# Registration of wood stoves.



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 9, 2020)

If you live in Alaska, you now have to register your wood stove when you purchase it. Any thoughts?


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

I don't live in Alaska so I don't care in the least.  But even if I did I wouldn't care that much


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 9, 2020)

Thanks for your response. Your a peach.


----------



## Bad LP (Jan 9, 2020)

Just like my guns? Ya. OK.


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 9, 2020)

Yes. Registration is confiscation.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 9, 2020)

I'd buy it 2nd hand.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jan 9, 2020)

How many wood stoves will sink in canoeing accidents?


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Yes. Registration is confiscation.


Anything to support that????


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I'd buy it 2nd hand.


That would still require registration.  According to what I read it is all about research into their air quality issues.


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 9, 2020)

Yes, it's always about about air quality and the environment, but really it's about control.


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Yes, it's always about about air quality and the environment, but really it's about control.


Any evidence of that???


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

It is also only for residents of the Fairbanks Northstar borough


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 9, 2020)

The evidence is right in your face.  They are not even hiding it anymore. If you can't see what is going on then their is no help for you.  You are made to register just about everything. Car, boat, four wheeler, trailer, snowmobile, your firearms in some states and on an on. And now your means of keeping yourself warm with wood stoves. Money and control.  I posted a simple thread about wood stove registration and you made it perfectly clear that you dont care. So be it.


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> The evidence is right in your face.  They are not even hiding it anymore. If you can't see what is going on then their is no help for you.  You are made to register just about everything. Car, boat, four wheeler, trailer, snowmobile, your firearms in some states and on an on. And now your means of keeping yourself warm with wood stoves. Money and control.  I posted a simple thread about wood stove registration and you made it perfectly clear that you dont care. So be it.


And how often are cars boats trailers etc confiscated???


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Why didn't you mention this only applies to one borough in Alaska?


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 9, 2020)

My understanding is that there are areas of bad air pollution around there, attributed to wood smoke.  While I'm generally against the govt being too involved, often times folks acting in their own interests, when using a common resource (in this case, the air), the common resource gets destroyed.   I learned about this in 8th grade English class in an old piece called "The Tragedy of the Commons".

So, the govt, acting in it's most valuable form, is acting to protect the common resource.  Which is a very good thing.

What would be a better method to protect the air that everyone needs?  I'm not asking fascitiously, I'd really be interested to hear some ideas.

For the record, I don't believe the intent is confiscation, but it definitely is control.  The problem is, once the cat is out of the bag, there is no way to know what future people will do with it.  I'm not fearful that the folks in that area are going to lose the right to heat with wood, at least anytime soon.


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Easy Livin’ 3000 said:


> My understanding is that there are areas of bad air pollution around there, attributed to wood smoke.  While I'm generally against the govt being too involved, often times folks acting in their own interests, when using a common resource (in this case, the air), the common resource gets destroyed.   I learned about this in 8th grade English class in an old piece called "The Tragedy of the Commons".
> 
> So, the govt, acting in it's most valuable form, is acting to protect the common resource.  Which is a very good thing.
> 
> ...


Very well said


----------



## Bad LP (Jan 9, 2020)

Let’s just keep giving .gov more power.


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Bad LP said:


> Let’s just keep giving .gov more power.


If you lived in an area where air quality was a big problem you may be glad they were doing research to help change that.

And btw this is simply a local ordinance.


----------



## Grizzerbear (Jan 9, 2020)

My guess is down the road the registration will lead to some form of a tax.


----------



## Bad LP (Jan 9, 2020)

bholler said:


> If you lived in an area where air quality was a big problem you may be glad they were doing research to help change that.
> 
> And btw this is simply a local ordinance.


The EPA did an air study in my very remote area saying it was the terrain and prevailing winds plus some other crap. The town I’m in is 25k acres like every other “township”. There are 125 voters. The next 3 towns north might have another 30. One town south is less than 2000. Look up Moosehead Lake Maine. 
What kind of study looks at such a remote place for wood burning? Having 10k NW winds is very common. NW of there is more very low population areas. 

