# EPA new wood stove requirements!



## webfish (Feb 5, 2015)

http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...ary-requirements-woodstoves-and-pellet-stoves

Story by Tux Turkel https://www.centralmaine.com/2015/02/04/epa-approves-new-woodstove-emissions-standards/

_Bret Watson, the company’s president, said Wednesday that the new rules won’t have an impact right away, because all Jotul stoves now burn an average of 4.5 grams of emissions an hour – much cleaner than the 1988 standards for noncatalytic stoves of 7.5 grams per hour. But the EPA is calling for emissions to be cut to 2 grams per hour in 2020, and Jotul opposes that.

“Step two, if upheld, will be a game changer,” Watson told the Press Herald.

To achieve 2 grams, he said, the company would need to add catalytic combustors to all its 14 models, which would cost more than* $1 million *overall. He estimated that adding the technology to Jotul’s most-popular model, the F 500, would add 15 percent, or $375, to the cost of that stove for a buyer._

Other stories.

http://host.madison.com/daily-cardi...cle_22292578-ace3-11e4-a141-eb3d6d469e71.html


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 5, 2015)

What exactly does this mean for us?


----------



## webfish (Feb 5, 2015)

It means higher costs for new stoves. Many not happy, others like the idea of cleaner stoves. 

_Senator Steve Daines today blasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new regulations on wood burning stoves as a direct threat to Montanans’ access to affordable energy._
_“The EPA’s shortsighted regulatory overreach is once again hitting hardworking Montanans in their pocketbooks,” Daines stated. “Thousands of Montanans rely on wood burning stoves for affordable, cost-effective energy – yet once again, the EPA is moving forward with new, costly regulations that could stand in the way of Montanans’ access to new residential wood heaters or burden Montana families with higher costs.”_
_
http://thepondernews.blogspot.com/2015/02/daines-blasts-costly-epa-wood-stove-regs.html_


----------



## draughtdude (Feb 5, 2015)

I guess all new stoves in 2019 will be cat stoves.  This might backfire because the average woodburner probably doesn't burn properly nor would properly care for a catalyst wood stove's needs, so I imagine failure rate will be high, and some folks will just remove the cat and emissions will be worse than an early epa stove.  So the question is, how can wood stove catalytic technology be changed/developed to make it more user friendly and ubiquitous for those that only see a wood stove as a necessary heating item? 

Perhaps an automatic bypass control system and a self cleaning cat?


----------



## draughtdude (Feb 5, 2015)

Or would it be possible to mimic the design of a gassifier in a wood stove thereby perhaps meeting the emissions requirements without a catalyst?


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 5, 2015)

It looks to me like barrel stoves are about to become a thing of the past for new installs. The so called exempt status is going away as of Dec 31, 2015 for new sales and 60 days after posting in the Federal Register for manufacturing. This will give the dealers a few months to clear their exempt stove inventory out. OWB regulations are being phased in, so that group of manufacturers has a little more time to fix their emissions. 
The tougher part is 5 years down the road where a large fraction of present stoves will not meet standards without some improvement. Again it will be only new installs that are affected. 
The most disturbing part for me is what they will try to do for existing installations over time. So far they have left those alone. As so many other industries have found out, once they have a foot in the door the EPA seldom stops there.


----------



## draughtdude (Feb 5, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> It looks to me like barrel stoves are about to become a thing of the past for new installs. The so called exempt status is going away as of Dec 31, 2015 for new sales and 60 days after posting in the Federal Register for manufacturing. This will give the dealers a few months to clear their exempt stove inventory out. OWB regulations are being phased in, so that group of manufacturers has a little more time to fix their emissions.
> The tougher part is 5 years down the road where a large fraction of present stoves will not meet standards without some improvement. Again it will be only new installs that are affected.
> The most disturbing part for me is what they will try to do for existing installations over time. So far they have left those alone. As so many other industries have found out, once they have a foot in the door the EPA seldom stops there.



I find it shocking that people are still installing barrel stoves?? Why would you?


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 5, 2015)

It still happens today but this will stop it in the US.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Feb 5, 2015)

I'd use a barrel stove for something like a hunting cabin or a detached workshop. Something that isn't used regularly so you don't want to dump money into it.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 5, 2015)

you'll probably still be able to buy the barrel stove kit and do it yourself.  The kit is tech. not a stove, so i dont see how they could stop that(IMO of course)


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 5, 2015)

My 30-NC met the 2020 requirement. In 2005.


----------



## MishMouse (Feb 5, 2015)

My Harman TL-300 meets the 2.0 grams also.

Average Emissions 1.1 Grams Per Hr.
Emissions on Low 0.8 Grams Per Hr.

I think the focus of this is on Non-EPA approved stoves.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 5, 2015)

Theoretical question:

I'm looking at getting a Drolet Tundra wood furnace add-on to replace my 40 year old inefficient unit. It currently met EPA regulations as of 1/1/15. Now, I'm not so sure.

To clarify, they want 4.5 grams per hour in all wood stoves. The Tundra releases 6.6. Does this mean that I have until December 31, 2015 to purchase my Drolet Tundra, or are they still good to go since they are already EPA certified? My initial thought was to wait until next tax season to purchase the unit, but I may now not have that luxury. 

I apologize for my ignorance on this whole subject; we're talking $1400 for a new unit, or potentially $5000 for a new unit now under the new regulations.


----------



## webfish (Feb 5, 2015)

MishMouse said:


> I think the focus of this is on Non-EPA approved stoves.



This will impact many, many more stoves than than just the Non-EPA. Here is current list. Many of these current EPA approved will no longer be approved in 2020. 
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 5, 2015)

Does this mean that we have until 2020 to buy any new unit we want without ridiculous regulations, or do we have until Dec 31 2015?


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 5, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Does this mean that we have until 2020 to buy any new unit we want without ridiculous regulations, or do we have until Dec 31 2015?


No , neither one. The EPA has published a separate fact sheet for furnaces. It is located here:
http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

Aren't they delaying the standards for furnaces for a year or two? Also, the requirement seems vague and tougher to test.

_Emissions limit of 0.93 pounds of PM per million Btu heat output, weighted average. Cordwood testing is required for forced air furnaces._

What kind of cordwood and based on heat output average? (And why not stick to the metric system for this measurement to be consistent with other standards?)


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 5, 2015)

small furnaces one year, large furnaces two years


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

What defines small vs large furnace?


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 5, 2015)

I dont have a clue


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

Nothing about fireplaces? That's a smoking hole you could drive a truck through.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

begreen said:


> What defines small vs large furnace?



I just found it in the technical review pdf. Small is very small - <65,000 BTU/hr output. I haven't found out how that is tested and whether this is EPA tested steady state (average) output or cordwood peak output. Looks like the Mini-Caddy might qualify for small and the Tundra as large.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 5, 2015)

did u see the grams they were listing per btu's burned. by 2020 it was like .15 grams.  that is really low, i hope the stove companies have a rabbit up their sleeve


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 5, 2015)

http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 5, 2015)

Is there a separate list of EPA regulated wood furnaces? I checked http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/certifiedwood.pdf but it does not list wood furnaces under this list. There are units like the Drolet Tundra (again, just an example, its 125,000 BTU/H) that meet the 1988 EPA regulations, but are not on this list. I apologize, but the EPA website is not particularly user friendly, or I am profoundly stupid when it comes to navigating the site and finding information on wood furnaces.

Another thing that I found in the fact sheet is:

The EPA regulations are _"Emissions limit of 0.93 pounds of PM per million Btu heat output, weighted average. Cordwood testing is required for forced air furnaces."_

This is confusing. In the listing of the unit itself, it's listed as 6.6 grams per hour, not per BTU heat output. Is this some sort of ratio or calculation that I'm failing to see?

Again, I apologize for the questions. I'm rather inadequate in understanding any sort of government logic in general, and can't seem to make heads or tails of this.


----------



## laynes69 (Feb 5, 2015)

I think the EPA adopted the B415 standards of Canada for furnace's which uses cordwood. A majority of central heaters on the market right now have firebox sizes from 6 to 8+ cuft. which make it almost impossible to pass. I think as newer technology is worked into design, firebox sizes will decrease and heat output will increase with the burning of the smoke. I'm excited to see furnace's move in this direction. Yes they will become more expensive but the benefits are worth it.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

The Jan 2015 pdf seem to be missing all stove above *We*. Wittus, Wolf Steel (Napoleon) and Woodstock. stoves are missing. They are in the March 2014 list.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 5, 2015)

I noticed that myself BG. I have the owner's manual for my Napoleon and most stoves you look up on line have some kind of rating information on their web sites, but it would have been nice to just find them on the list. My concern right now is that my Napoleon 1100 will not pass the 2020 standards, as is true of many other stoves being sold today as EPA certified. I have no doubt Wolf will change their product line to stay in business but where will that leave me when I need something like a secondary air tube on a model they can no longer sell? My bet is they won't make spare parts for it for very long because the repair parts will never be as profitable as a new stove. The business choice becomes to drop that particular product in favor of something that still makes money. In my case lots of the parts are identical to the parts for the larger models that will pass 2020 standards but naturally some parts need to be a different size just to make the fire box bigger. Those are the bits I worry about. This has caused me to redesign my floor around my new stove so that I can easily extend the hearth for another stove to fit. It is easier when I am in the process of building than it would be 8 years from now when something fails that I can no longer replace.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

I wouldn't worry too much. Napoleon is not going to stop selling parts instantly. Often spare parts are a profit item for companies.


----------



## firefighterjake (Feb 5, 2015)

Wondering out loud . . . wondering how many folks in the "Government is gonna take our woodstoves and tell us we can't burn wood" camp will be rushing out to buy a woodstove before the government steps in.


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

I'm looking forward to seeing some of the new solutions that will be coming out. It doesn't have to be a revolution. As noted, Englander & Harmon already are there with some of their stoves. VC too.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 5, 2015)

Not me. Out of room for more stoves in the basement. May sell some to those in the rush though....


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 5, 2015)

Does anyone have an estimate from a reliable source that gives the percentage of particulate matter that comes from wood smoke?


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

That would depend on where the sample was taken wouldn't it? I think in SLC they were saying something like 18% but let me check.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 5, 2015)

begreen said:


> That would depend on where the sample was taken wouldn't it? I think in SLC they were saying something like 18% but let me check.


I knew it wasn't going to be an easy straight forward answer and would probably be regional but figured you'd know where to start looking .

SLC?


----------



## begreen (Feb 5, 2015)

18% is way too high. In SLC 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and *5%* is from wood burning.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Feb 5, 2015)

Is anyone aware of any non-catalytic stoves that have achieved less than 2 grams/hour?

