# EPA demands Efficiencies be removed from OWBs



## tronsliver (Jun 25, 2013)

See the enclosed letter from the EPA to Central Boiler written a few weeks ago.   Keep in mind that OWB manufactures knew that the efficiency rating shown on hang-tags attached to their units, and published in their marketing materials, were flawed as early as 2010 when the EPA pulled the efficiency data from its Burnwise website.    Also relevant is the fact that many states promulgated its laws based on these flawed efficiencies.

For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag  and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website.  A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use.  This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.

The EPA told the manufacturers about the flawed efficiencies at the time they were pulled from Burnwise but the manufacturers elected not to remove them from the hang-tags or their marketing materials.  In essence, they continued to misrepresent the boilers to consumers until the recent EPA letters were sent.  The only reason the EPA sent the letters out last month is because they knew that a number of law firms found out about the flawed efficiencies  and elected to do damage control.   In other words, push blame on the manufacturers by proving that the manufactures knew about the flawed efficiencies yet decided not to remove them ( remember it's a volunteer program)

From a consumers perspective,  if a person pays $200 dollars for a full cord of wood and the OWB burns an average of 13 full cords of wood per heating season, the consumer expects only 14% waste (100 - 86%) or $364 dollars per heating season based on a 86% thermal efficiency.  Based on the Gullett’s  study a person who purchased a EClassic 2300 actually loses $1820 dollars per heating season because the actual efficiency is only 30%.

70%  (waste based on 30 percent efficiency) x 200 (per cord) = $140 (waste per cord) x 13 cords of wood = $1820

Additionally, when a consumer shops for a heating appliance many base their decision to purchase on the efficiency of the device.  In essence, they compare to other appliances such as gas, oil and electricity before making the purchase.  As you can see from the aforementioned example consumers' are being duped and neighbors are suffering the consequences - efficiency has a direct coloration to smoke and pollution.  The higher the efficiency the hotter the fire burns and hence less smoke and PM 2.5.    


Lastly, after Method 28 OWHH was found flawed , also as a result of the efficiency issue, NESCAUM and NYSERDA strongly questioned  the raw data obtained from Method 28 OWHH on all models tested, to include the data which determined the amount of  Particulate Matter measured for each test.  The EPA baulked because it would require them to force retesting for 23 models at 20 thousand dollars per test. This would obviously prompt  lawsuits against them from manufacturers so they massaged the data to salvage the PM results.  Bottom-line is the PM results are suspect too.

For over three years now consumers have been intentionally mislead  into purchasing Phase II OWBs based on deliberate false marketing schemes costing consumers thousands of dollars.  Both the EPA and manufacturers are complicit.


----------



## arbutus (Jun 25, 2013)

Would you happen to have a link to the overall thermal efficiency test data?


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 25, 2013)

The test data is available at the EPA through a FOIA.


----------



## Chris Hoskin (Jun 25, 2013)

tronsilver, thank you for your thorough and accurate assessment of the situation.  Well done.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 25, 2013)

There is no free ride.  OWB's and their questionable construction and insulation.  Hook it up to thermal storage weigh the wood, and fire it in real world sub zero conditions with their insulated line buried 6" deep (oh and it has to be 1" PEX).  Then we can get some real world numbers.  I'd be scared to try this if I owned one, in fear of how much wood I really am wasting .  I'll bet 30% would be high. 

Really we, or anyone who is familiar with hydronic heat, would know that the things don't put out much heat for the wood consumed by the fact that 1" PEX can be used for such a long distance.  The math doesn't lie.  I'm not anti OWB, just anti bologna economics and am personally too busy to process 6 zillion cord of wood for heat.

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jun 25, 2013)

I'll make a wild, and I do mean wild, guess as to where the whole wood burning/EPA thing is going to end up unless the manufacturers AND users really and truly get serious about burning clean.............

The issue, the MAIN issue, with testing is developing a standard protocol that is repeatable and consistent. This is simply not possible with cordwood as there is too much variation in exposed surface area, moisture content and density of the particular species. Add to that the fact that any standard that the EPA chooses will not be able to be duplicated under actual use conditions. Users get lazy and don't season their wood. The wood is frozen solid and covered with ice and snow when it is thrown into the combustion chamber (I use that term very loosely). Garbage and other undesirable fuel is used indiscriminately and then there are the boilers themselves........ very poor combustion characteristics, many have very poor heat transfer capability, and the basic design premise of firing it with a huge load of fuel to "hold Fire" all day lends itself to ghastly amounts of pollution and poor efficiency.

So.....

Sooner or later, EPA is going to figure all that out and they will come to the conclusion that the only real way to address the problem is to regulate the fuel itself. They will realize that the variation in the fuel is a moving target in the wood burning equation. Then they will begin to think about standard size and moisture content and realize this is not possible. This will drive the control freaks and green people within that organization stark raving nuts.

I would not be surprised that at some point one of the high mucky mucks there will have a light bulb moment and realize that such a fuel does indeed exist. It is consistent, very low in moisture content, readily available, easy to test and it is called wood pellets. Neither would I be surprised if after said light bulb moment that a mighty effort is expended to ban all wood burning boilers and remove them from the market along with announcing that pellets are the fuel of the future. Thus will come to pass the end of wood burning boilers.

You heard it here first. 
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v










PS:
This was meant partially in jest but knowing how government "works" these days.......who knows what they are thinking.


----------



## heaterman (Jun 25, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> See the enclosed letter from the EPA to Central Boiler written a few weeks ago. Keep in mind that OWB manufactures knew that the efficiency rating shown on hang-tags attached to their units, and published in their marketing materials, were flawed as early as 2010 when the EPA pulled the efficiency data from its Burnwise website. Also relevant is the fact that many states promulgated its laws based on these flawed efficiencies.
> 
> For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website. A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use. This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.
> 
> ...


 

Saw your post over at Arboristsite and came here to check if you had blessed these good folks with the same info. It must be said that ALL OWB manufacturers received the same letter from what I understand. EPA felt that the bogus standard and test protocol applied to everyone and rightly so.

Thanks for sharing. Seriously.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 26, 2013)

For a long time I have been a strong proponent of weighed wood burns to determine real world wood boiler performance (efficiency). Note the comment by BoilerMan which accurately states that the only way to really measure efficiency is with thermal storage and weighed wood burns. I have measured efficiency for 3 different wood gasification boilers in real world operation using the thermal storage and weighed wood burn standard. Those three boilers (Garn WHS3200, Tarm Solo 140 and Wood Gun E500) all have measured efficiency in the mid to high-80% range.

A thermal storage with weighed wood burn method of efficiency is simple: 
1) water has a known heat storage content per gallon (8.34 btu/lb/degreeF) ;
2) wood at 20% moisture content and 400F stack temperature (fairly normal real world operational characteristics) has a known btu content per lb (6,050 btu/lb);
3) a weighed wood burn has known btu availability;
4) increase in temperature of a known gallon volume of water x 8.34  / wood burn btu availability = efficiency.

Example: 100 lbs of wood = 605,000 btu available.
If burning that wood resulted in an increase of 60F in the temperature of 1000 gallons of water, then
60 x 8.34 x 1000 = 500,400 btu were transferred to the water (thermal storage) from burning the wood, and
Efficiency = 500,400 / 605,000 = 83%


----------



## heaterman (Jun 26, 2013)

Absolutely agree Jim. The problem with storage based efficiency ratings is that few boilers incorporate it into their product and a lot of manufacturers flat out say their boiler doesn't need it and works fine without it.
In Europe it pretty much standard or even mandatory in some locales. Should be here too.

When you look at the numbers the way you have them laid out it's easy to see why the OWB's do so poorly. 
Start with this fact; 100 pounds = 605,000 btu's. Now how many OWB's get loaded with 200 or even 300 pounds of fuel and then sit there and idle most of it away. To "hold a million to a million and a half btus a person would need a very wide temp swing on 2,000+ gallons of water.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 26, 2013)

Keep in mind that EPA’s  Method 28 OWHH and the new Method 28 WHH use a testing methodology based on compromise.  The EPA’s Phase II program is a volunteer program.  This means the only way the EPA can get manufacturers to participate is to give them a seat at the table.The 67-69 % now being reported for some units under WHH is also overly optimistic when compared to real-world results.   The only way OWBs will ever get to high efficiencies is to eliminate cycling technology. 

Along these same lines there's currently a federal tax credit allowing up to $300 for OWBs that meet a 75% thermal efficiency rating.  Many of the manufactures are claiming their units meet the criteria by continuing to use the same efficiency values removed from the Burn Wise website and recently ordered off their hang tags.  To cover their bases a few manufacturers had their units tested using EN303-5 which is the European standard.  The type of technology employed in American OWB systems cannot be adequately tested using this standard.  The design of EN303-5 assumes wood heating systems that do not cycle (damper closed when building quits calling for heat) or employ an auxiliary heat storage system that allows the boiler to run continually. Only a few American manufacturers employ this type of technology. 

The federal statute is not explicit as to how the 75% must be measured so those manufacturers with the wherewithal (paying for testing) are taking advantage of the current language by using inappropriate testing methods.  There is nothing illegal about using EN303-5 except the fact that consumers end up being the victim.  Yes the consumer receives a tax credit, but again there is the assumption that the device purchased  is achieving these advertised high efficiencies. In the long run the cost of operating the device far exceed the measly amount obtained from the initial tax credit.

Bottom-line: Not only are some OWB manufacturers immorally defrauding the federal government but continue to find ways to knowingly misrepresent high thermal efficiency values via advertisement as well.  Google CB E-Classic 1450 brochure and look at the bottom right of page one.  If you’re an average consumer how would you interpret the 90% efficiency  listed on the brochure?   What makes this so immoral is the fact that CB knows its units cannot come anywhere close to the efficiency  listed on the brochure based on the EPA informing them in 2010 about the flaws in its Method 28, but has absolutely no second thoughts about consumers incurring thousands of dollars in losses over the life of the product.  If you purchased a Phase II OWB under these false pretenses between 2010 and present you should be furious.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 26, 2013)

Well- this just confuses the general public more!

The e-1450 was not on this list in the pdf

So if you wanted to buy an owb right now in NH. What is the current list that can legally be sold? the Burn wise is very outdated. Econoburn OWB looks like it should be able to pass but not currently available.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 26, 2013)

Ok so the central boiler brochure(e-1450) states over 90 percent effieciency based on en 303-5.