I could go on.


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Bad LP said:


> The EPA did an air study in my very remote area saying it was the terrain and prevailing winds plus some other crap. The town I’m in is 25k acres like every other “township”. There are 125 voters. The next 3 towns north might have another 30. One town south is less than 2000. Look up Moosehead Lake Maine.
> What kind of study looks at such a remote place for wood burning? Having 10k NW winds is very common. NW of there is more very low population areas.
> 
> I could go on.


I would assume a study intended to determine the effects of wood burning in remote low population areas.  But that's just a guess


----------



## bholler (Jan 9, 2020)

Grizzerbear said:


> My guess is down the road the registration will lead to some form of a tax.


To me that sounds more likely than confiscation


----------



## Jan Pijpelink (Jan 9, 2020)

Recently I have been reading in Dutch newspapers, that their National Environmental Agency *advised* not to burn wood stoves on certain days. Those certain days are days when there is dense fog (which is common there), almost no wind, etc. In a heavily populated area, under certain circumstances, an advisory like that is not bad. Registration, I don't know. Having said that, there are now government officials in The Netherlands talking about banning all wood burning appliances. Some towns are already implementing that.


----------



## Grizzerbear (Jan 10, 2020)

I believe someday having to register will happen nationwide. In our lifetimes? Idk. What i do know is once registered they will most likely implement a tax added to your real estate taxes. When taxes arent paid liens are eventually the next course. I realize that most people will just pay the tax and no big deal. The problem is the registration is just another way for the government to create revenue and bleed citizens dry and then waste it on some bs that isnt helping anyone in this country or the world around us. Im not a conspiracy theorist. I believe all of government is working against the average citizen and always will.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 10, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Yes, it's always about about air quality and the environment, but really it's about control.


Why is improved air quality a bad thing?


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 10, 2020)

Bad LP said:


> The EPA did an air study in my very remote area saying it was the terrain and prevailing winds plus some other crap. The town I’m in is 25k acres like every other “township”. There are 125 voters. The next 3 towns north might have another 30. One town south is less than 2000. Look up Moosehead Lake Maine.
> What kind of study looks at such a remote place for wood burning? Having 10k NW winds is very common. NW of there is more very low population areas.
> 
> I could go on.


They look at remote areas because the only air contamination is from wood smoke. There are no Teflon plants or steel mills in remote Alaska or Maine.


----------



## Bad LP (Jan 10, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> They look at remote areas because the only air contamination is from wood smoke. There are no Teflon plants or steel mills in remote Alaska or Maine.


Ya. My point was I’m Slightly more concerned about general air pollution than a little wood smoke on the edge of nowhere.


----------



## bholler (Jan 10, 2020)

Bad LP said:


> Ya. My point was I’m Slightly more concerned about general air pollution than a little wood smoke on the edge of nowhere.


Yes but by studying it where there is little other air pollution it gives them clearer data on just wood burning


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 10, 2020)

bholler said:


> Yes but by studying it where there is little other air pollution it gives them clearer data on just wood burning


It's ironic that the word "control" has popped up here several times.  It was the right word, but the wrong meaning of the word.

Brilliant.


----------



## begreen (Jan 10, 2020)

They have a serious pollution problem and they are trying to get a handle on it.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 11, 2020)

Anyone familiar with the "tragedy of the commons"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ? In the case of a local region with degraded air quality, the commons is the air. Everyone is contributing to it but no one wants to fix it as its lot easier to just blame someone else. Thus government gets to step in and figure it out. In this case registration is the first step in trying to figure out if there are low hanging fruit to improve air quality. Frequently it comes down to just a few bad apples are making the bulk of the pollution.