I don't see anything in the rule about open fireplaces. I understand open fireplaces are effectively unregulated because they're used little enough that their total PM contribution is relatively small.

However, open fireplaces are arguably the main cause of negative perceptions of wood burning. While we're talking about 4.5 grams per hour now and ultimately 2 grams per hour of particulates, more typical ranges for open fireplaces are 30-60 grams per hour. And while not used often, there's a lot of them (~50% of new houses according to the Census bureau, although that figure includes gas fireplaces).

So when you have a cold snap (often accompanied by still air, and especially inversion layers that trap smoke and smog near the ground) where everybody with a normally unused open fireplace runs out to the store for an armload of wax-impregnated press logs to sit in front of, the air can get nasty fast, and the EPA gets a wave of demands to take action.



begreen said:


> What kind of cordwood and based on heat output average?



The EPA FAQ says they haven't defined a cordwood test yet, so currently it remains a cribwood test.

I looked up the current particulate matter test a few months back out of curiosity. If I remember right, it used a defined stacking method to fill the stove up with 2x4 and 4x4 douglas fir, and I assume at a specified moisture content range, and I think the stove was to be on a scale to determine test load weight. A warm up burn is allowed, and the test starts once you add the test load.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 5, 2015)

My Englander 30-NC tested at 1.6 grams back in 2004.


----------



## Wilbursan (Feb 5, 2015)

Quadra-Fire Millennium 3100 is listed as 1.1 gr/hr.
Note that in the EPA list it is called the Hearth And Home Technologies 3100 ACC series, not the QuadraFire 3100.


----------



## FionaD (Feb 6, 2015)

I see that Jotul USA have an $800 off sale on some of their models today (just in case anyone might be interested  

I read so many of you saying that the problem is not the emission standards on stoves, but rather bad burning practices with approved stoves. I'm sure you're right... and that of course that won't change, no matter how many grams per hour emission is dictated by a laboratory somewhere. 

It makes me wonder if it might not have been better to do something like issue wood burner's licences, where someone has to take a simple hour-long tuition, for a nominal fee to cover costs, on how to properly use their stove and then they get a licence to burn before they can buy a woodstove... just like you need a licence to have a car. Again, just like driving, people who are found not to be burning correctly could be fined and possibly even risk losing their licence?

Just a thought.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 6, 2015)

Its roughy 10 percent


----------



## MishMouse (Feb 6, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> iamlucky13
> New Member
> Joined:
> Jan 27, 2015
> ...



Harman TL-300 
Average Emissions 1.1 Grams Per Hr.
Emissions on Low 0.8 Grams Per Hr.


----------



## draughtdude (Feb 6, 2015)

So many stoves meet the new emissions requirement, but then some of the favourite and popular stoves like the Super 27 will have to undergo a dramatic redesign.  I wonder what path Pacific Energy will take ?


----------



## MishMouse (Feb 6, 2015)

Maybe a consensus can be made to push out the deadline, maybe adding another phase to go to 4.0 in 2020 and to 2.0 in 2025 giving the manufactures another 5 years to meet the requirement.

I hope there is a change to this as it currently sits to give all manufactures more time to adjust, if not many may go out of business.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 6, 2015)

Implementation of the new rules was put off for years by the EPA until seven states filed suit against them to get them off the dime and moving to implement them.


----------



## Highbeam (Feb 6, 2015)

begreen said:


> Nothing about fireplaces? That's a smoking hole you could drive a truck through.


 
That's where the real money is at. If you take away all the rich people's decoratvice fireplaces there will be well funded uproar. Instead they pick on the little kid, the stove guys.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 6, 2015)

The EPA has stated that fireplaces are so inefficient that they don't even consider them heaters, therefore not subject to their regs for solid fuel heaters.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 6, 2015)

BrotherBart said:


> The EPA has stated that fireplaces are so inefficient that they don't even consider them heaters, therefore not subject to their regs for solid fuel heaters.



Wow, I can't believe I actually agree with the epa on something


----------



## saskwoodburner (Feb 6, 2015)

begreen said:


> I wouldn't worry too much. Napoleon is not going to stop selling parts instantly. Often spare parts are a profit item for companies.



And what would stop people from buying "scrap metal" shaped like a Napoleon from Canada and getting it shipped down there? Just thinking out loud. Does the epa have teeth down there to go door to door checking emissions?


----------



## iamlucky13 (Feb 6, 2015)

Plow Boy said:


> The EPA has stated that fireplaces are so inefficient that they don't even consider them heaters, therefore not subject to their regs for solid fuel heaters.





Plow Boy said:


> Wow, I can't believe I actually agree with the epa on something



The comment would be funny, except I'm fairly certain most of the pressure to reduce wood stove emissions comes not from any significant issue with the current wood stove emissions, but from fireplace emissions and older stove emissions.



saskwoodburner said:


> And what would stop people from buying "scrap metal" shaped like a Napoleon from Canada and getting it shipped down there? Just thinking out loud. Does the epa have teeth down there to go door to door checking emissions?



In my area, at least, installing a wood stove requires a mechanical permit and an inspection. I assume in many other states, as well.

It's generally easy to get around. I wouldn't have bothered, even though I was doing everything to code anyways, except I didn't have time to do the installation myself, and the dealer required I show them the mechanical permit before they'd schedule the installation.

Other than that, the EPA could presumably respond to an air quality complaint and fine you if they find you installed a stove that didn't comply with the current regulations at the time of install, but it's highly unlikely they would.

The main teeth of the regulation would be the control over manufacturers and dealers.


----------



## begreen (Feb 6, 2015)

BrotherBart said:


> The EPA has stated that fireplaces are so inefficient that they don't even consider them heaters, therefore not subject to their regs for solid fuel heaters.


That's an issue. They sure can be serious polluters. Right next to outdoor garbage burning sometimes.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 6, 2015)

I think they got egg on their face last time when the loophole for fireplaces opened up for the 35:1 stoves.


----------



## semipro (Feb 7, 2015)

begreen said:


> The EPA has stated that fireplaces are so inefficient that they don't even consider them heaters, therefore not subject to their regs for solid fuel heaters.





begreen said:


> That's an issue. They sure can be serious polluters. Right next to outdoor garbage burning sometimes.



Just because they aren't heaters doesn't mean they aren't emitters.  I'm pretty sure EPA has the regulatory authority to regulate them if they wanted to.  What a quagmire though.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 7, 2015)

Fireplaces, just like stoves, are going to have to be regulated locally. The EPA sets standards for sale of new stoves. Hard to set them and enforce them for the sale of bricks.


----------



## begreen (Feb 7, 2015)

That's correct. I just looked up fireplace regulation in the US and it is all by local authority. The most aggressive policies appear in various cities/townships or areas in CA allowing only EPA phase 2 fireplaces to be installed in new construction. Some go further requiring it as a part of any major remodel.
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/ordinances.html


----------



## Poindexter (Feb 7, 2015)

Fireplaces are going to be included in the definition of solid fuel burning devices here locally (EPA non-attainment area for air quality) - almost definitely.

Public comment on the ordinance at the last borough assembly meeting took almost six hours.  I stayed for the whole thing.  Not one person stood up and said "no no don't regulate my fireplace", but the wood stove operators were out in big numbers.


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 8, 2015)

At some point the question needs to be asked how clean is clean enough? My PE Summit emits 3.8 grams or something like that. When cruising at full temp with the air shut down, there is no visible smoke coming from the chimney, that's pretty clean in my opinion.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 9, 2015)

Don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of advancing the technology.  Just not sure it needs to be forced down anyone's throats.  I see this as analogous to golf equipment...even the latest and greatest oversized, weighted, offset, adjustable, optimized driver in the world can be sliced by a bad golfer.  Conversely, most pro's could probably use a 2x4 and put it in the fairway 75% of the time.  Just like abilities apply here, I think the fuel quality and operation of any stove can be a bigger factor than some of it's design features.


----------



## sumpnz (Feb 9, 2015)

Given the numbers of pre-EPA stoves still in operation, how long will the reduction in emmissions from these new stoves take to be noticable?  And if it drives up the cost of a new stove to the point that someone with a smoke-dragon decides not to upgrade due to the cost how has it really benefitted anyone?  Seems like it would be far more effective to find a way to get those smoke-dragons retired and replaced with EPA stoves than to keep ratcheting down the requirements for new production stoves.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 9, 2015)

You are missing the point sumpnz. Next up will be a ban on anything but the latest stoves. We might first get a requirement to meet present standards but the 2015 and 2020 standards will be next. Once the EPA starts to regulate something they really get into it and drive for optimum performance at any price. They don't have to pay the bill now do they?


----------



## metalsped (Feb 10, 2015)

All good in my book. All modern stoves should be employing both catalytic and secondary burning operations. Not only for the environmental impact, but for the sheer increase in BTUs!


----------



## begreen (Feb 10, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> You are missing the point sumpnz. Next up will be a ban on anything but the latest stoves. We might first get a requirement to meet present standards but the 2015 and 2020 standards will be next. Once the EPA starts to regulate something they really get into it and drive for optimum performance at any price. They don't have to pay the bill now do they?


Once again, it's up to the states to enforce the new regs or not. They'll do that or not based on local conditions and politics. Remember, it was the states that sued the EPA into action. EPA phase 2 benefited us all with cleaner, more efficient heaters. Based on the Woodstove Decathalon in DC and the test lab work in Brookhaven, NY, I think we are going to see even better stoves come out in the next few years. Personally I like burning less wood and cleaner and will likely consider one of the new crop of stoves once the dust settles.


----------



## MishMouse (Feb 10, 2015)

Looking at what some manufactures are already doing by creating hybrid stoves to increase BTU's and decrease pollution shows that they are already preparing for the new regulations.  As for those who have been sitting on their hands since the late 80's and not putting money into R&D to create a less polluting stove, they need to get busy or be crushed by the ones who did.  No manufacture can honestly say that they did not see this coming, though I know a lot of them are hoping that the next president loosens the rope.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 10, 2015)

MishMouse said:


> No manufacture can honestly say that they did not see this coming, though I know a lot of them are hoping that the next president loosens the rope.


In the entire life of the EPA I have never seen them take a step back. With the auto industry I have seen them extend a deadline when compliance was impossible but for wood stoves many today already meet 2020 standards so that will not happen.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 10, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> In the entire life of the EPA I have never seen them take a step back.



http://humanevents.com/2013/12/24/epa-reduces-2014-ethanol-mandate/


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 10, 2015)

metalsped said:


> All good in my book. All modern stoves should be employing both catalytic and secondary burning operations. Not only for the environmental impact, but for the sheer increase in BTUs!