EN303-5 based on what I read in this thread is based on a batch load to storage or a batch load to storage incorporated in the boiler.

so reading the list of approved OWB they all state batch loads.

So I have asked before if anyone has tried running an OWB to additional storage and batch burning.

Seems like its the technique/method of burning not the appliance that will give EPA their desired results.

CB also states the epa approved gassers have a combustion effiecency of 100%. I would think this would be an easy claim to make @ nearly 2000 degrees.

so what I got so far is in my sig. waiting for the industry to come together and offer an OWB that is legal to both purchase and install and run in a batch load to storage that can be purchased with real economics in mind.


----------



## samuel (Jun 26, 2013)

I’m glad to see that Heaterman pointed out that ALL manufacturers that tested to EPA Method 28 OWHH were sent similar letters.

On Monday, I had an email forwarded to me that originated from Nancy Alderman from EHHI based in Connecticut.  If you are not familiar with her she is an anti-everything zealot who would ban all lawn fertilizer/chemicals, astro-turf sporting fields, tanning beds, etc.  The list goes on and on and on about what her group is trying to ban.  At least Nancy’s email included the letters to ALL of the manufacturers – where tronsliver makes insinuations about one manufacturer.  tronsliver pretty much takes Nancy’s email verbatim and posts it here and also posted pretty much the same thing on forestyforum.com and arboristsite.com – who knows where else.

I have questions for tronsliver exclusively:  Has the U.S. EPA and woodstove manufacturers misled consumers while using default efficiencies of 63%, 72% and 78% since 1990 (23 years)?  They are default efficiencies.  When tax credits were given to consumers who purchased indoor woodstoves from retailers/manufacturers were they defrauding EPA and consumers?

ALL of the manufacturers who chose to participate in the EPA Programs (Phase 1 and 2) were forced to use the test methods dictated to them by the EPA and they were also forced to use the information that came from the tests if they wanted to use hang tags/qualifying labels and be involved in the Program.  In other words, the EPA dictated everything to the manufacturers – use this test and put this information on your hang tags/qualifying labels.  If manufacturers did not follow EPA’s requirements they would be removed from the Program.

You should also be aware that EPA chose to adopt EPA Test Method 28 OWHH based upon pressure from Northeast states including NESCAUM and many NESCAUM state agencies – most of them specifically regulated outdoor hydronic heaters.  EPA pretty much took – verbatim – the language from a draft  4 of an ongoing ASTM test standard development.  When the ASTM standard eventually passed in 2008– it was draft #12 - I believe.  Intertek wrote a paper and mentions this issue more in-depth.

EPA did change the method and the changes are PUBLICLY shown on EPA’s website and I’ve discussed the changes in-depth here before.  While it was a compromise – the compromise involved input from the U.S. EPA, NYSERDA, NESCAUM, state air agencies, test laboratories, manufacturers, etc.   tronsliver appears to want people to think that the compromise was reached between EPA and manufacturers alone.  You should also be aware that states like New York specifically adopted EPA Test Method 28 OWHH and would not adopt EPA Test Method 28 WHH in their regulation by name.  Why do you think NYS DEC chose to do this?
_(13) Test Method 28-OWHH. "EPA Test Method 28 OWHH for Measurement of Particulate Emissions and Heating Efficiency of Outdoor Wood-Fired Hydronic Heating Appliances", Attachment 2 of the "EPA Outdoor Wood-fired Hydronic Heater Program Phase I Partnership Agreement" dated March 16, 2007 (see table 1, section 200.9 of this Title)._

Your  claims about EN303-5 are also extremely misleading.


Here is the real bottom-line:  Manufacturers have not defrauded anybody.  The intent of EPA’s Program remains intact – reduce emissions faster than what could be achieved by Federal Regulations being enacted.  I consider people like tronsliver to be nothing more than internet trolls – trying to influence people with misinformation.  I’m disappointed when trolls like tronsliver get on these forums simply to disparage certain manufacturers knowing full well that EVERY manufacturer that qualified a hydronic heater to Test Method 28 OWHH received the same letter and then spew false and misleading information about issues they fully well don’t understand.  Eventually - they will all have to retest the methods prescribed by EPA and/or states - then what happens if they are at or above 75%, 80%, 90%?  Does this start all over?


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 26, 2013)

Who ever he is?       He defiantly saw what I saw about the approved list. the testing was for batch loading/burning. not the way OWB are currently operated from my research. The industry needs to unify and make the EPA and state environmental boards aware of proper hydronic heating methods prior to regulating the appliance.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 26, 2013)

The reason it wasn't on the list is because it was tested under WHH. (the new test method) However, your inquiry brings to light another example as to how CB continues to  misrepresent its products to consumers, even with full knowledge of the efficiency controversy.  Under the new test the 1450 achieved a 77% percent efficiency, but since many of its competitors have not yet tested under the new method they elected not to advertise the 77% because it would put the 1450 in a unfavorable marketing position.  The 1450 is still considered Phase II qualified but instead of using the 77% in its advertisement they elected to use the unsanctioned EN303-5 so they could boast 90%.  What makes all of this so damning is the fact that CB sat on the committee which adopted Method 28 WHH. So on one hand they helped design WHH essentially blessing the method, but on the other still decided to misrepresent its model to consumers by disregarding the 77% in its advertisement to protect against losing market share.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 26, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Saw your post over at Arboristsite and came here to check if you had blessed these good folks with the same info. It must be said that ALL OWB manufacturers received the same letter from what I understand. EPA felt that the bogus standard and test protocol applied to everyone and rightly so.
> 
> Thanks for sharing. Seriously.


And over on AS he got banned after 2 posts with the same information.

Touchy group those big bad OWB guys are I guess.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 26, 2013)

What ever the numbers are is irrelavent. I drive an old car keep it tuned and I still get 33mpg after 220,000 miles no one told me I could not buy it. I cant buy a new OWB that works for my economics based on a law that is flawed based on EPA phase II tag.
I have no beef with CB or their advertising as they appear to be trying to stay alive. My CB  local dealer would love to sell one to me, but ran the numbers and said I would not be satisfied with the economics. I also had an Indoor wood boiler rep state the same thing. I do not not think any have been misleading. But rather truthful of their products and the capabilities of them.
But I do ask lots of questions!
Efficiencies have been put on everything. MPG on cars/trucks/water heaters/oil burners      but you cant purchase from these numbers. you look up the brands you pick one out then you call around and check on who stocks parts for them. and walah! I buy the unit that I can get parts for on a sunday or saturday.
Keep in mind that there is nothing earth shattering in wood boiler technology currently. It is all old technology trying to be put together on the cheap and marketed for the maximum profit. The imports of the indoor gassers have a differant economic model based on dealer fees and such that makes it hard to get the profits up to a desired level. IMHO


----------



## Jags (Jun 26, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> Touchy group those big bad OWB guys are I guess.


 

This is good discussion so far. Let us not turn it into a dog pile.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 26, 2013)

You can discuss it all you want. But the attitude present over there is a lot more prevalent then on this forum.  It's only a matter of time before some version of the events Heaterman predicted come to pass.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 26, 2013)

There was interest in the information presented over at AS but a few long-time members had a hard time grasping the concepts. What they didn't understand or refused to consider was not answered with sensible debate but simply resorting to name calling. I would assume even though I was banned they'll be here reading and trying to disrupt the conversation.

Samuel,

I agree with some of what you said and although I was told there were additional letters sent to other manufacturers I did not have copies so chose not to mention it.  I'm not very knowledgeable about what happened in the past with indoor wood burners so  I have nothing to add to the topic. With regard to the EPA dictating the criteria of the volunteer program I will add that the resulting Method 28 OWHH did favor manufacturers with respect  to how PM was measured over long burn times, instead of GPH, and  how efficiencies were ascertained.  You are also right about the other stakeholders involved in the process. That said, in my opinion, up to the point where Method 28 OWHH was found to be suspect there was no deliberate misrepresentation of thermal efficiencies. 

However, when it became known that the efficiencies were flawed and the EPA informed the manufacturers in 2010 to remove the flawed efficiencies from their marketing material they refused to do so. The EPA had no legal power because it was a volunteer program.  See my original post as to why the EPA didn't require retesting at that time. 

The manufactures completely understood  that the original qualifying contract was for five years and if they refused to retest under WHH  they felt comfortable continuing misrepresenting the flawed thermal efficiencies until the contracts were up.  See post above concerning the circumstances of the E-Classic 1450.

Please enlighten me as to why you feel EN303-5 is an honest test concerning American wood boilers. I would very much like to hear your explanation of EN303-5's tested burn rates compared to Method 28 WHH tested burn rates when it comes to cycling technology.  Please explain why EN303-5 does not employ a Category 1 burn rate like Method 28.

Samuel you appear to be a smart guy, I guess I'm surprised as to why you would resort to name calling before you even asked me for an explanation of my comments. From my experience with forums, this is a common tactic when someone else is telling the truth and the person being effected becomes uncomfortable.  In essence you're trying to discredit me so the information I'm providing does not gain traction. I respectfully ask that you please give me the same respect I'm giving you.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 26, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> There was interest in the information presented over at AS but a few long-time members had a hard time grasping the concepts. What they didn't understand or refused to consider was not answered with sensible debate but simply resorting to name calling. I would assume even though I was banned they'll be here reading and trying to disrupt the conversation.
> 
> Samuel,
> 
> ...


 
If the EPA's own tests and standards that resulted in those efficiencies was referenced what is the problem? It was the EPA's mistake, not the manufacturers.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 26, 2013)

Who is doing the testing? The manufacturers, the EPA, or third party?  Third party (Intertek) should be doing the tests on ALL the units using the same procedure.  Would the efficiencies replicate real world? Prolly not.  But at least we'd have some numbers to compare one unit to another. 

It's a hard subject to say the least. OWB's are not super-efficient, but manufacturers are putting numbers on them that say they are. This is done by using the EN303-5 loophole which is not meant for this type of boiler........this has been stated. Personally, I don't think wood burning will be banned entirely, this is almost complete socialism, I still have some hope for freedom here in the USA.

My prediction: dirty burning and the majority of OWB is a problem, and is something drastic does happen, indoor or gasser installs will not be banned, rather others will be forced to buy gassers (and will continually operate them inefficiently). To be completely honest, there are some OWB around here that burn pretty clean, as they are connected to large loads and don't bother anyone.......