There is off the shelf technology that could easily pick up every operating woodburning appliance in a particular area on cold day. Just fly over an area snap a thermal image on a cold day and all the major heat sources will pop up. Then just screen for a certain temperature range and that would get pretty close to identifying the wood burners. From there there are  laser based  devices that can estimate emissions from a stack from a distance. No need to go on the private property just sit ont he public road and aim. If the stack is hidden from a public road just do it from a black helicopter .


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Anyone familiar with the "tragedy of the commons"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ? In the case of a local region with degraded air quality, the commons is the air. Everyone is contributing to it but no one wants to fix it as its lot easier to just blame someone else. Thus government gets to step in and figure it out. In this case registration is the first step in trying to figure out if there are low hanging fruit to improve air quality. Frequently it comes down to just a few bad apples are making the bulk of the pollution.
> 
> There is off the shelf technology that could easily pick up every operating woodburning appliance in a particular area on cold day. Just fly over an area snap a thermal image on a cold day and all the major heat sources will pop up. Then just screen for a certain temperature range and that would get pretty close to identifying the wood burners. From there there are  laser based  devices that can estimate emissions from a stack from a distance. No need to go on the private property just sit ont he public road and aim. If the stack is hidden from a public road just do it from a black helicopter .


That might go over about as well as the registery


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 11, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Anyone familiar with the "tragedy of the commons"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons ? In the case of a local region with degraded air quality, the commons is the air. Everyone is contributing to it but no one wants to fix it as its lot easier to just blame someone else. Thus government gets to step in and figure it out. In this case registration is the first step in trying to figure out if there are low hanging fruit to improve air quality. Frequently it comes down to just a few bad apples are making the bulk of the pollution.
> 
> There is off the shelf technology that could easily pick up every operating woodburning appliance in a particular area on cold day. Just fly over an area snap a thermal image on a cold day and all the major heat sources will pop up. Then just screen for a certain temperature range and that would get pretty close to identifying the wood burners. From there there are  laser based  devices that can estimate emissions from a stack from a distance. No need to go on the private property just sit ont he public road and aim. If the stack is hidden from a public road just do it from a black helicopter .


I expect that drones will get the same thing done at a tiny fraction of the cost.  I had my first experience with this a couple of weeks ago when I stepped out the back door and heard a fan noise.  I looked around for where it was coming from, and finally looked up. There it was, a drone hovering right over my house.  When they saw I was looking at it, it quickly disappeared over a hill.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 11, 2020)

Easy Livin’ 3000 said:


> I expect that drones will get the same thing done at a tiny fraction of the cost.  I had my first experience with this a couple of weeks ago when I stepped out the back door and heard a fan noise.  I looked around for where it was coming from, and finally looked up. There it was, a drone hovering right over my house.  When they saw I was looking at it, it quickly disappeared over a hill.


That's creepy. I think I would be investing in a ranged weapon that didn't use explosives.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000 (Jan 11, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> That's creepy. I think I would be investing in a ranged weapon that didn't use explosives.


It was so creepy.  

It was far enough away that it would have been hard to hit with a pellet gun, etc., at least for me.   I suspect it was just a nosy neighbor with her new Christmas toy, but I have no doubt that local governments will want to use them to keep their eyes on everything.

This will be a developing area of law, which is always playing catch up with technology.

My favorite story of govt going bad was a local school administrator that was turning on the cameras on the students borrowed laptops, in the students rooms.  One of the kids lit up a joint or something, while in front of the computer in their room, and the genius administrator tried to punish the kid, revealing that they were spying on the kids at home.

There will be plenty more stories like this.


----------



## peakbagger (Jan 11, 2020)

I pick "black helicopters" as they line up with with the anti authoritarian bent of this thread


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 12, 2020)

Because when the shtf, which it will really soon, wood heat will get you through the winter not gas, or oil, or electricity.


----------



## begreen (Jan 12, 2020)

I can remember hearing that exact same statement around the year 2000 and further back by some Jehovah's Witnesses in the early 1980s.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Jan 12, 2020)

begreen said:


> I can remember hearing that exact same statement around the year 2000 and further back by some Jehovah's Witnesses in the early 1980s.