Yes. and we should all be driving a Prius not only because of the environment, but for the sheer increase in MPG.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 10, 2015)

That is not a change in their intent, it is a recognition that less fuel is being burned so less alcohol is needed to meet their intended percentage. I never said they would ignore the real world.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 10, 2015)

I agree with begreen, clean air is important to all of us.  We just have to make sure the government balances air quaility with the need for people to stay warm.  I hope they offer some incentives when they push out the the regs.  maybe we will all get a big discount on a new cleaner stove.


----------



## begreen (Feb 10, 2015)

The greatest resistance seems to be coming from the international stove mfgs, especially Jotul. That's understandable. It's costly for them to have to make market specific stoves. I expect to see the changes coming first in their Maine made stoves, the F45, F50 and F55. Changing a cast iron stove is a bigger challenge. Hopefully they can go back and adapt some of the F8 and F12 cat technology to the F400 and F600.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 10, 2015)

metalsped said:


> All modern stoves should be employing both catalytic



Have you used a stove with a catalytic converter? There's a reason they don't make many anymore...


----------



## northwinds (Feb 10, 2015)

I will give up my Isle Royale when they peel my old dead fingers from around it.  

I didn't read the whole thread, but are these regs applicable to outdoor wood furnaces?  There are still a ton of those around here, one less than 100 yards away from my house.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Feb 10, 2015)

MishMouse said:


> Looking at what some manufactures are already doing by creating hybrid stoves to increase BTU's and decrease pollution shows that they are already preparing for the new regulations.  As for those who have been sitting on their hands since the late 80's and not putting money into R&D to create a less polluting stove, they need to get busy or be crushed by the ones who did.  No manufacture can honestly say that they did not see this coming, though I know a lot of them are hoping that the next president loosens the rope.



You're predicating this position on the belief that the 7.5 grams/hour federal standard, or even the 4.5 grams/hour Washington standard that 2015-2019 interim rule is based on is unreasonable.

I tentatively support the 4.5 g/hour interim level. The 2 g/hour 2020 rule will add disproportionate cost to the average stove, however.


----------



## tarzan (Feb 10, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Have you used a stove with a catalytic converter? There's a reason they don't make many anymore...


You shouldn't lump all catalytic stoves in one bunch. There are many who are very happy with there cat and hybrid stoves.


We are living in interesting times as far as wood stove technology. as a consumer with no skin in the game so to speak, I think we will all benefit. I know there is NO WAY I would go back to the old smoke dragon in my home and hope there's a stove made in the next twenty years that will make me say the same about the BK I'm running now.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 10, 2015)

Tarzan: "May you live in interesting times" is a curse.


----------



## tarzan (Feb 10, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Tarzan: "May you live in interesting times" is a curse.



Had to look that one up. Interesting.

Very good odds that it will work, anytime, anywhere.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

tarzan said:


> You shouldn't lump all catalytic stoves in one bunch. There are many who are very happy with there cat and hybrid stoves.
> 
> 
> We are living in interesting times as far as wood stove technology. as a consumer with no skin in the game so to speak, I think we will all benefit. I know there is NO WAY I would go back to the old smoke dragon in my home and hope there's a stove made in the next twenty years that will make me say the same about the BK I'm running now.




I understand that some people are happy with them. The occasional wood burner would probably never encounter an issue. The hardcore wood burner who heats solely with wood and uses 12 cords a year on the other hand (me) very well could.

The design of catalytic converters simply doesn't work well in wood stove technology, which is why it isn't used much anymore, and why you don't widely find the old retrofit kits for dinosaur wood burners like mine anymore. With MC over 27%, they clog, and are not often easily accessed for cleaning. Yes, I understand we shouldn't be burning above 20% MC, however when you have well over 5000 logs sitting around waiting to be burned, there's no way to guarantee that every piece is exactly where I need it. Most of it is likely close since I season my wood properly, but nobody has time to check every single piece they burn.

The other issue with catalytic converters are that they are often platinum or plutonium plated, and this plating wears out. Anyone involved in the scrapping business knows that catalytic converters rake in by far the most money of any metal on the market. CC's wear out, and when they do, we're talking $200-400 for a replacement, if it's even replaceable. 


Just my opinion, but given the choice, I'd choose a stove without one rather than with one, even if the one with the CC was the same price (it wouldn't be, but that's beside the point) and more efficient.


----------



## Jags (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 - I do believe that Woodstock and Blaze King, and a handful of others would refute your argument.  Some of the best technology on the market is coming from cat or hybrid stoves.  Ask our Canadian and Alaskan hardcore burners what brand they are using?  Blaze King is very popular and for good reason.



j7art2 said:


> The design of catalytic converters simply doesn't work well in wood stove technology, which is why it isn't used much anymore,



This is flawed in too many ways to count.  You are entitled to your opinion or preference, but bashing cat stoves for not working well is probably not going to gain you any traction.


----------



## semipro (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> The other issue with catalytic converters are that they are often platinum or plutonium plated,


I wonder how well they would work if they really were plutonium plated.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 11, 2015)

semipro said:


> I wonder how well they would work if they really were plutonium plated.


That would be a hot [radioactive] stove.


----------



## Jags (Feb 11, 2015)

Hmmm...it could help explain some of the performance numbers from Blaze King.


----------



## Poindexter (Feb 11, 2015)

Palladium / Plutonium / auto correct.

I agree that sizing a catalytic stove to the heating envelope is very important.  When my local ambients get down to the -40s dF and stay there the next morning I have had to shovel out perfectly good burning hot coals and replace them with fresh wood - twice.  Like wise in shoulder season mine is a bit fussy about draft. But from about freezing down to -30 or -35F (the heart and soul of my winter season) I have exactly the right size stove for my envelope.

I have a hard time feeling especially charitable for an operator who has thousands of splits in stock and chooses to burn 27%MC.  How about little yard sale signs around the various woodpiles "split 2012", "split 2013" and etc?


----------



## tarzan (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I understand that some people are happy with them. The occasional wood burner would probably never encounter an issue. The hardcore wood burner who heats solely with wood and uses 12 cords a year on the other hand (me) very well could.



There are many cat stove owners here (myself included) that would be offended by being called an occasional wood burner.

I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of your post except to suggest you do some research. Agreed that cat stoves have had there flawes (as well as cat stove owners) but to suggest cat stove technology is flawed or isn't used much anymore simply isn't true.


----------



## semipro (Feb 11, 2015)

I've run numerous stoves both catalytic and non-catalytic - at least 2 different types of each.  
Though I don't totally agree with j7art2 I do believe that catalytic stoves require a bit more as far as attention to operation and maintenance.  On the flip side, you get more for your efforts...heat and clean air.  
Also, with the advent of more electronic controls on stoves and tighter regs I see a bigger role for catalytic units.  The electronic controls, IMO, will simplify the operation of cat stoves and decrease the related required maintenance.


----------



## Poindexter (Feb 11, 2015)

semipro said:


> I've run numerous stoves both catalytic and non-catalytic - at least 2 different types of each.
> Though I don't totally agree with j7art2 I do believe that catalytic stoves require a bit more as far as attention to operation and maintenance.  On the flip side, you get more for your efforts...heat and clean air.
> Also, with the advent of more electronic controls on stoves and tighter regs I see a bigger role for catalytic units.  The electronic controls, IMO, will simplify the operation of cat stoves and decrease the related required maintenance.



I suspect electronic controls will not simplify maintenance.  I can envision a stove with an electronic pre-heater for the catalyst  like GM has been using fro going on 20 years.  In cars a hot cat is an active cat so the computer can operate closed loop, knowing all the fuel dispensed at the injectors is burnt by monitoring the output of the catalyst.  Before the cat is hot, open loop, the computer is kinda guessing at how much fuel ought to be about right.

So in a stove a cat preheater to get the catalyst on line quick and some kind of monitor to adjust the airflow based on the cat output once the cat is hot - so lower operational involvement by the operator; but I think we'll get higher maintenance requirements outside of day to day operations.

When was the last time you had to brush out the exhaust pipe on your car?  How wide an envelope can the mfrs get the stove to operate in, what happens when the stack gets narrow? or the outdoor ambient changes? They'll almost need a permanent manometer in the flue as part of the stove.  Little warning lights that your manometer reading is low or to check the moisture content of your wood...


----------



## semipro (Feb 11, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> I suspect electronic controls will not simplify maintenance.


I was thinking specifically of maintenance of the cat itself which I think would benefit from the electronic controls (but I didn't make that clear).
I compare stoves now to the vehicles of the 80s.  They were loaded with various emission control systems and carburetors, some electronically controlled.  They were on the brink of a major transformation and a mess.  Then manufacturers went with fuel injection and even with the complex electronic controls required there maintenance and repairs became easier (IMO).  I was there working as a mechanic to witness the transformation.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> Palladium / Plutonium / auto correct.
> 
> I agree that sizing a catalytic stove to the heating envelope is very important.  When my local ambients get down to the -40s dF and stay there the next morning I have had to shovel out perfectly good burning hot coals and replace them with fresh wood - twice.  Like wise in shoulder season mine is a bit fussy about draft. But from about freezing down to -30 or -35F (the heart and soul of my winter season) I have exactly the right size stove for my envelope.
> 
> I have a hard time feeling especially charitable for an operator who has thousands of splits in stock and chooses to burn 27%MC.  How about little yard sale signs around the various woodpiles "split 2012", "split 2013" and etc?




Yep, auto correct typo, thanks. Draft for me is a VERY large concern. I have a 30 foot chimney, and my wood furnace is in the basement. As it is, I already have draft issues with my dinosaur with a fresh air intake installed and a spotless flue. Adding more 'in the way' doesn't help with that.

As far as choosing to burn 27% MC, I don't have control over the rate at which each piece of wood dries. I've had split pieces of Box Elder that have seasoned for 3 years still register a high 47%, and have had pieces of live ash that I have cut and burned the same day. I take precautions to make sure my wood is dry, but I cannot verify the dryness of every single piece; that's the point I'm trying to make. If I have wood sitting for 3 years, it's going in my wood furnace and is assumed dry unless I pick it up and it's soaked. No one has the time to measure the individual content of each piece when you're burning through 5000 pieces a year.