I drive an old car, which would be considered a gross polluter in some states but is gets great gas mileage, and has many miles on it, but that is another discussion. OWB, do not have a huge lifespan, so if they are forced to be "cleaner" then the "clean ones" will be phased in and the old ones will rust out.

The problem Heaterman stated, is the kicker as we all know. Wood is so inconsistent and anyone can take a state-of-the-art gasser and soot it all up and billow smoke. But for the Gov't to take the RIGHT away for someone to burn wood would make a lot of people poor and cold, clean burn or not!

TS


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 26, 2013)

BoilerMan said:


> Personally, I don't think wood burning will be banned entirely, this is almost complete socialism, I still have some hope for freedom here in the USA.


It's more or less happening out west already.

New houses aren't allowed to have wood heat as a primary source. And on certain days all woodburning is prohibited unless your primary heat source is wood. I believe wood pellets are even prohibited on 'spare the air' days.

It's only a matter of time... With laws like that no one will be able to rely on wood heat and people will be are forced to use alternative fuels. Then the gov't will come out with a new law prohibiting all wood burning. The writing is on the wall.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 26, 2013)

TMonter said:


> If the EPA's own tests and standards that resulted in those efficiencies was referenced what is the problem? It was the EPA's mistake, not the manufacturers.


You need to follow the money trail. I smell a class action lawsuit in the works.


----------



## martyinmi (Jun 26, 2013)

tronsilver-
Care to tell us why you are taking the time to provide us with this information?
And, what is your agenda?
Things that make one go hmmm.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 26, 2013)

Since when is the EPA in the thermal transfer efficiency business. Sniffing the stack is their domain. They don't test thermal transfer efficiency of wood stoves that stand in the living space. What would any numbers about it in a shack away from the house have to do with anything? What gets into the living space is the only thing that counts.

Yeah. I am ass deep familiar with EPA Method 28 for stoves. But it looks like now I have to go dig through the version for boilers. But Method 28 for stoves has not one thing to do with thermal efficiency.


----------



## __dan (Jun 26, 2013)

You guys are nuts.

Everyone who bought a Central Boiler or any OWB smoke dragon got exactly what they wanted. If they shopped a gasser with storage and an outbuilding, they would have been looking at over $20,000. installed. The CB's were probably marketed at $5.000 installed. That was the only number they were looking at. If they also looked at 20k systems, they would have said 5k for the CB and 15k for firewood, I won't be burning 15k in firewood.

Most of the market action is price driven and anyone who competes to produce something knows you have to compete with a lot of crap at the low end. The market (the buyers) want the lowest price and the competitors target this market with lower quality, cheaper to produce solutions.

The gov does have a role to play regulating this stuff, but if any low price junk was sold, it was because the buyer in the market wanted cheap low price crap. They were looking at the short term upfront low cost and not the best value investment over the long term. That is the majority of the market. There are very few buyers willing and able to pay more for high quality, long term capital investment grade hardware. Every contractor selling into the market knows this. Offer a fairly priced  high quality solution and the buyer will buy a low cost, low quality, product from someone else. 

There is a huge market for low price jungle rules solutions. I'm sure the buyers took pride in stuffing tree stumps in their OWB's and watching them belch smoke and flames. I know I love watching mine burn tough nasty pieces of tree.


----------



## leon (Jun 27, 2013)

AAAYYYYYY CARAMBA LUCY, you got some splainin to do;

I enjoy this forum very very much and want to see this issue examined fully too.

I wonder if the Garn folks are thinking outdoor wood and coal boiler(I hope so) since they were not
using the EPA tests for their units.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 27, 2013)

testing is like racing. You run what you Brung!

as a consumer my site and buildings characteristics dictate what I can install outdoors. If I follow the law I can buy an approved outdoor unit and place closer to my nieghbors. Does it help the environment? does it piss off my nieghbors? potentially 

If I build an outbuilding and install an indoor unit I have no restrictions other than safety codes.  I can even put in a non gasser.

Makes very little common sense for me as a consumer to have to side step regulation for a basic right to provide heat to my home with wood as I have done for many years.

For me its a challenge! for many I think they will just buy a used OWB non-gasser or buy a new phaseII OWB


----------



## heaterman (Jun 27, 2013)

_*"Here is the real bottom-line: Manufacturers have not defrauded anybody." *_

I disagree with this ^^^^^^^ on a moral basis.

My family has been in business out here in the sticks of Northern Michigan since 1920 when my great grandfather started selling hardware, farm implements and groceries. We didn't manage to survive based on telling half truths to our customers. We feel that our customers need to know all the facts and the unvarnished truth about the products they buy from us. If a product performs well in a given circumstance but not another, we tell it like it is and let the customer decide. If a product does not live up to the claims made about it, we tell our customers that too. Not telling the complete story about a product is the same as lying to someone in my book.

In the case of the ratings generated by the EPA test, I will flatly state that every single manufacturer involved knew the ratings were bogus. They have engineers and some that I have spoken with are pretty sharp. There is no question in my mind that all of them know what the real performance of their product is*. *They knew their stoves were not that clean and they knew their stoves were not nearly as efficient as the test results indicated. In spite of that, we saw advertising claiming efficiencies far beyond reality, so far beyond that it was to the point of being comedy.

So here's the point; When any manufacturer publishes numbers that they know are misleading and shall we say, unattainable, even though they were generated by an approved method, they are indeed committing fraud in my book. Every one of the manufacturers had the option of telling the real story and taking the "high road" but none of them chose to do so.


----------



## arbutus (Jun 27, 2013)

__dan said:


> Most of the market action is price driven and anyone who competes to produce something knows you have to compete with a lot of crap at the low end. The market (the buyers) want the lowest price and the competitors target this market with lower quality, cheaper to produce solutions.​


 

There was a thread discussing price, return on investment, and value a month or so back.



Price is how most Americans shop.
Doing a little homework to know the VALUE of the product being purchased is beyond many Americans.

Most manufacturers aren't going to give out the engineering and test data that will enable an ordinary customer to determine the value. I've worked in product design and development (surveying instruments) and have been given a list of marketing points that have to be fulfilled in a new product. We made it work at the price point marketing wanted, or told them what we could do at their price point and how much extra it was going to cost to meet their requirement, or told them in a couple of cases it couldn't be done with today's technology. Some of the competitors made what we thought were wild claims about their product. We never did.

Air quality is a real concern that OWBs definitely affect. It's my opinion that the EPA has no business setting national air quality standards, rather, that should be up to each state. That aside, the EPA has and does set the standards, and is occasionally forced to modify the testing to better emulate the real world. The testing for vehicle mileage is no different.

A listed test method and a thermal efficiency number on a big yellow Energyguide sticker might help consumers make a better educated decision, but very few are going to dig into the test method and compare it to their planned installation. I think many just want to cut the propane bill by 2/3, can come up with five or six thousand dollars one way or another, look at the maple or ash trees growing on the back of their ten acres, and think about being warm this winter. I don't begrudge these people, and certainly don't want the government to interfere in their decisions, rather I'd like to see them make a truly educated choice.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 27, 2013)

arbutus said:


> Price is how most Americans shop


 
Well I disagree a little bit.

I think most will look at what they want and then reality of economics dictates that we downgrade our expectations of products.

Resourceful folks will get what they want for a product with some creativity and Yankee engenuity within their means.

The basic premise for saving energy is to conserve. Heating is a great place to conserve. with all the new wood and wood pellet boilers most are heating more square footage than before and the thermostat is @ like 72 degrees 24/7.
IMHO the appliance is not the only issue in air quality.
can they be improved absolutely. The main question for me is how do we change people and behaviors.

I read much about the systems installed on this forum. If I heat my house as I do now. 60-62 degrees with no additional square footage utilizing anyone of the appliances available right now. I believe my wood consumption would decrease by a noticeble amount.
Two things stand out for recommendations on this site. Get wood early and obtain heat loss calculation. since 1969 I have never seen a heat loss test performed in my area. the heat loss and proper sizing of the appliance is critical for the economics of the purchase. And a unit burning full out to storage is best for air quality.
Burnwise would be wise to include this method of burning in their documentation of Hydronic heating. So that when consumers look for for appliances to fit their needs they could be exposed to a time tested way a burning that is not currently the way most think of burning wood. Burntime is a common question for a consumer with solid fuel burning appliance.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2013)

arbutus said:


> Air quality is a real concern that OWBs definitely affect. It's my opinion that the EPA has no business setting national air quality standards, rather, that should be up to each state. That aside, the EPA has and does set the standards, and is occasionally forced to modify the testing to better emulate the real world. The testing for vehicle mileage is no different.


Smoke pollution doesn't respect state boundaries. This is a Fed issue when it can cause harm.


----------



## heaterman (Jun 27, 2013)

leon said:


> AAAYYYYYY CARAMBA LUCY, you got some splainin to do;
> 
> I enjoy this forum very very much and want to see this issue examined fully too.
> 
> ...


 
The guys at Garn knew the testing protocol was retarded and the results were more than a little far fetched, to say the least. That is one reason they chose not to participate in the "voluntary" program. The other big reason was the the test protocol as it was written, was unable to accurately test boilers of any kind that are set up to use thermal storage. My gut tells me that if you see Garn agree to a test in the future, that test will be one you can bank on.
I think that David Lunde, Martin's boy, was one of the first to submit some math to EPA showing them their numbers were either outright lies or else generated by aliens.


----------



## arbutus (Jun 27, 2013)

begreen said:


> Smoke pollution doesn't respect state boundaries. This is a Fed issue when it can cause harm​


 
Very respectfully, I believe the federal government lacks the constitutional power to establish pollution controls in the manner that has been established.  The states can and should be managing this in cooperation with one another.

We have the EPA and the EPA isn't going away, so we can hope that its policies, test methods, and regulations are truly beneficial, rather than incremental erosion of personal liberties.


----------



## heaterman (Jun 27, 2013)

arbutus said:


> Very respectfully, I believe the federal government lacks the constitutional power to establish pollution controls in the manner that has been established. The states can and should be managing this in cooperation with one another.
> 
> We have the EPA and the EPA isn't going away, *so we can hope that its policies, test methods, and regulations are truly beneficial, rather than incremental erosion of personal liberties*.


 
Now THAT would be a concept that actually makes sense.......as such, it will never happen.


----------



## John Ackerly (Jun 27, 2013)

Glad to see this issue openly discussed here.  Does Arborsite really ban folks for posting if they don't like the content?  Who runs Arborsite?

