accepting the need to cut emissions and dependence on fossil fuels, the timber industry is becoming ever more concerned that the woodfuel sector will increasingly compete for its raw material.

Forecasts for wood-fuelled electricity generation in the UK are pretty staggering. A government report says the UK’s current crop of seven larger scale wood-fuelled power stations generate 130MW of electricity a year, with the biggest burning 480,000 tonnes of wood annually. The 20 in planning will generate 2,293MW and burn 21 million tonnes.

As articles from DECC minister Charles Hendry and Wood Panel Industries Federation (WPIF) director-general Alastair Kerr underline, government and industry are still some way apart on the impact they expect this to have on the timber sector.

Mr Hendry argues that the effect will be minimised by schemes to bring under-utilised woodland into management for fuel production and increase cultivation of fast-growing energy crops, like willow. Moreover, he says, the vast bulk of woodfuel will be imported.

But Mr Kerr says that such strategies to boost fuel supplies will only scratch the surface of our needs and that, most importantly, the current Renewable Obligations (RO) grants for electricity generators fail to differentiate between imports and domestically produced timber. As a result power companies are subsidised to hoover up scarce UK wood supplies, which currently support tens of thousands of jobs and are used to make products that lock in carbon for decades and are far more beneficial to the environment than power stations that just set it alight.

The WPIF and, increasingly, other timber bodies, like TIMCON, urge government to take the industry’s needs far more into account in its energy policy. That means reforming the RO system and establishing a hierarchy of timber use, so it is made into products and buildings first and burnt last.

While the UKTFA may have dampened its particular flames, the heat is clearly not about to go out of this debate any time soon.