To address the others (Not Poindexter in particular) It appears that I am clearly wrong on catalytic converters and haven't done my research. I have a perfectly capable 40 year old Energy Mate wood furnace and am looking to get a new unit for a reason. I am very able to install a catalytic converter kit for pennies on the dollar of the cost of a new unit purchase and install. I haven't installed one for a reason. Perhaps retrofitting older units are the ones with issues, but as cheap and frugal as I am, I'm not about to piss away $300 to further my problems only to have to replace the unit anyway. My research has shown me that retrofitted cats, at the bare minimum aren't worth the hassle, and when I look at units for my particular setup (basement installed wood furnace) the amount with catalytic converters are less than 25%.

They make work for YOU and YOUR setup, but a blanket statement that they will work for all setups is likely inaccurate. If they did, Yukon Eagle and Kuuma would gladly be using them now, and would squeeze out even more than the 80%-90% efficiency from their units, wouldn't they? Who wouldn't want to boast the most efficient wood furnace on the market? That's a bold claim and title to hold. In fact, Kuuma boasts that they _don't_ use a catalytic converter. What does that tell you?


----------



## Jags (Feb 11, 2015)

Basing your opinion of cats on a retrofit option for a 40 year old furnace is not fair to the cat technology and design of current stoves.  That is an apples to horse shoes comparison.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

Jags said:


> Basing your opinion of cats on a retrofit option for a 40 year old furnace is not fair to the cat technology and design of current stoves.  That is an apples to horse shoes comparison.



Educate me then. Why are there virtually no wood furnaces on the market with catalytic converters? I don't know every single manufacturer of wood furnaces and every single wood furnace on the market, but I don't know of a single one that uses them. There has to be a reason.

I didn't base my statement solely on research from retrofitting my current unit.


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

I'm curious, how many sq ft are you heating?


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

I personally heat 1700sqft on average of 72dF if I have my way. House was built in 1970, fairly well insulated. It's a chalet style home, so it's very tall. 12x12 pitch roof. Why do you ask?

Unit has to be installed in the basement and attachable to the current LP furnace in an addon design. Looking for units for me? 

I've already got a Drolet Tundra or Super Jack picked out.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Educate me then. Why are there virtually no wood furnaces on the market with catalytic converters? I don't know every single manufacturer of wood furnaces and every single wood furnace on the market, but I don't know of a single one that uses them. There has to be a reason.
> 
> I didn't base my statement solely on research from retrofitting my current unit.


I think wood furnaces are EPA exempt, only subject to local regulation.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Educate me then. Why are there virtually no wood furnaces on the market with catalytic converters? I don't know every single manufacturer of wood furnaces and every single wood furnace on the market, but I don't know of a single one that uses them. There has to be a reason.
> 
> I didn't base my statement solely on research from retrofitting my current unit.



I'm not that up on the current furnace market, but suspect that it's a combination of several factors - lack of regulatory requirement forcing reduced emissions, small market - which reduces the competitive push for manufacturers to out-do each other, and also partially from the fact that catalytic appliances operate the best when they are operating at a lowered fire rate - this would go against the typical operation for a furnace.


----------



## Jags (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Why are there virtually no wood furnaces on the market with catalytic converters?


They are regulated by a different set of rules.  Show me an EPA phase II certified wood furnace.


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I personally heat 1700sqft on average of 72dF if I have my way. House was built in 1970, fairly well insulated. It's a chalet style home, so it's very tall. 12x12 pitch roof. Why do you ask?


The wood consumption seems very high. When you say 12 cords do you mean face cords or full cords?


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

jatoxico said:


> I think wood furnaces are EPA exempt, only subject to local regulation.



They have longer to comply, but I emailed Drolet and asked for clarification, and they still have guidelines they have to abide by. There was a posting earlier in the thread about these, the regulations they will need to be following. I'm having difficulty deciphering exactly when the cut off date is for compliance though. After speaking with Drolet, it sounds like the Tundra for example, will likely be phased out, and they will be working on another (larger) unit completely. The current Tundra, though EPA certified right now does not meet new upcoming regulations. Close, but no cigar. They've told me that they are planning on releasing a new larger unit in the future, and to watch for it. If it was as easy as installing a cat to meet emissions, why reinvent the wheel?


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

begreen said:


> The wood consumption seems very high. When you say 12 cords do you mean face cords or full cords?



Full. I cut 12 this year total, and I've got about 2 left. I haven't used all 12 yet, but if the weather keeps it up this way, I will be. I installed my fresh air intake just last month, and noticed a slight difference. I've been burning since the beginning of October, maybe earlier.


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

Jags said:


> They are regulated by a different set of rules.  Show me an EPA phase II certified wood furnace.


I think the PSG Caddy furnace is EPA phase 2.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> If it was as easy as installing a cat to meet emissions, why reinvent the wheel?



It's not really that easy.  You do realize that cat's can't just be placed in the normal flue gas path?  They have to have a bypass means to allow startup...this complicates things a bit.  And the cost is also something that I'm sure most want to avoid.


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Full. I cut 12 this year total, and I've got about 2 left. I haven't used all 12 yet, but if the weather keeps it up this way, I will be. I installed my fresh air intake just last month, and noticed a slight difference. I've been burning since the beginning of October, maybe earlier.


That is a huge amount of wood to heat a 1700 sq ft house. I would guess a Blaze King King stove with dry fuel could cut that down 2/3ds. Part of the issue is green wood though. It can be made to burn, but the heat loss  and emissions are high.


----------



## Jags (Feb 11, 2015)

begreen said:


> I think the PSG Caddy furnace is EPA phase 2.



I think you are correct.  But the Caddy gets there by design (some fancy re-burn technology) and is one of the first on the block to be certified.  Point is - in the future we may very well see cat furnaces as EPA restrictions apply.  Currently, not so much because they simply don't NEED to.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> They have longer to comply, but I emailed Drolet and asked for clarification, and they still have guidelines they have to abide by. There was a posting earlier in the thread about these, the regulations they will need to be following. I'm having difficulty deciphering exactly when the cut off date is for compliance though. After speaking with Drolet, it sounds like the Tundra for example, will likely be phased out, and they will be working on another (larger) unit completely. The current Tundra, though EPA certified right now does not meet new upcoming regulations. Close, but no cigar. They've told me that they are planning on releasing a new larger unit in the future, and to watch for it. If it was as easy as installing a cat to meet emissions, why reinvent the wheel?



Yeah I don't know about all that but it seems like we're mixing different things in this thread though. By many accounts EPA cat Stoves do quite well and are loved by their owners. Since Wood furnaces are not currently subject to EPA reg's I guess most manufacturers don't see the benefit because as you sorta said, it's one thing to maintain 2-4 cords/yr of properly seasoned (<20%) wood for a stove, would be different if you're using >10 cords a year in a furnace.

I'm sure the wood furnace manufacturers could do it but when their competitors furnaces work with whatever they are fed while yours is choking on it, it will be your sales that suffer. I guess that's where the gasification boilers come in. Better suited technology for the purpose.


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

My guess is that with the new regs we will see hybrid cat and tube furnaces coming out. The cat will take care of the nemesis of wood furnaces, low and slow or idle burning when high heat is not being called for. At higher burn rates the secondary tubes will handle the larger wood gas volume. But who knows, maybe someone will have a gasifier design? 

FWIW I suspect we are going to see some companies drop out of this market. It's not large and some will not want to spend the money R&D, testing and certification.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

begreen said:


> That is a huge amount of wood to heat a 1700 sq ft house. I would guess a Blaze King King stove with dry fuel could cut that down 2/3ds. Part of the issue is green wood though. It can be made to burn, but the heat loss  and emissions are high.



I agree, it is quite a bit. I've gone through more wood this year than my dad has in 10 years with his radiant wood stove insert. Almost all of my wood is dead and down stuff gathered from state land, so most of it is seasoned pretty well. Some of it has some outer moisture, but for the most part I'm golden. I took a few chunks of fresh ash down, but they all met moisture requirements before going in, as I'm leery of burning green stuff. Cleaned the chimney last weekend though and it looked darn good. Didn't even need a scrubbing, just a leaf-blowering! lol

I apologize to everyone if I came in here on an apparent high horse tossing away cat technology when comparing wood furnaces to wood stoves, as we all know that they are two very different creatures. Unfortunately, this EPA discussion isn't happening in the wood furnace section (yet) because everyone just got their new Drolet Tundra's when they were on sale at Menards. I wasn't one of them this year, as the tax return had to go to the normal furnace. This EPA stuff effects us all though, and I'm trying to catch up to speed on all of it.

The Yukon brand furnaces are all 90% efficient, but some of them are exempt (i think) because they are combo furnaces. I don't know if the SuperJack would meet qualifications, but normally higher efficiency means less emissions. Unfortunately, at the end of the day we're talking $7000 with install though for one of these.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 11, 2015)

Blaze King has had hybrid cat furnaces for a while now.

http://www.blazeking.com/EN/furnace-apex.html


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 11, 2015)

BrotherBart said:


> Blaze King has had hybrid cat furnaces for a while now.
> 
> http://www.blazeking.com/EN/furnace-apex.html



Touche'. I guess I never looked at them since they're too small for my house.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Touche'. I guess I never looked at them since they're too small for my house.



That's crazy, if 60 MBH can't heat a 1,700 SF house.


----------



## MishMouse (Feb 11, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Full. I cut 12 this year total, and I've got about 2 left. I haven't used all 12 yet, but if the weather keeps it up this way, I will be. I installed my fresh air intake just last month, and noticed a slight difference. I've been burning since the beginning of October, maybe earlier.


Wow that is a lot of wood, have you ever considered a wood stove instead of a wood furnace?
Many people on this forum heat their homes to above 70 with stoves placed in their basements.
All you need is to allow for air flow between the floors. 
Myself I heat my home into the 70's with my TL300 and would estimate I used around 3-4 cords since October burning 24-7 and I live in central MN.
If my wood was as seasoned as I would want it to be I would have only burnt at the most 3 cords.


----------



## Seanm (Feb 11, 2015)

begreen said:


> My guess is that with the new regs we will see hybrid cat and tube furnaces coming out. The cat will take care of the nemesis of wood furnaces, low and slow or idle burning when high heat is not being called for. At higher burn rates the secondary tubes will handle the larger wood gas volume


You and I both burn PE stoves. I wonder what they will do when the new regs roll in, any insight? The idea of a hybrid has me curious. Im not sure if Im at the point where I want to go full cat, hard to say I guess since Ive never used one. Ive thought for awhile though that it would be nice to have as you say low and slow during shoulder season (this year we seem to be having one in the middle of winter!)