We put out something on this topic a month ago on our blog that adds a little bit of detail to what's been posted here.  Haven't seen a link to it in discussion above: http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2013/05/epa-requests-outdoor-boiler-companies.html.

OWB manufacturers were given a deadline of June 14 to remove all references to the discredited efficiency numbers not only on their websites, but also to discontinue use of any printed materials with this info that they, or their retailers have.  I think EPA would appreciate hearing from folks if they see that companies are ignoring the June 14 deadline.

john


----------



## jebatty (Jun 28, 2013)

For anyone who thinks billowing smoke from an OWB, or any biomass burning appliance, is a private property right, I freely offer to terminate the stack of my former OWB into their house so that the smoke may be fully enjoyed in all of its richness, fragrance, and healthful benefits. And if that is not acceptable, then perhaps what would be acceptable is the concept that we all may freely exercise our private property rights so long as we do not infringe on the private property rights of others.

While I would not endorse every governmental regulation as sound, supported by available data, and reasonable, I would say that regulation exists not for the purpose of prohibiting the free exercise of rights, but rather to allow the more free exercise of rights. For example, regulation requiring brakes on cars is not for the purpose of allowing cars to stop, but is for the purpose of encouraging the use of cars because they can stop. If cars did not have brakes, no one would drive a car.

The same with biomass burning appliances. If there was no regulation of emissions, it wouldn't take long before no one would have their wood burner because the emissions would be so horrible that life as we know it could not survive. So emissions are regulated to low levels to encourage more use of wood burners. And as I said, I'm not saying that all EPA or other regulations are sound, but I am saying that emissions must be regulated so that citizens may freely exercise their private property rights to burn wood. 

Proven design and technology exists and is economically employed to greatly minimize the pollutants from wood burning appliances. If manufacturers choose not to use it, they have no private right to sell their product and they have no private property right to profit at the expense of the health and well being of others.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

So again- The OWB concept is still a concept that many like the idea of.

So if every indoor boiler company made an outdoor version and included additional storage wouldn't this be an advantage for sales?


----------



## stee6043 (Jun 28, 2013)

I'm fortunate not to have any smoke dragons in the neighborhood but at the same time I find myself wondering what's worse - the OWB around the corner or the (10) diesel semi's parked idling at the rest area down the highway?  Or on an even bigger scale do all the OWB's in this country combined, running for an entire year, emit as much "junk" into the air as the most recent Colorado wildfire? 

According to wiki in 2012 the fires that burned in Colorado consumed over 200,000 acres and over 600 homes.  For round numbers lets say that is 200,000 cord of wood.  And again, for round numbers, let's say every OWB uses 10 cord of wood per year.  That's 20,000 OWB's worth of wood consumed in wild fires in one state, one year.  Of course I know the wood isn't fully consumed in a wildfire but this is just an illustration for the sake of discussion.

I'm not an advocate of irresonsible OWB use.  But at the same time I'm not sure I agree that regulating them "in the name of the environment" makes a lot of sense given the scale on which this things operate compared to other issues we choose to ignore.  I have absolutely no data to back this up but I'm guessing there is much, much lower hanging fruit available for the environmentalist if you look at diesel trucks, trains and heavy equipment vs the OWB crowd.  But those other industries have substantial legal reserves and political lobbies as opposed to the relatively small wood burning market.

My two cents only.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 28, 2013)

> The OWB concept is still a concept that many like the idea of.


 
Not quite. The traditional OWB is inherently inefficient and without substantial design changes, in the manner of gasification boiler design, cannot be made efficient. A firebox surrounded by water cannot produce an intense enough fire to be efficient and relatively pollution free. The steel walls will be around 212F keeping the fire "cool," allowing all sorts of unburned emissions. The addition of an intense heat secondary chamber insulated from the water, and then fire tubes to extract the heat from that intense secondary burn likely are essential. Also required is additional water storage to limit or eliminate cycling/idling and allow the fire to burn at a controlled high rate and absorb the btu output until the fuel is consumed.

The Garn is an example of what might be considered a highly modified OWB that achieves high efficiency. The firebox is surrounded by water, but a large refractory holding the fire and a refractory, snaking fire tube through the large water storage tank achieves the intense high heat secondary burn, with the snaking fire tube continuing through the water to transfer heat to storage. The Garn also is designed to absorb a fuel load in a large batch burn without idling.

A typical gasification boiler with sufficient external storage, in a shed to be outside, also works well and achieves the high efficiency without idling. My Tarm is inside, a 1000 gallon storage tank, and I typically burn for 4-6 hours, more than one load of wood, with no idling, as the tank rises to 190F, and then draw btu's from the tank for 2 days before another burn needs to take place during typical cold, MN winter weather.


----------



## jebatty (Jun 28, 2013)

The "because someone else does something which is polluting and unhealthy, I should be able to do my polluting and unhealthy thing" is nonsense to me and illogical. No disagreement though that much needs to be done in many corners, including diesel trucks.

We also have to deal with volcanoes, but is that a free ride for everyone to pollute as much as they wish? Not in my book.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

I recognize the differances. but the concept of having a boiler outside self contained is what CB and others are making money selling. I cant see why the indoor guys have not jumped aboard and start making them.

Econoburn has one but cant be sold in NH. Garn is not an OWB.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 28, 2013)

http://www.newsminer.com/news/local...cle_70ff3678-de37-11e2-86e0-0019bb30f31a.html

This article has to do with two E-Classic 2300 OWBs that the state of Alaska was forced to intervene on. It underscores what I originally posted. I predict that eventually when this issue is completely fleshed-out there will be scrutiny of everyone involved in selling EPA qualified OWBs. Again, in my opinion, in 2010 when the EPA informed manufacturers that the efficiencies posted on their units were flawed and the manufacturers elected not to remove them, scores of people unknowingly purchased these units expecting something that is not possible. In the case presented here a consumer purchased the so called gasifer units in good faith only to find that they did not perform as promised. Keep in mind this was not a situation where the owner was burning materials outside the manufacture's recommendations. In fact, they tried retrofit devices, increased chimney heights etc. and it was all monitored by the state environmental department. The bottom-line: the unit did not function as advertised. 

The question becomes who is ultimately complicit or is there shared culpability? Since the EPA brought the efficiency problem to the attention of manufacturers, and they elected not to act, does it absolve the EPA? Did the manufacturers inform their dealers about the efficiency problem and/or should the dealers have known anyway based on their knowledge of the devices they were selling. It appears in the article that the defense attorney knows about the efficiency issue and is passing blame on industry. Based on a few comments from some of the dealers who visit these sites this was not an unknown phenomenon.

Where does sizing come into play here? Should dealers be held responsible for selling oversized units to consumers when they know the square footage being heated is significantly less than the capability of the device. Should they be required to assess a home like air conditioning contractors do to ensure the unit is matched properly?  

When you look at this issue based on the law this is what manufactures and dealers would have to defend with respect to misrepresentation. 

*Criteria for Misrepresentation *
Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors that can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement, inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include:

A false statement of fact has been made,
The statement was directed at the suing party and
The statement had acted to induce the suing party to contract.
I understand this is a difficult subject for some here but it is a subject with relevancy. Hopefully we can discuss the issue without dragging it and me into the gutter. This is what happened over at Arborsite. Interestingly, even though they banned me because they didn't like the content of what I posted, the topic is still alive. 

I believe OWBs are here to stay but I also feel that the devices should be advertised honestly. It is not lost on me that other industries dabble in misrepresentation also. Perhaps the difference here is the effect a poorly designed unit can have on others.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 28, 2013)

If you explained your sudden interest in plastering your thoughts on the various woodburning oriented forums perhaps your message would go over better.


Are you a 'victim' of CB, that was misled by the EPA test results? Are you considering a purchase? Have a neighbor with a smoke dragon? Dislike all burning of wood? Lawyer/Activist looking to sue Central Boiler for misrepresentation?


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 28, 2013)

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> I recognize the differances. but the concept of having a boiler outside self contained is what CB and others are making money selling. I cant see why the indoor guys have not jumped aboard and start making them.
> 
> Econoburn has one but cant be sold in NH. Garn is not an OWB.


 

A downdraft gasser with storage will never provide the simple plug and play of a typical OWB. Freeze protection also becomes an issue when batch burning.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

Tronsliver: So what is it you hope to happen? I believe the discussion is worthy.

Clearly if you look at phase II approved OWB all of them state they where Batch tested. so yes they pass in controlled environment. Most if not all are run continuosly this method was not approved hence the reason I did not purchase. I could not find literature to hook a OWB to divorced storage so again I did not purchase. In my mind if I bought a white tag unit and installed based on legal setbacks and burned continuosly my money would be wasted as I did not purchase a legal appliance for this burning method. If I batch load and not idle I felt I would have a legal install. But again I did not find literature or a consumer to educate myself on hooking a white tagged OWB to storage. So this purchase has turned out to be a greator cost than I anticipated originally. But I do not feel I have been misled by any of the dealers I have spoke with IWB and OWB alike.


I came here to the hearth and Wala there are other options as I envisioned building.

Your wording in most if not all of your writing is directed @ CB My experience with my local CB dealer has not left me feeling I was misled. But I did not purchase a unit.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> A downdraft gasser with storage will never provide the simple plug and play of a typical OWB. Freeze protection also becomes an issue when batch burning.


 
I agree that is why CB has won the lions share of the market!


If you seperate the downdraft gasser from the house circuit by utilizing a heat exchanger and add freeze protection(antifreeze) to just the boiler would this work?


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 28, 2013)

When this issue first came to my attention the only the letter provided was that from the EPA to CB.  Although I suspected at the time that it was sent to all of them I did not know for sure.  It appears now based on some of the comments posted it indeed was sent to all.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 28, 2013)

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> I agree that is why CB has won the lions share of the market!
> 
> 
> If you seperate the downdraft gasser from the house circuit by utilizing a heat exchanger and add freeze protection(antifreeze) to just the boiler would this work?


Enough antifreeze to treat 1000 gallons of water is not cheap.  And antifreeze has its own issues


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 28, 2013)

TMonter said:


> Samuel you appear to be a smart guy, I guess I'm surprised as to why you would resort to name calling before you even asked me for an explanation of my comments


Well others have since asked and I'm asking now. What is your agenda?  What is your connection to woodburning?


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> Enough antifreeze to treat 1000 gallons of water is not cheap. And antifreeze has its own issues


 

Exactly! that is why you would use the ODDGWB=outdoor down draft gasser wood boiler as a seperate loop to heat the storage and the storage heats the house. so freeze protection is only in boiler loop.


could work?


----------



## maple1 (Jun 28, 2013)

NE WOOD BURNER said:


> Exactly! that is why you would use the ODDGWB=outdoor down draft gasser wood boiler as a seperate loop to heat the storage and the storage heats the house. so freeze protection is only in boiler loop.
> 
> 
> could work?


 
Likely would.

Myself, if I wanted my boiler outside of my house, I would put a gasser in one end of a big woodshed not far from it. Insulate that end, throw in a small electric space heater if you'll be away from home for an extended period - no worries, be happy.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 28, 2013)

maple1 said:


> Likely would.
> 
> Myself, if I wanted my boiler outside of my house, I would put a gasser in one end of a big woodshed not far from it. Insulate that end, throw in a small electric space heater if you'll be away from home for an extended period - no worries, be happy.


Their probably aren't many people that would buy indoor gasser with storage in a prebuilt shed like an OWB. It would be cheaper and a nicer setup to put it in a site built shed.

The only people that would want one are those concerned about paying taxes on another building or are limited by local zoning ordinances.


----------



## NE WOOD BURNER (Jun 28, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> The only people that would want one are those concerned about paying taxes on another building or are limited by local zoning ordinances.


 

BINGO!


----------



## maple1 (Jun 28, 2013)

I'd also still want my storage in my basement - I think - even if my boiler was outside. For what that's worth.

Also, if I lived in some of the places I read about on here - I think I'd go bonkers. Kind of nice being in the middle of nowhere when it comes to 'silly' things like ordinances.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 28, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> Their probably aren't many people that would buy indoor gasser with storage in a prebuilt shed like an OWB. It would be cheaper and a nicer setup to put it in a site built shed.
> 
> The only people that would want one are those concerned about paying taxes on another building or are limited by local zoning ordinancs.


 
I agree, this is one of those things that seems good on paper, but in reality it's a huge building to haul on a truck as pre-manufactured and another property tax that could be avoided.


NE WOOD BURNER said:


> Exactly! that is why you would use the ODDGWB=outdoor down draft gasser wood boiler as a seperate loop to heat the storage and the storage heats the house. so freeze protection is only in boiler loop.
> 
> 
> could work?


 
Another thing that seems good on paper.  If you were gone or missed a fire and the boiler and storage had cooled to something like 30F there would be so much condensation and wasted wood just to get back up and running would take several loadings and puddles of condensate.  As mentioned, the glycol is $$$$, and has a short life, it becomes acidic with time, and needs to be buffered with chemicals to keep the solution alkaline.  This is not a really big deal, but need regular water testing and the correct amount of buffer chem added.  There is also the added pump from the HX and the slight loss in efficiency from having a HX in the system. 

I'm with Maple, I want the system in the house where all of the "lost" heat is lost to the building envelope.  (Not losing it to the ground through PEX runs and is a little building which I still have to pay taxes on and go out to in the cold and snow all winter.  This is totally my personal opinion.)

Upside of having dedicated boiler building is the house doesn't heat up all summer if using wood to make DHW. 

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jun 29, 2013)

There is a way around the tax thing in most jurisdictions and that is to not "permanently attach or anchor" the structure to a foundation. This is how mobile homes excape paying property taxes. At least here in Michigan anyhow. I do not know all the regs in other states.

The pictures attached here show how one homeowner handled it when he switched from an OWB to a better boiler.
The old CB sat on the pad you see under the little building. He had the shed built on the existing pad and did not anchor bolt the shed down to it. There's some construction adhesive underneath the treated plate but that's it. He insulated the new boiler shed and we connected the new boiler to the existing lines. There is no other heat in the boiler shed other than the heat from the boiler, which itself has 3" thick heavy glass wool around the vessel. It is connected to a high mass radiant floor (6,400sq.ft) and it will literally go for 24-30 hours without firing when the temp gets up into the 20* range. No antifreeze in the system.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 29, 2013)

I am not anti-woodworking. I burned wood for a number of years. However, I'm anti OWB.  I firmly believe that OWBs have given wood burning a black eye and before they're ready for prime-time need significant modifications.  Meaning, as long as OWBs employ cycling technology and consequently smolder the fire, clean and efficient is a pipe dream.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 29, 2013)

You have been harping against OWBs for at least six years now around the Internet.

How do you heat your home?


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 29, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> It's more or less happening out west already.
> 
> New houses aren't allowed to have wood heat as a primary source. And on certain days all woodburning is prohibited unless your primary heat source is wood. I believe wood pellets are even prohibited on 'spare the air' days.
> 
> It's only a matter of time... With laws like that no one will be able to rely on wood heat and people will be are forced to use alternative fuels. Then the gov't will come out with a new law prohibiting all wood burning. The writing is on the wall.


 
Please be more specific rather than making sweeping statements like "out west." This is a large area here and it is ENTIRELY dependent on the state or region that you live in, and it is highly varied.

Specifically, WA state has the strictest standards of any state by a long shot, and all OWBs are banned there outright. All other wood burning appliances sold must be WA state approved (far more restrictive than EPA II, and likely what EPA III will be). Also WA state has burn bans by regions within the state in winter months, and currently there are two levels of bans. Level one allows for burning in WA state approved appliances, and level two does not allow any burning (except where the home is only heated with wood). Most WA counties also require an OAK in any stove and fireplace built there.

In Oregon any home sold must have EPA or DEQ approved wood burning appliances. This does not include fireplaces. The OR DEQ has a large list of pre-EPA stoves that they deem burn cleaner and thus are not banned. All new stoves sold must be EPA approved, including OWBs. Oregon has regional burn bans in the Portland and Eugene metro areas, as well as isolated cities and towns, but no state bans.

Perhaps the most restrictive _region_ in the west is the SF Bay Area. No wood burning appliances are allowed in any new home construction in many of the SF Bay Area cities and counties. They also have local wood burning bans in winter there on days when there are air inversions. But that is limited to that specific region, and not all of California. Even in that area some cities still allow for wood burning stoves and fireplaces though. There are also burn bans in effect in many cities in the California Central Valley, but they are varied. The San Joaquin Valley (south part of the Central Valley) has a stove requirement similar to Oregon, where all wood stoves in homes that are sold must be EPA certified.

Most other western states vary by region, and most only have regional burn controls (if they have any). Boise, ID has wood burning bans to limit certain types of burning when air quality is bad. Western MT has stage 1 and stage 2 burnings bans. Some areas of NV have green, yellow and red burning restrictions, depending on air quality. AZ, CO, UT and NM have some city and county wood burning restrictions when air quality is bad, and most states require stoves to be EPA certified.

As for a general and complete wood burning ban, I do not think that will happen any time soon. It is highly regional, even where restrictions are in place. Also in most places they allow for grandfathered stoves and fireplaces, even in WA state. I owned a home in Santa Clara County, CA that had a fireplace, and it was legal to have and use it. Bans are on new home wood burning appliances and fireplaces, but existing houses may keep and use the ones that they have.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 29, 2013)

BrotherBart said:


> You have been harping against OWBs for at least six years now around the Internet.
> 
> How do you heat your home?



I have a closed system geo thermal unit.  Five 200 foot wells.


----------



## arbutus (Jun 29, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> I am not anti-woodworking. I burned wood for a number of years. However, I'm anti OWB. I firmly believe that OWBs have given wood burning a black eye and before they're ready for prime-time need significant modifications. Meaning, as long as OWBs employ cycling technology and consequently smolder the fire, clean and efficient is a pipe dream.​


How do you feel about indoor gasification boilers that cycle, such as those without storage?



ETA:

Heaterman,
What size is that shed?  Looks like about 10' x 10'.
I will likely be doing something very similar.
Thanks!


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 29, 2013)

arbutus said:


> How do you feel about indoor gasification boilers that cycle, such as those without storage?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally if I was ever interested in an OWB it would be Garn.  I do not believe that cycling technolgy, gasifier or not, can burn efficient and clean. I have absolutly no association with any wood burning manufacturers ....thought I should point that out.


----------



## webbie (Jun 29, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> I am not anti-woodworking. I burned wood for a number of years. However, I'm anti OWB. I firmly believe that OWBs have given wood burning a black eye and before they're ready for prime-time need significant modifications. Meaning, as long as OWBs employ cycling technology and consequently smolder the fire, clean and efficient is a pipe dream.


 

You are, of course, correct in these assumptions. I've seen cycling tech burn fairly clean in a comparative sense, however this causes other problems such as premature corrosion, etc. 

It's not rocket science! Prof. Hill had it right back in the mid-70's and the Europeans are also ahead of the game. Basically, you need either storage or pellets. Even a pellet boiler is more efficient with some storage or under a higher load.

I don't think there is a single advanced Euro manufacturer who would suggest their units without storage. 

However, it's just possible that the combination of a high heating load (cold climate), mixing valves and high water content (radiators, etc.) system can provide enough buffer to allow a modern Lamba-equipped boiler to work fairly well without too much additional buffer. 

OWBs are, in general, a black mark on the industry. That's my opinion and always has been. But i always leave a little room for exceptions since they do exist. It's not the concept of OWB's, it's been the execution. They have been used to skirt regulations and codes...


----------



## webbie (Jun 29, 2013)

The 30-40% figure does not surprise me in the least for this reason. I hope others will take the time to do their homework...

We have been graced with a number of real experts and engineers here, including our VT-based friend nofossil, who has developed products for boiler monitoring. I remember some thread where he detailed the actual delivered efficiency of his system - which was an indoor small-firebox gasifier along with storage and top-notch controls. I think the figure he calculated was 56%.

It doesn't take much of a stretch to look at an outdoor unit and see:
Larger Firebox
less in terms of monitoring and control
Heat losses from the colder ambients
"1st generation" engineering (learning on the job, so to speak).

My guess would have been about 40% compared to Nofossils 56%. That's not too bad, really, when you figure that the older models of those same OWB's are probably 20-25% at best. 