----------



## begreen (Feb 11, 2015)

Nope, I don't know what PE, Quad, Jotul, Hearthstone, etc. are up to. I suspect we'll be seeing more cat stoves and hybrids. Australia and New Zealand have some pretty tough regs. Perhaps we will see some of their stoves or stove designs showing up here? This is one I would like to see:
http://www.pyroclassic.co.nz/

When looking at stoves for sale in NZ I noted the Osburn 1600 there. The current page on their website says the 1600 is testing at .87gm/hr.. But then if you go in the tech specs for the stove it says 4.4gm/hr. Wazzup SBI?
http://www.osburn-mfg.com/en/heaters/1600-wood-stove-2008-


----------



## Seanm (Feb 11, 2015)

begreen said:


> Nope, I don't know what PE, Quad, Jotul, Hearthstone, etc. are up to


maybe I will call PE and see. Like someone else said somewhere here, its not likely a surprise to any of the manufactures. It would be interesting to chat with them about their thoughts. Thanks for the links I will check them out.


----------



## DamienBricka (Feb 11, 2015)

I hope I am not misunderstanding that my brand new Drolet Austral will have to remove by the end of the year and replaced by an expensive stove that may or may not clean cleaner. Can someone clarify for me. Thanks


----------



## Longboat (Feb 11, 2015)

I would think your old stove is grandfathered in and would not require an upgrade, DamienBricka. My fear, however, would be that I couldn't sell my house with my Drolet Legend unless I upgraded. It's a small fear, though. Folks can still sell their homes with inefficient gas or propane furnaces without such requirements.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 11, 2015)

DamienBricka said:


> I hope I am not misunderstanding that my brand new Drolet Austral will have to remove by the end of the year and replaced by an expensive stove that may or may not clean cleaner. Can someone clarify for me. Thanks



Your stove will be fine. You won't have to replace it. The new regs say that a new stove that does not comply can't be sold.


----------



## Poindexter (Feb 12, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I apologize to everyone if I came in here on an apparent high horse tossing away cat technology when comparing wood furnaces to wood stoves, as we all know that they are two very different creatures.



I read this a few hours ago.  Been stewing on it, I want to make this count.  It takes a grown man with a fully developed pair to say that and I want to be gracious here.

I too think 12 cords is a lot for 1700sqft.  I recognize most of Michigan had colder weather (or as cold of weather) as I did last winter, but I kept my 1980s construction 1200sqft at and above 80dF with 8 cords.

Two possibilities.

1. I encourage you to go find some free pallets - you'll need about 20 for all 12 cords.  Split everything you got for next winter one time only, stack it on the 20 pallets, put some tarps on the top and leave it alone from soon, maybe late April until your next heating season starts.

2. Borrow some sidewalk chalk from one of the kids and go around your house checking windows and outlets for air leaks.  Just mark them with chalk for attention later this year, everywhere you feel cold air coming in.  You will probably drop about $200 at your local Lowes-Depot, you'll need some blue painters masking tape, some cans of name brand expanding foam (like 3M or BASF) and probably enough millwork to replace the trim on 1 or 2 windows.  Couple tubes of silicone caulk.  Maybe a mitre box with saw ($12) to cut replacement window trim.

If you go around the house laying your bare hand on drywall you're almost definitely going to find some air leaks.  Some of the worst ones probably already have some caulking on them from the early 1980s.  Just mark them with chalk in the winter, the foam doesn't cure very well in cold weather.  Once your ambient outdoor temp is above 60dF or so, pull the window trim off the one window with the worst airleaks.  You will probably wreck the trim on the the first window or two you attempt, but it isn't a permanent affliction.  You will probably  find an air gap all the way around the window, that is with the interior trim off you will probably be able to see the exterior window trim from inside the house.

Put the blue tape on both the window frame and the adjacent drywall all the way around the window.  You will make a mess the first time.  Fill that air gap with the expanding foam.  Once it is cured cut it down to size with a sharp knife and maybe finish shaping with a Surform (tm) plane by Stanley.  Reinstall window trim.

I feel pretty confident if you do those two things you ought to be able to get by on nine cords per year as long as you own the house.  Really, three cords a year.  That's a lot of free time back to go fishing or drink beer or sit on the couch with the wife.

Best wishes,
Poindexter


----------



## tarzan (Feb 12, 2015)

Poindexter, I gave you a like because of your very descriptive post about sealing air leakes and the benefits but you do live in Fairbanks, Alaska by your own choice. I think we could have all just assumed you have large testicles.


----------



## Oldman47 (Feb 12, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> [quote="j7art2, post: 1897559, member: 37651"
> 
> Borrow some sidewalk chalk from one of the kids and go around your house checking windows and outlets for air leaks.  Just mark them with chalk for attention later this year, everywhere you feel cold air coming in.  You will probably drop about $200 at your local Lowes-Depot, you'll need some blue painters masking tape, some cans of name brand expanding foam (like 3M or BASF) and probably enough millwork to replace the trim on 1 or 2 windows.  Couple tubes of silicone caulk.  Maybe a mitre box with saw ($12) to cut replacement window trim.
> 
> ...



Be darned particular about which foam you use. If you use a crack filler type the windows will no longer work because that stuff will actually squeeze the window frame slightly.  You may not see it but the window will stop opening and closing properly. They specifically make window and door foam that expands a bit less forcefully and will not force the window frame inward to give you sticking windows. I use the Great Stuff made for windows and doors around windows and doors and the one they label for filling cracks for around outdoor hose connections and such. Those foams are not the same as each other but you apply them the same way. Never fill a gap more than half full using either foam because when you come back 10 minutes later the foam will have at least doubled in size. If you filled more than half you will spend a lot of time trimming down the excess with a knife and worse yet trying to clean the stuff off of visible surfaces.
For cost control, make sure you have identified all places to use the foam before you start. Once you start to use a can you are committed. There is no going back and using what is left of a can even an hour later. The application tube and the can's nozzle will be full of cured material and you can just toss whatever you had left in that can. Get everything ready and then use up a can at a time.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 12, 2015)

brant2000 said:


> That's crazy, if 60 MBH can't heat a 1,700 SF house.



The one you linked heats up to 1400sqft. I looked at the BK products briefly, but couldn't find one that had anything over that in the configuration I need.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 12, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> I apologize to everyone if I came in here on an apparent high horse tossing away cat technology when comparing wood furnaces to wood stoves, as we all know that they are two very different creatures.
> 
> I read this a few hours ago.  Been stewing on it, I want to make this count.  It takes a grown man with a fully developed pair to say that and I want to be gracious here.
> 
> ...



I've found that since I installed my fresh air intake in my basement, my wood usage has gone down considerably. I simply wasn't getting complete combustion. I still have some (minor) issues with that, and am considering upgrading my fresh air intake fan to a slightly larger one. I have no way of verifying that the fan on the unit is the correct size, or is not a smaller replacement that someone simply rigged. Unfortunately, I had burned half my supply by the time I installed my fresh air intake. This is my first year burning wood in this unit and in this house, so I know not all of my wood was prime, and that may have been part of it. All of what I cut was 'dead and down', but 'dead and down' doesn't always mean fully seasoned, even if down for 3-4 years. My moisture meter though has been a blessing in disguise here, and if there's any question on the wood, it either gets leaned against the unit and 'kiln dried' for a few days, or if it's close, mixed with better wood and burned hot. I've been keeping a close eye on my flue, running my fires hot, etc though, and haven't had any considerable buildup to speak of. Nothing the leaf blower couldn't handle. I understand this isn't ideal, and already have about 3 cords seasoning already that I knew I had no chance of burning this year. Everyone has to start somewhere.

One of the major issues with my unit is that the firebox is HUGE (i could literally fit inside it if I could fit through the door, and I'm 6'0, 215lbs) and is virtually completely uninsulated. It's got places for fire bricks along the bottom, but has no way to put firebrick along the walls, back, or top. I had briefly considered welding in some thick strapping along the walls as 'slots' to hold firebrick in. Unfortunately there's no way for me to run my welder in the basement without some electrical work.

I think just doing this would help quite a bit too, as it would serve two purposes. It'd make the firebox smaller, and would retain more heat.

Due to funky backdrafting issues, I also am forced to keep my key damper fully open almost all the time, and I know this is a contributing factor as well. I have a baffle/bypass damper in the unit itself which is always closed (It causes the smoke to form an S and stay in the unit longer) but I can't seem to utilize both effectively, no matter what I do.


----------



## brant2000 (Feb 12, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> The one you linked heats up to 1400sqft. I looked at the BK products briefly, but couldn't find one that had anything over that in the configuration I need.



I don't know anything about BK (certainly have read a lot of glowing reviews for their stoves), but just to put it into perspective....

60 MBH output is just about the equivalent of burning 300 # of wood per day.  That would be a rate of 9,000 #/month, or almost 3 cord per month (depending on species).  That would heat my house (3000 SF + finished basement + hot tub + domestic HW) easily down to -10 degrees or so.  

Not sure why they show on their website that that unit can only heat 1,400 SF with an output like that.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 12, 2015)

brant2000 said:


> I don't know anything about BK (certainly have read a lot of glowing reviews for their stoves), but just to put it into perspective....
> 
> 60 MBH output is just about the equivalent of burning 300 # of wood per day.  That would be a rate of 9,000 #/month, or almost 3 cord per month (depending on species).  That would heat my house (3000 SF + finished basement + hot tub + domestic HW) easily down to -10 degrees or so.
> 
> Not sure why they show on their website that that unit can only heat 1,400 SF with an output like that.



I understand completely. I've been looking at the Yukon Big Jack and Yukon Super Jack, and I know that my friend decided to go for the 'bigger unit' with his 2400sqft house that's 100 years old and has less insulation than a cardboard box. He's now having the issue that he has 'too much furnace' for his house, and is having to split his wood to kindling size to heat the place (lol)

The Big Jack heats up to 1500sqft, and the Super Jack heats up to 3000 or so, but is twice the money. Part of me thinks 1700sqft is pretty close to 1500sqft, but we can get some wicked -30dF nights here fairly regularly, and the last thing I want is a unit that's too small and is a waste of money because it can't keep up. 

If I don't end up going with a Drolet Tundra and decide on a Yukon for the extra efficiency, I'll likely be calling them and discussing it before I place the order. I won't be getting another unit though until next tax season at the earliest though.


----------



## jatoxico (Feb 12, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I understand completely. I've been looking at the Yukon Big Jack and Yukon Super Jack,
> 
> If I don't end up going with a Drolet Tundra and decide on a Yukon for the extra efficiency, I'll likely be calling them and discussing it before I place the order. I won't be getting another unit though until next tax season at the earliest though.