I agree with heaterman and the rest of you who say we need a single standard. As of now, we have the American Way (PT Barnum), which unfortunately means stuff like this:
http://fisherstovesusa.com/


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 29, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> Enough antifreeze to treat 1000 gallons of water is not cheap. And antifreeze has its own issues


 
Antifreeze acts as a counter agent to heat transfer in water. It is not needed though. Ground lines are below frost depth, boiler has more than enough water to keep from freezing. We had no freeze issues with a CB classic down to 10 deg. F.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 29, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Antifreeze acts as a counter agent to heat transfer in water. It is not needed though. Ground lines are below frost depth, boiler has more than enough water to keep from freezing. We had no freeze issues with a CB classic down to 10 deg. F.


 
That comment was in reference to using a typical indoor gasser outside in a OWB type enclosure. When you batch burn in a indoor boiler that is exposed to freezing temps freeze protection of the boiler becomes an issue.  On a typical winter day my boiler only has a fire going about 1/3 of the time.


----------



## mikefrommaine (Jun 29, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Please be more specific rather than making sweeping statements like "out west." This is a large area here and it is ENTIRELY dependent on the state or region that you live in, and it is highly varied.
> 
> Specifically, WA state has the strictest standards of any state by a long shot, and all OWBs are banned there outright. All other wood burning appliances sold must be WA state approved (far more restrictive than EPA II, and likely what EPA III will be). Also WA state has burn bans by regions within the state in winter months, and currently there are two levels of bans. Level one allows for burning in WA state approved appliances, and level two does not allow any burning (except where the home is only heated with wood). Most WA counties also require an OAK in any stove and fireplace built there.
> 
> ...


 

I really couldn't speak with more specifics. Just heard 2nd hand info about people that can't burn on certain days. Any of the above restrictions you mentioned are unheard of here. With the exception of some recent OWB restrictions people can burn whatever whenever in any type of stove that they want. And we don't have to destroy woodstoves when our house are sold. (the old defiants still have a following and bring 3-500 on cl)

My point and concern was that once incremental restrictions start happening in one area they tend to spread. And before long a ban on all wood burning is possible as people will be less reliant on wood heat due to the restrictions. So there won't be the same outrage as if their was a ban that happened overnight.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 29, 2013)

John Ackerly said:


> Glad to see this issue openly discussed here. Does Arborsite really ban folks for posting if they don't like the content? Who runs Arborsite?
> 
> john


 
Its "arboristsite", Darin Johnson and his wife Jennifer own it. They and their moderators there can and do ban people for any and all reasons. I was banned there for no reason that I could figure out. I got no reply from Darren when I asked why he banned me. Apparently it had something to do with feedback I had given on a post there.

Its a flame war on AS most of the time though, and people get into fights over issues there all the time. I do not miss that place... nor do I think that they as a group represent the general issues on OWBs or the issues with the EPA regarding manufacturing or testing of wood burning appliances. This site is far more rational, and a debate like this one would not happen over there.


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 29, 2013)

mikefrommaine said:


> I really couldn't speak with more specifics. Just heard 2nd hand info about people that can't burn on certain days. Any of the above restrictions you mentioned are unheard of here. With the exception of some recent OWB restrictions people can burn whatever whenever in any type of stove that they want. And we don't have to destroy woodstoves when our house are sold. (the old defiants still have a following and bring 3-500 on cl)
> 
> My point and concern was that once incremental restrictions start happening in one area they tend to spread. And before long a ban on all wood burning is possible as people will be less reliant on wood heat due to the restrictions. So there won't be the same outrage as if their was ban that happened overnight.


 
Well, when it comes to anti-OWB laws, I would say that New York and New England were the prime areas for that, resulting from a lot of dis-information being posted and stated about them, leading to state and regional OWB bans and EPA regulations. New York State had an official air quality web site that showed several OWBs that were obviously staged and burning tires and green wood, and stating that they were typical OWBs and that they were evil. That site has since removed the photos, but it was obviously a political ploy to get EPA regulations on OWBs.

As for states passing laws, what is good for some areas may or may not be good for others. Air quality is an issue here in many areas in the west, and for specific reasons. Mainly we get winter inversion air layers and the coastal valleys get choked up with smoke and smog at the lower elevations and it gets trapped there for days and days. So they have burn ban days in winter when inversion layers happen, to reduce the smoke in particular areas. Why that would cause the burn bans to spread to other areas that do not have that issue is beyond me. The banning the sale of non-EPA stoves and removing older stoves when homes are sold seems to stem from the Central Valley in California and Washington state, where winter inversion layers are the most common. I am not happy that Oregon mandated the same requirements, when they allow nurseries here to burn live green trees for months on end in winter, with zero restrictions. Its a hypocritical world of politics. Like OWBs, old stoves get a lot of the blame, but in fact have little impact on air quality overall (at least here in the US west). OWBs are actually so few in number here in the west it is absurd that Washington state banned them outright, but politics is like that. They picked up on the New England rants (and dis-information) and passed laws.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 29, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> This site is far more rational, and a debate like this one would not happen over there.


To be completely honest, I've yet to find another place on the internet where people are so rational and are not restricted to a certain bias on the heating topic. 

There are many different perspectives here on Hearth.com and we all seem to be willing to learn from one another's mistakes and successes.  Here in the boiler room logical arguments and designs are regularly presented and worked out.  There are a lot of other places on the net which talk of heating and boilers, where they are so narrow minded and can't seem to think out-of-the-box, and can't seem to be logical or realize there is more to heating than gas  and oil. 

TS


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 29, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> New York State had an official air quality web site that showed several OWBs that were obviously staged and burning tires and green wood, and stating that they were typical OWBs and that they were evil.


 
Let me tell you what, there's a lot of heat in a tire!  I could tell you stories of "years ago" and the oil timers and tires. 

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jun 29, 2013)

arbutus said:


> How do you feel about indoor gasification boilers that cycle, such as those without storage?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's about 10x10 outside dimensions. That gives him enough room to store about 3-4 weeks worth of pellets and enough area to work around the boiler.

For everyone's info, this particular installation has no storage in the typical sense of large water capacity. The owners "storage" is the 6,400 sq ft of concrete in the building. That factor along with the 3:1 turndown on the boiler keeps the hours run per cycle very high.

Any wood fired boiler, regardless of inside or outside, benefits from storage. There are a number of reasons the European contries do not subsidize purchase of wood boilers if not accompanied by an accumulator (storage to us) tank. Many of those tanks have multiple coils that allow heat input from other sources like solar plus a coil for making DHW. I wish they weren't so expensive to ship over here.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 30, 2013)

webbie said:


> The 30-40% figure does not surprise me in the least for this reason. I hope others will take the time to do their homework...
> 
> We have been graced with a number of real experts and engineers here, including our VT-based friend nofossil, who has developed products for boiler monitoring. I remember some thread where he detailed the actual delivered efficiency of his system - which was an indoor small-firebox gasifier along with storage and top-notch controls. I think the figure he calculated was 56%.
> 
> ...


Like your quote from Jonathan Swift it reminds me of another along the same lines:

Never argue with a fool he'll only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 30, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Well, when it comes to anti-OWB laws, I would say that New York and New England were the prime areas for that, resulting from a lot of dis-information being posted and stated about them, leading to state and regional OWB bans and EPA regulations. New York State had an official air quality web site that showed several OWBs that were obviously staged and burning tires and green wood, and stating that they were typical OWBs and that they were evil. That site has since removed the photos, but it was obviously a political ploy to get EPA regulations on OWBs.
> 
> As for states passing laws, what is good for some areas may or may not be good for others. Air quality is an issue here in many areas in the west, and for specific reasons. Mainly we get winter inversion air layers and the coastal valleys get choked up with smoke and smog at the lower elevations and it gets trapped there for days and days. So they have burn ban days in winter when inversion layers happen, to reduce the smoke in particular areas. Why that would cause the burn bans to spread to other areas that do not have that issue is beyond me. The banning the sale of non-EPA stoves and removing older stoves when homes are sold seems to stem from the Central Valley in California and Washington state, where winter inversion layers are the most common. I am not happy that Oregon mandated the same requirements, when they allow nurseries here to burn live green trees for months on end in winter, with zero restrictions. Its a hypocritical world of politics. Like OWBs, old stoves get a lot of the blame, but in fact have little impact on air quality overall (at least here in the US west). OWBs are actually so few in number here in the west it is absurd that Washington state banned them outright, but politics is like that. They picked up on the New England rants (and dis-information) and passed laws.



Many of the studies and reports I've seen indicate approximately 1.5 tons of PM per heating season. I suppose some states simply are trying to stay ahead of the game by not letting the devices accumulate. When you think about some Midwestern states and the thousands of OWBs installed, 1.5 tons each does impact the breathing envelope, especially where there is an accumulation of the devices. Although many state DEQs know this they are constrained by state politics. However, some have covered their bases by listing OWBs as a potential threat in their implementation plans just in case somewhere down the line federal air standards are exceeded and tier 1 problems alone can't fix the issue.


----------



## webbie (Jun 30, 2013)

I think that MA. (here) is a prime example of the OWB folly. People here tend to think they live "out in the country" and freedom(s) have a long tradition here, so folks installed OWB's and figured everything would be OK...

Next thing you know, their neighbors were complaining...for good reason! We have small hills and valleys and one stinkbomb can definitely smoke up an entire small village. As the signs here in Mass say "thickly settled". This state, despite the views and somewhat small-town and rural nature, is the 2nd most densely populated in the entire country (after RI and possibly NJ).

I don't think much of the anti-OWB was fake or exaggerated. It was more like the other way around. I was very active in the boiler industry when much of it was happening. It was very normal and typical for OWB's to be sold by fence and lawn equipment dealers and promoted for burning tires, carpet, stumps, green wood, etc. 
I would say that these were MAJOR selling points and that it was probably a minority of owners who burned normally seasoned and dry wood. 

There may have been a time when I bought the idea of "different standards for different areas", but with google sat. images and a better knowledge of how pollution moves, it's tough to buy that line any longer.

There is too much disinformation in this entire industry - so OWB is by no means alone. We've seen 35% efficient Pellet stoves marketed as 90%, 55% gas units sold as 80%, etc.

Those who crow against gubment intervention usually have an axe to grind or a wallet to fatten...at others expense.


----------



## tronsliver (Jun 30, 2013)

webbie said:


> I think that MA. (here) is a prime example of the OWB folly. People here tend to think they live "out in the country" and freedom(s) have a long tradition here, so folks installed OWB's and figured everything would be OK...
> 
> Next thing you know, their neighbors were complaining...for good reason! We have small hills and valleys and one stinkbomb can definitely smoke up an entire small village. As the signs here in Mass say "thickly settled". This state, despite the views and somewhat small-town and rural nature, is the 2nd most densely populated in the entire country (after RI and possibly NJ).
> 
> ...