So you have a wood furnace in the basement and may want to make a change/upgrade? Maybe a small unit in the living space to supplement? If you want, start a new thread with as many details as you have (s.f, layout and existing unit) and kicj it around.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 12, 2015)

jatoxico said:


> So you have a wood furnace in the basement and may want to make a change/upgrade? Maybe a small unit in the living space to supplement? If you want, start a new thread with as many details as you have (s.f, layout and existing unit) and kicj it around.



One of these days I'll be upgrading. Right now, it's just a dream, but i'll be saving here and there for a new unit. I've got a few units in mind, but still trying to wrap my head around all the EPA stuff in regards to forced air furnaces. The regs are different, but still changing even for us.

My house layout is funky dory. It's a chalet style home. The chimney is external (and runs along a bedroom of the house), so it forces me to have the unit in the basement. I'd love to have a radiant stove or enclosed fireplace insert in the living room like I grew up with but it's not a feasible option unfortunately.


----------



## begreen (Feb 12, 2015)

I'd also look in to the PSG Caddy line of furnaces for greater efficiency. FWIW, my wife couldn't visualize a stove in the living room either. That is until I reversed the room layout and put in a new, straight up chimney. It works better than we ever thought it would. Be creative and play with that idea a while.


----------



## brenndatomu (Feb 12, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> The Yukon brand furnaces are all 90% efficient


Uhh...noooo. They wish. You musta drank a big ole glass of the Yukon koolaid J! 



begreen said:


> I'd also look in to the PSG Caddy line of furnaces for greater efficiency


Reposted for emphasis of a good idea


----------



## metalsped (Feb 13, 2015)

begreen said:


> I'd also look in to the PSG Caddy line of furnaces for greater efficiency. FWIW, my wife couldn't visualize a stove in the living room either. That is until I reversed the room layout and put in a new, straight up chimney. It works better than we ever thought it would. Be creative and play with that idea a while.



X2. If you want a stove in this area, you will figure out a way to make it happen. Not too hard to poke through an exterior wall and connect into your chimney where it sits.


----------



## BKVP (Feb 14, 2015)

In regards to efficiency, look for the B415.1-10 test results.  Not the earlier B415.1 

These are two distinctly different test methods used in testing forced air wood furnaces.

A 250k BTU unit that tested 63% isn't nearly as good as a 200k unit that tested 82%. You get the idea.


----------



## martae (Feb 17, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I understand completely. I've been looking at the Yukon Big Jack and Yukon Super Jack, and I know that my friend decided to go for the 'bigger unit' with his 2400sqft house that's 100 years old and has less insulation than a cardboard box. He's now having the issue that he has 'too much furnace' for his house, and is having to split his wood to kindling size to heat the place (lol)
> 
> The Big Jack heats up to 1500sqft, and the Super Jack heats up to 3000 or so, but is twice the money. Part of me thinks 1700sqft is pretty close to 1500sqft, but we can get some wicked -30dF nights here fairly regularly, and the last thing I want is a unit that's too small and is a waste of money because it can't keep up.
> 
> If I don't end up going with a Drolet Tundra and decide on a Yukon for the extra efficiency, I'll likely be calling them and discussing it before I place the order. I won't be getting another unit though until next tax season at the earliest though.


The super jack is just a big jack, with a secondary heat exchanger sitting on top of the firebox, like a hat.  The big jack is rated at 90,000 BTUh,  and the super jack at 125,000.  Basically you are extracting an extra 35000 BTUh from the combustion products before you send them up the chimney, so you get a bit more than 1/3 more heat from the same wood burned.
I heat my mobile home, and a 200 square foot free standing greenhouse with a Super Jack. I also heat hot water with a thermosiphon system, drawing heat from outside the firebox. 
I've managed to get the furnace to burn better at stand by, and  at derated capacity by blocking the half of the secondary air ports near the door with cut off portions of common T cross section T post, held in position with 17 gage steel wire that is pulled tight, and joined in the ash pan compartment, over the ash pan.  This does not decrease the secondary air, but heats it further, and causes more turbulence when it is discharged into the back of the firebox.  I also try to keep the fire pushed back into the back of the firebox.  I think the big problem with this design's secondary air system, is there is not enough turbulence to result in good secondary burning, unless the firebox is very hot


----------



## adam6979 (Feb 23, 2015)

It's like the diesel trucks... remove the catalytic and go back to having a great performing truck... or stove in this forum... wait did I just violate federal law??? Never mind I retract that statement and deny it's existence...


----------



## begreen (Feb 23, 2015)

Pulling the catalyst on a catalytic stove would be like putting the stove back into a smoke dragon mode and turning it into a lousy performer.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 23, 2015)

adam6979 said:


> It's like the diesel trucks... remove the catalytic and go back to having a great performing truck... or stove in this forum... wait did I just violate federal law??? Never mind I retract that statement and deny it's existence...



Remove the cat in a new truck and see what happens with that engine control computer without a cat in closed loop mode. Good luck with that. And the wrecker service.


----------



## BKVP (Feb 24, 2015)

If any one had it in mind to purchase one of our stoves that is catalyst equipped and then either remove it or not use the by pass correctly, I would ask them to buy another brand of stove.

We have not spent 30 years refining the technology so that the stove would be less efficient and potentially contribute to poor air quality.

And yes, it would be a violation of Federal and state laws to do so, but that aside, you would use vastly more wood and clean your chimney much more often.


----------



## metalsped (Feb 24, 2015)

adam6979 said:


> It's like the diesel trucks... remove the catalytic and go back to having a great performing truck... or stove in this forum... wait did I just violate federal law??? Never mind I retract that statement and deny it's existence...



My '14 Powerstroke with 400/800 from the factory @ 21mpg would beg to differ.


----------



## adam6979 (Feb 24, 2015)

Sorry guys I was talking about the older trucks and stoves. Once the cats clog up they are worse, remove them and you get back superior performance... not talking about the newer junk. I should have clarified better for those not inside my mind.... damn voices.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Feb 24, 2015)

A stove is not a truck. In a truck, a cat slightly reduces efficiency by increasing back pressure, so it takes more work to drive the exhaust out (an accepted loss to reduce smog). The amount of fuel converted to work by the engine does not change. Improvements in engine design and management have more than made up for the loss, though.

In a stove, a cat increases the fuel burn up, so the amount of fuel converted to heat does change.


----------



## bholler (Feb 24, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Full. I cut 12 this year total, and I've got about 2 left. I haven't used all 12 yet, but if the weather keeps it up this way, I will be. I installed my fresh air intake just last month, and noticed a slight difference. I've been burning since the beginning of October, maybe earlier.


You would be using a lot less wood if you were burning a more efficent stove and there fore it would be easier to get the wood dry ect ect.  There are very good cat stoves out there.  Many of the early ones were pretty bad and the addons never worked that does not mean cats are bad.  Sorry i posted this before reading all of your posts you seem to have come around a bit.  But honestly i heat most of my 100 yr old 1800 sq ft house with one stove in the basement i am looking to add another so i can heat completely with wood   And many heat that much sq ft easily with one stove


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 25, 2015)

With -30dF or colder mornings, I'm starting to see where there are some MAJOR issues with air pollution in certain areas as Poindexter pointed out earlier.

Driving to and from work on these mornings, there is a quarter mile section or less of road that has 5 outdoor wood boilers, and it is literally like driving through fog. I have never once seen this in my 31 years of life, but now I am starting to understand why people are starting to heavily lean this way. 

One of them seriously puts out so much smoke I wonder if he is cutting and burning the same day. I kid you not, it looks on par with Dow Chemical, simply on a smaller scale. It's ridiculous, and it infuriates me because it's idiots like him that are punishing people like me, who at least make a damn good effort to season their wood and be responsible burners. 

I don't know for sure if government regulation is for sure the answer, but I can say for certain, that good burning practices are something that people simply aren't educated on I guess. More information on this needs to be shared and addressed at the bare minimum. When I took apart my wood furnace to clean it from the previous owner of my house, there was an 80% blockage. When I took it apart last month for inspection after burning some less than optimal stuff, I had absolutely zero build up other than soot, obviously leading me to believe that the previous owner of my house had no knowledge of wood burning.


----------



## saskwoodburner (Feb 25, 2015)

You make a good point about the smoke. The neighbor has an old wood furnace, and he lives 400-500 yards away. It's easier to smell his smoke when the wind blows in my direction, than to smell smoke from my stack once it's warmed up, even up top near the chimney.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 25, 2015)

saskwoodburner said:


> You make a good point about the smoke. The neighbor has an old wood furnace, and he lives 400-500 yards away. It's easier to smell his smoke when the wind blows in my direction, than to smell smoke from my stack once it's warmed up, even up top near the chimney.



Is it his old wood furnace, or is it his poor burning practices? I have a 40 year old wood furnace, and I can't even smell my own smoke (let alone see it) if I'm burning at optimal temperatures. The only time I see or smell either, is when I'm just lighting a fire, or struggling to keep the stove hot because I'm burning sh#tty wood, or found a random piece of wood in the stack that seems to have made a vacation to the local swamp for the last few years and snuck back into the pile unnoticed.


----------



## saskwoodburner (Feb 25, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Is it his old wood furnace, or is it his poor burning practices? I have a 40 year old wood furnace, and I can't even smell my own smoke (let alone see it) if I'm burning at optimal temperatures. The only time I see or smell either, is when I'm just lighting a fire, or struggling to keep the stove hot because I'm burning sh#tty wood, or found a random piece of wood in the stack that seems to have made a vacation to the local swamp for the last few years and snuck back into the pile unnoticed.



Hard to say, maybe a bit of both. I'm not saying his place is always rolling smoke, but anytime there's wind from the east, I usually smell smoke. We went for some wood together, standing dead pine, and he said it's good to drop in the stove right now (him an older wood furnace, me an Englander 17). Well, it burns in his, but most of any I tested reads about 26-28 % moisture. If I cut it small enough, it'll eventually have the moisture chased out and burn, but I think it's best to leave until next year.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Feb 25, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I don't know for sure if government regulation is for sure the answer, but I can say for certain, that good burning practices are something that people simply aren't educated on I guess.



And that right there is the issue. The result of the proposed regulation is those of us who season our wood and run the burners properly will pay extra the next time we need to buy a burner, and probably have fewer options, which will only be a tiny bit cleaner than the models we already have. The same applies to anyone thinking about making the jump to wood, or who just wants to upgrade an old burner for something more efficient. Increasing the cost creates more incentive to keep older burners or stay on fossil fuels.

So those folks you pass on your drive to work will be less likely to upgrade, and even if they do, the will still burn their wood the same way, and still create huge amounts of smoke, which will continue to fuel complaints, and we'll get regulated even more.


----------



## begreen (Feb 25, 2015)

Inflation seems rampant in stove pricing in spite of whatever the CPI says. Our stove price has gone up an average about $100/yr for the past 7 yrs.. So have many other stove prices. It's going to happen the next time one has to buy a stove regardless. Interesting to note that the Englander 30 price has been remarkably stable. I suspect it will continue to be a reasonably priced stove after the new regs take effect.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 26, 2015)

iamlucky13 said:


> And that right there is the issue. The result of the proposed regulation is those of us who season our wood and run the burners properly will pay extra the next time we need to buy a burner, and probably have fewer options, which will only be a tiny bit cleaner than the models we already have. The same applies to anyone thinking about making the jump to wood, or who just wants to upgrade an old burner for something more efficient. Increasing the cost creates more incentive to keep older burners or stay on fossil fuels.
> 
> So those folks you pass on your drive to work will be less likely to upgrade, and even if they do, the will still burn their wood the same way, and still create huge amounts of smoke, which will continue to fuel complaints, and we'll get regulated even more.



Instead of putting more regulations on companies, how about we start holding people accountable for their actions? Don't punish all of us, including corporations, for the handful of idiots that don't know what they're doing. Spend the resources educating, not regulating.

But then again, if the government doesn't have complete control over every single person's lives, they're clearly not powerful enough for some.


----------



## bholler (Feb 26, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Instead of putting more regulations on companies, how about we start holding people accountable for their actions? Don't punish all of us, including corporations, for the handful of idiots that don't know what they're doing.


Says the guy burning 12 cords of wet wood a year lol.  I dont mean to pick on you but i found that statement pretty amusing.  I do agree with you though it would be more effective if they could help people change their burning practices.  But i know i have some customers who absolutely will not change no matter how many times we tell them.  And honestly can you really say that modern stoves are not way better than the old ones?  Yes the prices will be high to start but they will come down like they did with the last set of regulations.


----------



## midwestcoast (Feb 26, 2015)

Whether by design or not, modern stoves are Very hard to use with wet or marginal wood. It's what drives a lot of members to this forum asking about issues with dirty glass, low temps, short burn times...  So many folks who buy new stoves end up cleaning up their burning practices out of necessity to be able to run them.  Without the gov't reg's they'd never reach the burner's nirvana that comes with truly seasoned wood and an EPA stove burning clean & pulling more btu's out of the smoke that'd otherwise be mucking up their chimney & their neighbor's lungs. Worth a few extra bucks on purchase price IMO. 

I trust industry spokespeople to reliably exaggerate the impact of new reg's without mentioning the benefits. It's just their job.
I see the EPA tightening emissions standards on many types of equipment & usually at a reasonable pace that industry can satisfy by applying existing tech & with modest impact on cost...  If many stoves already meet the standards, what is the big deal if they all have to meet them 5 years down the road? (& it's not like this is a huge surprise to the industry either).
I say close the loopholes that allow dirtier devices (uber-leaky stoves, OWB's, furnaces...) & push the industry to improve at a reasonable pace. The alternative is more burn-bans. No thanks.
Worrying aboutSmoke Police coming to confiscate anyone's older wood stove is silly IMO. EPA does't have anywhere near the needed the resources & they aren't dumb enough to think people would accept that, even if they wanted to try.


----------



## j7art2 (Feb 27, 2015)

bholler said:


> Says the guy burning 12 cords of wet wood a year lol.  I dont mean to pick on you but i found that statement pretty amusing.  I do agree with you though it would be more effective if they could help people change their burning practices.  But i know i have some customers who absolutely will not change no matter how many times we tell them.  And honestly can you really say that modern stoves are not way better than the old ones?  Yes the prices will be high to start but they will come down like they did with the last set of regulations.




My wood is not wet; at least not in the green sense. Some surface moisture maybe, but that's it. I did go through approximately 12 cords, but I can count on one hand the amount of green pieces of wood I used this year. All of my wood I burned this year was dead and down for at least 3 years, some significantly longer.

Part of the reason I went through so much wood is because I did not have a fresh air intake in my basement, and thus was completely unable to use my key damper and lost a significant amount of heat through my chimney. I was trying to speed up this 'global warming' thing to get spring here quicker, but it just didn't work. I did a complete inspection of my chimney 3 weeks ago, and if you'd like a picture of how clean it was, I'll gladly send it along to prove my wood was in fact not green. Two handfuls of black creosote, and powdery soot is all she wrote for a 30' chimney and 5 foot of pipe.


----------



## semipro (Feb 28, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> All of my wood I burned this year was dead and down for at least 3 years, some significantly longer.


I had some oak "dead and down" for three years.  I went to split it and it was still visibly wet inside.
The only practical way to test is to make a fresh split use a moisture meter.


----------



## buddha65281 (Feb 28, 2015)

I don't think this will be such a big issue, I never even looked at the EPA rating on the new wood burning United States Stove Company "Country Hearth" model 2000 that I bought late last summer but because of this post I did, it is EPA 2 rated and burns 4.4 on smoke emissions... The stove was very reasonable for $549 at TSC, it is rated at 89,000 BTU and 2000 sqf BUT my garage is 30x40(1200 sqf) with 11.5 high ceiling and it does NOT keep it warm enough so I don't see this model heating 2000... According to a website I found it says for colder climates you need around 50-60 BTU per Square Foot. I will say it does make it relatively comfy..(30x40, 6" walls w/R19, ceiling R19, argon etc windows(2), (3) 2" garage doors(insulated) and concrete floor, also 2 std doors).


----------



## bholler (Feb 28, 2015)

buddha65281 said:


> 30x40(1200 sqf) with 11.5 high ceiling


11.5' ceilings is the problem that makes it much harder to heat also that stove is a pretty low end stove not a good example of modern epa compliant stoves at all.  But for the price it is not that bad of a stove.  But it will not pass the next set of regs at 4.4


----------



## j7art2 (Mar 2, 2015)

semipro said:


> I had some oak "dead and down" for three years.  I went to split it and it was still visibly wet inside.
> The only practical way to test is to make a fresh split use a moisture meter.



I have one and use it regularly. I've got a full cord cut that has gone back in the shed because it isn't ready yet. If it's not below 30% MC, it doesn't go in the fire. 30% is high, but it's by no means "green" imo. My average is about 18% on my test splits. Some of my ash is lighter than my pine which has been bucked to length and seasoned for 2+ years. It's like carrying around a piece of styrofoam. lol.


----------



## semipro (Mar 2, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I have one and use it regularly. I've got a full cord cut that has gone back in the shed because it isn't ready yet. If it's not below 30% MC, it doesn't go in the fire. 30% is high, but it's by no means "green" imo. My average is about 18% on my test splits. Some of my ash is lighter than my pine which has been bucked to length and seasoned for 2+ years. It's like carrying around a piece of styrofoam. lol.


Strangely enough, some species  "green" moisture content is about 30%.  This includes pine, fir, eastern red cedar.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr190/chapter_04.pdf


----------



## j7art2 (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm burning almost 100% hardwood extensively this year. I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment, assuming I'm not a responsible burner. I use a moisture meter, and this is my first year burning wood in my own house, so I'm making due with what I've got, but I've done a darn good job checking what I have and separating it. I grew up on wood heat and always seasoned for 2 years C/S/S growing up. I'm well versed in good wood burning practices. Considering the amount of wood I've burned, if I had poor wood burning practices, I'd have had a chimney fire or four by now, and why I specifically offered to show a pic of my chimney to prove it.

I guess this is neither here nor there, but I've narrowed my extremely high wood consumption to a few factors:

1.) I didn't have a fresh air intake installed in my basement. Wood like to smolder without it, making me put more wood on to cause it to "catch". Immediately the problem remedied itself once I installed one and my wood usage has been cut significantly since.
2.) I have a HUGE firebox. I am 6', and 215lbs, and if I could fit through the door, I could literally fit inside my firebox. It's 28" deep and probably close to 40" high. This leads to problem #3.
3.) My entire large firebox is completely uninsulated steel. The only place for firebrick are on the sides. It has a very poorly designed V shaped bottom, and each piece fits 5(?) pieces of firebrick. No insulation on the sides, none on the back, none on the ceiling. Essentially, I'm losing half my heat due to poor insulation. There is no way to install firebrick along the sides or back, which results in #4.
4.) My basement is completely uninsulated cinderblock, and my wood furnace is in the corner. The walls are cold to the touch, and it is actually a bit chilly in the basement with the fresh air intake installed. My unit gives off virtually no radiant heat unless I'm burning close to the overburn mark on my flue thermometer. I don't know if this is because the basement walls suck it out or what.

This makes me wonder if getting a Drolet Tundra will even work for me. It heats 2500 sqft, but the house is 1700sqft, and the basement is probably 600-700. The last thing I need is to install another unit that struggles to keep up. If I wanted that, I'd just keep what I already have.


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2015)

What you are dealing with is phenomenal heat loss in the house and an inefficient furnace. Most homes this size are heating with 4-5 cords of wood. It sounds like this was compounded at times by burning the 30% moisture fuel. It takes a lot of heat energy to boil out that moisture. That is heat that didn't go into the house. A more efficient burner will save wood, but it will only do so if the wood burned is <20%. It sounds like you have a handle on that. If so the Tundra should make a nice difference. But I would also aggressively go after the sources of heat loss and cold air intrusion into the home to ensure a successful next winter burning.

Both of these issues are not directly related to the new EPA regs. Please start a new thread on the topic in the boiler room. There are folks there that have wood furnaces that can provide more specifics and comparative experiences.


----------



## semipro (Mar 2, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment, assuming I'm not a responsible burner. I use a moisture meter, and this is my first year burning wood in my own house, so I'm making due with what I've got, but I've done a darn good job checking what I have and separating it. I grew up on wood heat and always seasoned for 2 years C/S/S growing up. I'm well versed in good wood burning practices


As begreen said, "sounds like you've got a handle on that".  
I think we're sometimes quick to jump on the "your trying to burn wet wood" response probably because its so common among those posting with burning issues.
I second begreen's suggestion to look into keeping the heat you make in your house by browsing the "green" and "DIY" forums here.  The more heat you retain the less you cut, move, burn, clean, etc.