I completely concur, gone are the days when there was five miles between farm homes. Now two families can have 20 acres each but their houses are right next to each other on the main road.  I like to ask, "is a lung in rural America different than a lung in urban America"?


----------



## StihlHead (Jun 30, 2013)

Well, to counter the holier than thou anti-OWB posts here... my experience has been very much different. In Oregon at least, they have been classed with all wood burning appliances, and are treated the same. I can count the OWBs I have seen in my 50+ years on one hand, and one of those was ours, one I installed and one was at the dealer we bought ours from. I have lived, worked and traveled all over the US, Canada and Mexico, albeit I have lived mostly on or within 60 miles of the Pacific.

I have designed and installed two OWB systems. Both had Central Boiler (CB) classics. Dealing with CB was great, and their local sales guy and factory support was superior. We had a house that did not have room for a boiler inside, and it had a hydronic floor heating loop installed in it. An OWB was really the only option that we had, and I retrofitted it into the floor loop and DHW with no real problems. It paid for itself in about 4 years of use, as compared to electric heat that it replaced. I looked at all the major OWB systems available at that time, and CB was the best value and had the best size, and the best reputation in the southern Oregon area. I later designed and helped install a similar system for someone else we knew that saw our system in use. After installing the two systems, I can attest that CB's do not rust out as claimed, they do not fail as claimed, and they certainly do not smoke as claimed. Actually I was quite surprised at how little they smoked, compared to all the flap that the people in New England and New York put up about them. I would say that my Earth Stove here smokes a lot more than the CB classic that my ex still has running at her place, and the Earth Stove has air injection and actually burns fairly clean for a stove of its age. The CB never had any creosote buildup in the flue, ever. The creosote inside the firebox was about the same as any wood stove that I have used, and when scraped down that just burns like wood. My ex has been burning in her CB for about 10 years now, and we and she has never had a single complaint about the smoke.

I would ask anyone with an older smoke dragon indoor wood stove to cast the first stone toward OWB cycle burning, vs. burning by damping down a smoke dragon (likely the most common way that they are used). I bet the particulates and methane/Co/NOx levels are similar. Basically it comes down to how you burn in your stoves, and what the moisture content is in you wood. If you are burning wood that is. People burn green wood, garbage, treated wood, MDF, diapers, etc. in any and all wood burning appliances, not just in OWBs. But oh! Look at _that_ jerk with an OWB! Scream, yell and holler! When it comes to EPA testing, I say BS to any and all EPA testing methods used for any and all wood burning appliances, and not just OWBs. I will also bet you that I can get my Englander 30 to burn dirtier than any new OWB out there (EPA or not) just by closing off the baffles, damping it down, and burning green or wet wood, or... tossing in one of these tires that I got off the side of the road here yesterday.  Then I will take photos and post them on the internet and say, "Look how dirty these EPA/WA State approved Englander 30 stoves are! They should all be banned!" It is all too easy to stage this kind of crap.


----------



## webbie (Jun 30, 2013)

If they are classified right along with other wood burning appliances, that is fine and dandy. 

I don't think there much of a counter argument on this one. My prediction is that if most of us lived in a little valley with a neighbor who burned a very dirty OWB - or fireplace, or brush piles 24/7, etc. - that we would have a problem with it.

I don't think Englanders are sold by folks who claim you can burn tires...in them.

It's not a matter of holier than thou, but rather of common sense and looking forward. If OWB's had been labeled from day one with "This appliance will produce only 25% of the wood energy to your home" and "Only well seasoned clean firewood should be burned in this appliance", we wouldn't have had as many problems. 

Most of it is a matter of education. But the fact remains that OWB's were largely created as a way to skirt regulations. So, after making hundreds of millions in sales, do they have a right to complain now that they have to follow similar rules as the rest of the world?


----------



## martyinmi (Jun 30, 2013)

webbie said:


> But the fact remains that OWB's were largely created as a way to skirt regulations. So, after making hundreds of millions in sales, do


 
Skirting regulations? Not being a smart alec here, but care to explain? And HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS?


----------



## BoilerMan (Jun 30, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Well, to counter the holier than thou anti-OWB posts here... my experience has been very much different. In Oregon at least, they have been classed with all wood burning appliances, and are treated the same. I can count the OWBs I have seen in my 50+ years on one hand, and one of those was ours, one I installed and one was at the dealer we bought ours from. I have lived, worked and traveled all over the US, Canada and Mexico, albeit I have lived mostly on or within 60 miles of the Pacific.
> 
> I have designed and installed two OWB systems. Both had Central Boiler (CB) classics. Dealing with CB was great, and their local sales guy and factory support was superior. We had a house that did not have room for a boiler inside, and it had a hydronic floor heating loop installed in it. An OWB was really the only option that we had, and I retrofitted it into the floor loop and DHW with no real problems. It paid for itself in about 4 years of use, as compared to electric heat that it replaced. I looked at all the major OWB systems available at that time, and CB was the best value and had the best size, and the best reputation in the southern Oregon area. I later designed and helped install a similar system for someone else we knew that saw our system in use. After installing the two systems, I can attest that CB's do not rust out as claimed, they do not fail as claimed, and they certainly do not smoke as claimed. Actually I was quite surprised at how little they smoked, compared to all the flap that the people in New England and New York put up about them. I would say that my Earth Stove here smokes a lot more than the CB classic that my ex still has running at her place, and the Earth Stove has air injection and actually burns fairly clean for a stove of its age. The CB never had any creosote buildup in the flue, ever. The creosote inside the firebox was about the same as any wood stove that I have used, and when scraped down that just burns like wood. My ex has been burning in her CB for about 10 years now, and we and she has never had a single complaint about the smoke.
> 
> I would ask anyone with an older smoke dragon indoor wood stove to cast the first stone toward OWB cycle burning, vs. burning by damping down a smoke dragon (likely the most common way that they are used). I bet the particulates and methane/Co/NOx levels are similar. Basically it comes down to how you burn in your stoves, and what the moisture content is in you wood. If you are burning wood that is. People burn green wood, garbage, treated wood, MDF, diapers, etc. in any and all wood burning appliances, not just in OWBs. But oh! Look at _that_ jerk with an OWB! Scream, yell and holler! When it comes to EPA testing, I say BS to any and all EPA testing methods used for any and all wood burning appliances, and not just OWBs. I will also bet you that I can get my Englander 30 to burn dirtier than any new OWB out there (EPA or not) just by closing off the baffles, damping it down, and burning green or wet wood, or... tossing in one of these tires that I got off the side of the road here yesterday.  Then I will take photos and post them on the internet and say, "Look how dirty these EPA/WA State approved Englander 30 stoves are! They should all be banned!" It is all too easy to stage this kind of crap.


I'm not anti OWB and I think you are missing the point here.

OWB claim to fame is that you can burn un-seasoned, unsplit, stumps etc in them, if it fits through the door......it burns it! There are more than I can count on one hand within a 10 mile radius of me. Some are clean, some are not. Most are not, and do billow smoke that can be blinding within 100' or more feet from them.

There are lots of people who burn wood in my area, I'd be willing to guess at least 30% of people have a wood pile in their back yard of 2 cord or more. In sub zero cold and extreme calm mornings (as they usually are in the cold) there is a bit of a haze over towns from the wood smoke. Keep in mind that oil/LP chimneys are all showing up as well in   -30F winter mornings. When you have a huge firebox that has 300 or more pounds of wood in it smouldering away smoke will be generated in large quantities, on those really cold mornings the OWB are burning hard and hot, by afternoon they are just billowing out smoke and not just steam.

I have a friend about 3 miles from me who owns a CB OWB, and he burns seasoned unsplit wood in his and is on top of a hill, not alot of smoke, and no one complains, big old farm house with two families in it. Take that same OWB and put it in town on an average 1,500 sq.ft. ranch and it will drive people inside due to the smoke.

The problem is the claimed efficiencies are rediculously high (3x as high) and they claim you can burn any type of wood in them. Even my old conventional indoor wood boiler, which is not a whole lot different than an OWB accept for it's firebox size and pressureized vessle, said "_only seasoned, split cordwood can be burned in this appliance, no garbage, naphtha, gasoline etc_". So, smaller firebox can't produce the gross amount of unburned HC as a large firebox filled with 3x the wood under the same conditions, and the manufacturer talls you to use seasoned, split cordwood only.

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jul 1, 2013)

The significant difference between a non rated wood stove and an OWB is that of cycling the fire. Where the OWB almost completely shuts off the air to the fire, a wood stove will generally stay at a setting where it is getting at least some air for combustion which cleans up the burn considerably.


----------



## StihlHead (Jul 1, 2013)

heaterman said:


> The significant difference between a non rated wood stove and an OWB is that of cycling the fire. Where the OWB almost completely shuts off the air to the fire, a wood stove will generally stay at a setting where it is getting at least some air for combustion which cleans up the burn considerably.


 
Not really. When OWBs shut down they keep the wood hot enough to burn when the damper opens. At least our CB classic did. You make a lot of charcoal as a result of overloading them though. The gasses waft off unburned, and the wood turns to charcoal. That is one reason they are commonly so inefficient; they are commonly overfilled. I can do the exact same thing with my Earth stove here. Stuff it full of wood, get it going, then damp it down and it will smolder all night long. The methane and other wood gasses do not get hot enough to burn and they waft off, and you make a lot of charcoal (and creosote). Same effect and results in either stove/boiler in my experience.

The above reasons are why I did not cram our OWB full of wood, and why I do not stuff my Earth stove full of wood. People seem to be endeared to jamming all types of wood stoves full of wood to get longer burn times. That does lead to longer burn times, but in my experience when you do that the efficiency of wood stoves and OWBs drops significantly. So I add less wood more often. I get more exercise. I avoid making more charcoal. I actually looked into making charcoal and selling it when I had tracts of timber land. However I found out that Kingsford is very aggressive in their sales tactics, and they keep any other charcoal products off store shelves, even if they have to give their charcoal away. For that reason all you see is Kingsford for sale everywhere, and for that reason I refuse to buy it. I buy lump charcoal at a local gas station, or I make my own. Its easy enough to make...