----------



## bholler (Mar 2, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> r. I just take offense to the 'says the guy burning green wood' comment


i apologize for that i really though that you had said your wood was not as dry as you would like and you had trouble getting enough split to get it dry my mistake.  But i think you need to change something you are burning a ridiculous amount of wood for a house that is not all that big.  Mine is smaller i have a 40 year old stove and i use half the wood you do.  I do supplement with some oil though about 150 gals so far this year i might hit 200 for the year but if i had a bigger stove i think i could heat the house with 7 to 8 cords on wood alone.


----------



## j7art2 (Mar 3, 2015)

Wood usage has been cut in half since I installed a fresh air intake. I went through 7-8 cords getting to January, and with January and February being by far the coldest months, have only gone through around 3 in two months. It made an incredible difference. I'm not at 12 yet, that's simply what I gathered. I've got about 1 left, so I've technically gone through 11. 

Back on topic though, I'm still struggling to make sense of what the actual EPA wood FURNACE requirements are. They are different regs completely, and looks like they have slightly longer to comply. Drolet is stating that they're making a bigger furnace with a bigger firebox soon that's a step above the Tundra, but I think I'll probably be taking the topic over to the boiler/furnace room, as though it is related, it's more focused on a single type of unit.


----------



## begreen (Mar 3, 2015)

It sounds like you are making good progress and getting a handle on wood heating with the furnace. Here's the new regs for wood furnaces:
http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces
http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 3, 2015)

Here is what Yukon has to say about it. They have a link to the same EPA info that BG just posted. ^ ^ ^ (and some other stuff too)
http://www.yukon-eagle.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=380&tabid=36&portalid=0&mid=653


----------



## j7art2 (Mar 3, 2015)

Good to know that a Super Jack is still a possibility for now. Thank you. 

I've read the regs, I just can't make sense of them. I has the dumb, and cannot compute.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 3, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Good to know that a Super Jack is still a possibility for now. Thank you.
> 
> I've read the regs, I just can't make sense of them. I has the dumb, and cannot compute.


Yeah, it sounds like they can continue selling existing models for a couple more years. My takeaway from what they said was that it will be 2-3 years until we could actually buy a new "EPA" Yukon. I personally am glad that they will have to meet actual testing requirements now instead of just saying "Our furnaces have secondary air so they _must_ burn clean" but then have no real test documentation to back it up.


----------



## j7art2 (Mar 3, 2015)

I could have sworn they claimed 90% efficiency on their units on their website, but that may be 90% for the multi-fuel units, and the efficiency of the 'other' fuel, whether it's LP, natural gas, or fuel oil. 

Regardless, not bad. Once fall comes, I'll be evaluating my money situation and figuring out what the best unit is for the price. The Drolet Tundra is priced right for certain, but the firebox is about the size of my thumb. I don't know if that makes any difference though. The Yukon Eagle isn't much bigger I don't think. Compared to mine, everything but a summer bonfire is a small firebox.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 3, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> they claimed 90% efficiency on their units on their website


         they wish. Notice that word claim...like I said earlier, no docs to back it up. And once that monster is paid for, and sitting in your basement, whatcha gon do about it if their "90%" claims turn out to be...well, large load of steamy BS?


----------



## JRHAWK9 (Mar 6, 2015)

I spoke to Daryl (designer of the Kuuma furnace) and he's all excited about this new requirement.  Finally we will get to see all wood furnace manufacturers tested to the same standard and see who's blowing smoke and who's not (pun intended).  He's going to be going back to Intertek once again very soon to get his furnace re-tested even though the original test back in 2010 was the same one they agreed on.  He said for some reason he now needs to get re-tested with the identical test in order for it to become "official" according to the new EPA requirement.  That's another $25,000.  

brenndatomu, he also stated, after the results of Intertek's first test in 2010 were made public, he had two manufacturers call him asking how he burns wood so clean.  Yukon was one of them.  He told me he pretty much told them to figure it out.


----------



## brenndatomu (Mar 6, 2015)

JRHAWK9 said:


> he had two manufacturers call him asking how he burns wood so clean. Yukon was one of them. He told me he pretty much told them to figure it out.


 Yeah I think I remember hearing that before. There used to be a guy that worked for Yukon that would hang out over on AS, he and Kuuma had some pretty entertaining pizzin matches
I hope they do figure it out though, they have a well built product, just need to clean it up


----------



## DougA (Mar 8, 2015)

Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I haven't been following the thread since I am in Canada. I just saw this article on ABC news and it gives an interesting twist that the new regs. may not be enforced anyway.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/states-fight-wood-fires-burning-29481533

Not saying I agree or disagree, just interesting info and it's always good to hear everything.


----------



## John Ackerly (Mar 9, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> In the entire life of the EPA I have never seen them take a step back. With the auto industry I have seen them extend a deadline when compliance was impossible but for wood stoves many today already meet 2020 standards so that will not happen.



They took some big steps back in this case, compared to what they proposed.  And, it took them 26 years once they started regulating stoves to come back and update the regulations.  Its all about grassroots pressure and pressure from states and industry.  Seems like EPA's job is just to thread the needle so as to give something to everyone, but not go too far in any direction.


----------



## begreen (Mar 9, 2015)

Our national energy policy is a mess. It lacks a comprehensive vision. Since the 70s it has been more reactionary and crisis managed than a good long term plan that industry and manufacturers can invest, innovate and develop around. I wish I could say that we are learning and getting better at planning but instead it is becoming more political and divisive. _"Money talks, nobody walks."_


----------



## John Ackerly (Mar 9, 2015)

DougA said:


> Sorry if this is a duplicate post. I haven't been following the thread since I am in Canada. I just saw this article on ABC news and it gives an interesting twist that the new regs. may not be enforced anyway.
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/states-fight-wood-fires-burning-29481533
> .



That's just about state's posturing and saying their agencies won't enforce the NSPS, even though they never enforced the previous one.  95% of enforcement is by the EPA directly with manufacturers and testing labs.  Some of those states pass similar laws to all EPA regs.


----------



## valuman (Mar 16, 2015)

I just came across this article, discussing EPA requirements, two state's positions on them and the overall concerns around particulate emissions. There's also a little about the impact of requiring stove upgrades and one city's solution to helping people make the change.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...ont-per-capita-wood-stove-emissions/24784007/



> MONTPELIER – The heavily forested states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are among the top five in the country for the per capita emission of pollutants from wood stoves used to heat homes.
> 
> Statistics compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency show that residential wood stoves in Vermont emit just over 22 pounds per person, almost double that of Minnesota, the No. 2 state. Maine is fourth and New Hampshire is fifth.
> 
> ...


----------



## John Ackerly (Mar 17, 2015)

The NSPS, after a very long and strange trip, becomes law on May 15 - regardless of any lawsuits filed before then.  We read through it and put together a list of how it will impact consumers and what they can expect.

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/03/what-consumers-need-to-know-about-new.html

Would love to hear if anyone thinks we are off base in how we present this to consumers.

The bottom line is that I suspect 90% of consumers won't ever notice that there is a new law - even in 2020.  Two big price increases that consumers will see don't come from having to redesign stoves, but from simply having to buy better ones already on the market.  THe real cheapo exempt wood stoves for $300 - $600 will disappear as of Jan. 1, 2016, though single burn rate stoves can stay on market if they hit the same emissions levels of adjustable stoves.  I'm not sure there is a market for a single burn rate stove anymore, if it has to be certified.  The other similar big price change is that is about 40 states, you won't be able to buy a cheap outdoor boiler after Jan. 1, 2016 because they too come off the market.  Cheap, uncertified furnaces got a 1 - 2 year lease on life.

So in the end, the test method didn't change, there is no requirement to use cord wood, and the really strict 1.3 gr/hr didn't stick.  But the alternative, voluntary compliance option with cordwood is a pretty huge step, and may be the most important legacy of this drawn out rule.  

We hear that HPBA is suing on the cost effectiveness of Step 2 standards.  Anyone else planning on suing?  I think these suits are a waste of time and money - but I may be wrong.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 20, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> But the alternative, voluntary compliance option with cordwood is a pretty huge step,


 
Hey John,
 did the EPA come up with any parameters as far as testing with cordwood , (species, moisture content load size per CF of firebox etc.)?

strikes me that "cordwood" is a pretty broad description


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

begreen said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing some of the new solutions that will be coming out. It doesn't have to be a revolution. As noted, Englander & Harmon already are there with some of their stoves. VC too.


What has VC come out with that is new since 2010?  Not being a smartass being serious.

Thanks again,
Glenn


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2015)

Do they need to? VC already has stoves that meet the 2020 requirements, as does the 9+ yr old Englander 30NC design. The point is that in spite of all the complaining, some mfgs. have already met the spec. It's possible without adding a kings ransom to the stove price. The 30NC sells for $899.


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

begreen said:


> Do they need to? VC already has stoves that meet the 2020 specs, as does the 9? yr old Englander 30NC design. The point is that in spite of all the complaining, some mfgs. have already met the spec. It is possible without adding a kings ransom to the stove price. The 30NC sells for $899.




Agreed.  I thought you meant they had come out with something new.


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2015)

No, not that I know of. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do under the new owners.


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

begreen said:


> No, not that I know of. Though it wouldn't surprise me if they do under the new owners.



I sure wish they would.  I sell VC stoves (along with a few others) and they make a great product but they could improve on them a lot.


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2015)

How are the newer FlexBurns with their tougher refractory standing up so far?


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

There stoves from 2010 on have been excellent and out of 40+ stoves sold I have had one issue and they took care of it right away.  Flaw in one of the castings where it cracked from maybe an air pocket but clearly was not from over firing.  The refractory has been great and I accidentally dropped one of the cumbuster refractory covers on the hearth and it did not have so much as a scratch.


----------



## begreen (Apr 12, 2015)

Good to hear that. They already have some of the best looking stoves on the market. If the refractory can last at least 10 yrs. they should be back on the road to recovery with a stove that is EPA phase 3 ready at no additional cost.


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

Agreed.  I just wish they would do away with the rear hidden combustor.  Allow us to see the secondary burn.


----------



## bholler (Apr 12, 2015)

grobinson2 said:


> Agreed. I just wish they would do away with the rear hidden combustor. Allow us to see the secondary burn.


And make them easier to service while they are at it


----------



## grobinson2 (Apr 12, 2015)

Agreed


----------



## Scotty2 (Apr 25, 2015)

The new regs are confusing. 
Is there a list showing what hydronic wood furnaces will meet the new codes or are there any?
I'm hoping to install a outside freestanding unit to eventually heat several building on the property, and I'd hate to make the investment, only to be required to remove upon selling.
In Oregon http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/burning/woodstoves/questions.htm they state that upon selling a home, all noncompliant stoves must be removed and dismantled.


----------