----------



## StihlHead (Jul 2, 2013)

BoilerMan said:


> OWB claim to fame is that you can burn un-seasoned, unsplit, stumps etc in them, if it fits through the door......it burns it! There are more than I can count on one hand within a 10 mile radius of me. Some are clean, some are not. Most are not, and do billow smoke that can be blinding within 100' or more feet from them.
> 
> TS


 
I will have to concede on the issue that many OWB ads claim that you can burn green, wet and unseasoned wood. Also there are many home made OWBs out there that people burn anything in (including tires). However, as I said above, people also can and do burn anything and everything in indoor wood stoves, and not just in OWBs. I also do not believe that the efficiency numbers posted for OWBs are accurate, but I also do not believe the efficiency numbers for any wood stoves either, ...or any numbers posted about EPA efficiency.

That aside, my experience with the CB classic OWBs is that they only smoke for a short time (maybe a minute) after the damper opens, when the burn chamber is cleared of smoke and the wood catches fire. Once they are going they do not smoke much at all, and if the air temps are low and they are cranking, they should not be smoking much if at all. Mine did not anyway. When they are damped shut they do not smoke at all. However at that same time they are actually releasing invisible unburned wood gasses, and that is where/why their efficiency drops so low.

I worked in the towns of Chelmsford, Burlington, and 'Woostah' in MA a lot back before 9/11, usually between November and February. I got unlimited miles on rental cars in exchange for staying over the weekends so my company got lower air fares. I drove all over NE and upstate New York. I never saw anything like what the New York air quality board posted with several OWBs smoking like mad, or that many issues with smoke in general back there. The smoke was far worse in the south SF Bay area in California where I lived with winter air inversions.

I would venture to guess that there are at least 100 times as many indoor smoke dragons than OWBs (pure conjecture) but here in the west it is more like 1,000 times more old wood stoves to OWBs (there just are not many OWBs here). Add the millions of masonry fireplaces that are what, 95% useless at heating the homes? Talk about low efficiency and high numbers... but they are all virtually exempt from all these EPA requirements that boilers and stoves are required to meet. I believe that OWBs are just low hanging fruit that municipalities, regions and states can go after, but they are not (in my view) the main cause of the vast majority of smoke issues in most areas. They have become a scape goat for people to point at. We shall see in places that have banned them, and what the actual results are in time. The war on OWBs in NE seems to have settled down after the EPA standards on them. New York state DEC has since removed their 'Hell on Earth' smoking OWB photos from their state web site, as has NESCAUM.


----------



## StihlHead (Jul 5, 2013)

Update: VT and MI states still have their dirty smoking OWB photos online. The photos seemed staged though, while burning green/wet wood, tires, or something else. Or the people are running their OWBs wrong. If/when the OWB dampers are open and the fire is burning hot and fast, the smoke would be drastically reduced. If the OWBs were idle, they would not be smoking much, if at all. For a brief time after the damper opens, they will smoke, but they generally clear and the smoke dissipates in a minute or two. The OWB photos were all likely taken during the brief time right after the damper opens, and the fingers all come out and point in horror.... the horror!  and all the political over-hype and news sensationalism follows...


----------



## tronsliver (Jul 5, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Update: VT and MI states still have their dirty smoking OWB photos online. The photos seemed staged though, while burning green/wet wood, tires, or something else. Or the people are running their OWBs wrong. If/when the OWB dampers are open and the fire is burning hot and fast, the smoke would be drastically reduced. If the OWBs were idle, they would not be smoking much, if at all. For a brief time after the damper opens, they will smoke, but they generally clear and the smoke dissipates in a minute or two. The OWB photos were all likely taken during the brief time right after the damper opens, and the fingers all come out and point in horror.... the horror!  and all the political over-hype and news sensationalism follows...


 
There are many neighbors across the nation in cold climate states that would vehemently disagree. Case in point, see the attached photo. The pictures are part of a long lasting dispute between two neighbors. The state DEQ was involved as was CB. I was told that CB got involved because it was one of their newer models (EClassic 2400). Supposedly they made sure the owner was burning clean dry wood. The state backed off the owner because the distance from the OWB to the neighbor is over 1000 feet. Perhaps its over-sized, I don't know, or maybe when no one is looking he's burning green wood but to the neighbor it's a living hell. Keep in mind, that its not just about smoke, but also, to many, the odor is sickening. Again, to the point of it being ad nauseum, as long as boilers use cycling technology, have high hourly BTU ratings compared to the building being heated, and owners struggle to keep up with the wood supply, these problems will persist and pictures like these and those posted on state websites won't go away.


----------



## hobbyheater (Jul 5, 2013)

Tronsliver, are you the neighbor?


----------



## tronsliver (Jul 5, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> Tronsliver, are you the neighbor?



Nope.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jul 5, 2013)

If it were burning season here, I could get some pictures like those here as well.  I'm not sure what StihlHead is thinking, there are some OWB around here that smoke like that on a regular basis.  This is not just a now and then type of thing, like someone is sitting around waiting for the damper to open and catch the plume of smoke at the right time. If you look at the pictures you can tell this was not just some short duration.  I would be upset if my neighbor had something like that going on all winter. 

This said, you can make an OWB run pretty clean if you actually try, as StihlHead said.  I know of several that don't smoke much at all.  Is there efficiency good, well not really, but they are not choking people.  I still can't wrap my mind around why someone would install one, I want to burn as little wood as possible.  Less processing and more time to do other things. 

TS


----------



## salecker (Jul 5, 2013)

There's a couple of CB's near me that look just like that in the winter as well.Unfortanatly one is now part mine,was installed last year on a business my brother and i had to reposess.I looked inside it and the firebox is huge,and dripping with cresote.I watched the operator loading up green and rotten wood in it last fall and shook my head.The install is a joke,the underground lines are exposed going into one building,and they are foam wraped in a black corregeted pipe.
 Makes me feel great about my system.
 Thomas


----------



## tronsliver (Jul 6, 2013)

I think it's important to point out that the problems inherent to OWBs are not in any way constrained to just Central Boiler.  Any manufacturer that employs cycling technology in their boliers will experience the same smoke, odor, and pollution as a Central Boiler unit.  Also, the efficiency issue discussed in earlier posts applies to 23 models spread out over multiple manufacturers.


----------



## hobbyheater (Jul 6, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> .


 
I certainly hope the objective of the members of "hearth.com" will be to encourage clean burning practices and encourage those who visit to do the same.
 Lobbing for a  legislated solution is not the answer.


----------



## BoilerMan (Jul 6, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> I certainly hope the objective of the members of "hearth.com" will be to encourage clean burning practices and encourage those who visit to do the same.
> Lobbing for a legislated solution is not the answer.


 
Very well said HH!  We at Hearth are a niche, but my hope is that people will see that good burning prectices and proper seasoning are key in _doing less work _and making wood burning enjoyable and clean.

TS


----------



## heaterman (Jul 7, 2013)

Taylor. I think you hit the nail on the head with your statement about burn practices. If all the folks burning wood simply adopted those habits 90% of our problems would disappear.


----------



## StihlHead (Jul 8, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> I certainly hope the objective of the members of "hearth.com" will be to encourage clean burning practices and encourage those who visit to do the same.
> Lobbing for a legislated solution is not the answer.


 
Well, lobbying seems to be the method of choice in New England. I have seen it over and over there, where a small group of people cram more and more legislation down everyone's throats. Similar to anti-CB bashing threads posted by trolls that do not even burn with wood on a wood burning forum like this (and many others on the web). Seemingly they will not be happy until OWBs are banned outright. VT, ME, NH, MD, MA, PA, IN, RI, WA, OR and NY state all regulate or ban outdoor wood boilers now. BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH!

Then they will likely turn to banning or regulating all wood burning appliances. More legislation is coming, that is for sure. WA, OR, NY, ME, and CA have state or regional/local EPA wood burning appliance requirements, or complete bans in effect. There may be more states that have new laws, those are just the only ones I know about.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 8, 2013)

> Similar to anti-CB bashing threads posted by trolls that do not even burn with wood on a wood burning forum like this [Hearth.com] ...


 
StihlHead, your position and language at this time seems like a rant, which is not very productive.

Your point is understood, while at the same time many, including me, have used and are experienced with an OWB (mine was a Heatmor), understand how these are marketed and understand the culture of "burn anything especially large green logs that smoulder." Whether there are few or many who burn improperly, they and the mfrs who support and sell to them have tainted the wood burning marketplace and seriously damaged both the public and regulatory perception of wood burning. The OWB is a target with a big red bullseye and the spillover into other wood burning appliances is inevitable, while at the same time it is misplaced and seriously in error. The sooner the supporters and mfrs of the OWB move on to clean burning technology, marketing, and education of users, and the sooner they abandon the support of dirty burning, the quicker wood burning can be better secured as an efficient energy source. That will be good for all wood burners.

I switched to a Tarm gasifier, my gasifier was the catalyst for a major institution installing gasification wood boilers providing more than 1 million buth, and now we are on an educational goal of changing the perception of wood burning to prove by example that it is efficient, clean, smoke free, economical, carbon neutral, good for local economies, easy and simple to operate, and that it provides energy security. That task is made much difficult with every OWB spewing smoke over the countryside that a non-wood burning member of the public or that a regulator sees. And it is made much more difficult by every mfr who continue to supply that market.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Jul 8, 2013)

Well said Jim.

My Heatmor as well is ready for scrap. Glad to see it go.

The reality is that OWB's burned as advertised in print & by sales people has done nothing but create the anti burning movement, with good reason.

Now every clean & neighbor conscious burner is going to have to fight a movement that they did not create. I think it is understandable that they are a little POed at having to do so.

Time we worked a little harder at catching up to Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, etc. AFA burning clean is concerned. Most people in these nations dont know what an OWB is, as they were never able to pass emmisions tests & therefore never made it to market. Note that any anti burning movement was unable to get any real traction there, why? Clean burning appliances maybe played a part. Legislated emmission levels maybe too.

Btw those emmission level tests also apply to fossil burners in Germany. IOW burn clean or dont burn. Better for all concerned. Rant over.


----------



## leon (Jul 9, 2013)

Hello Frozen Canuck,

your not ranting at all, your simply stating THE TRUTH.
These water stove builders simply have no desire to increase the
water capacity of these things to increase the burn time and
reduce the cycling and thus the smoke too.

The only ones that work well are the Garns because they have
a great combustion design.


----------