And similar statements back as far as...whoa... 66 CE:









						List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




There is nothing new under the sun, as usual.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jan 12, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> And similar statements back as far as...whoa... 66 CE:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I do agree with your message and tell many others the same thing. Disasters are real, and it does feel like the world is ending for folks in Puerto Rico and Australia.


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 12, 2020)

I love this website. I have gained a lot of knowledge about wood stoves. I love all things wood stove related, but some of you have not the the eyes to see, or the ears too hear.


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jan 12, 2020)

I love this web site and everything to do with wood stoves but some of you do not have the eyes too see or the ears too hear.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Jan 12, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> While I do agree with your message and tell many others the same thing. Disasters are real, and it does feel like the world is ending for folks in Puerto Rico and Australia.



I agree, 100%.   Disasters are real, and a big reason people in them feel as if the world is ending is because we haven't quite set up the sort of world in which we all help each other out.  I don't pretend I'm an exception to this, either.     

The fires in Australia are terrible.  The situation in Puerto Rico is a crime; if this was instead in, say, Florida, the federal government would throw so many resources their way that it would make our heads spin.  I assume it is pretty obvious why this isn't happening for PR, in spite of the fact that they are US citizens.

Just yesterday I listened to an old Radiolab episode, "Playing God" -- the segment about Katrina (from the book "Five Days at Memorial") is a good listen on the subject of disasters that border on apocalypse.  





__





						Playing God
					

When people are dying and you can only save some, how do you choose? What happens, what should happen, when humans are forced to play god?




					www.wnycstudios.org
				




I kind of think the subject of this current thread, though, is something a bit different, and that's why I posted what I did.  I didn't mean to minimize any real tragedies, which there are many now and in the past and in the future.


----------



## bholler (Jan 13, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> I love this web site and everything to do with wood stoves but some of you do not have the eyes too see or the ears too hear.


That is your perspective.  Many of us feel the same way about people with your views.   That is specifically why we try to keep the political discussion to a minimum here.  There are many different perspectives here but that doesn't mean we shouldn't overlook those differences and help each other out.


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 6, 2020)

"Thousands of area homes would need to switch to No. 1 fuel oil beginning in July 2020, which will increase costs. "

How'd you like it if the gov't told you that you had to stop burning wood and switch fuel oil, many can't afford that. Not only the cost of the furnace but the fluctuating high cost of fuel oil.


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 6, 2020)

bholler said:


> Anything to support that????



The Golden Valley Electric Association will be asked to burn No. 1 fuel oil on bad air days, while older-model wood stoves, coal-fired heaters and outdoor hydronic heaters will have until December 2024 to be removed and destroyed.


----------



## bholler (Feb 7, 2020)

Sodbuster said:


> The Golden Valley Electric Association will be asked to burn No. 1 fuel oil on bad air days, while older-model wood stoves, coal-fired heaters and outdoor hydronic heaters will have until December 2024 to be removed and destroyed.


Ok but you can still burn wood in a modern stove right?


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Feb 7, 2020)

bholler said:


> Ok but you can still burn wood in a modern stove right?


Yes, in one that the municipality will fund for those who need funding, up to $4,000.





__





						21.28.040 Voluntary removal, replacement, repair, and bounty program | Fairbanks North Star Borough Code
					






					fnsb.borough.codes
				




I couldn't find anything on the alleged forced shift from wood to fuel oil, @Sodbuster -- do you have a link or other reference to support that?  The reason I ask is that the borough codes includes this:

"B. The Fairbanks North Star Borough, excluding the natural gas utility, shall not in any way regulate, prohibit, curtail, ban, nor issue fines or fees associated with the sale, distribution, installation or operation of solid fuel heating appliances or any type of combustible fuels.             (Ord. 2018-45 § 2, 2018; added by citizen initiative 10/25/18.)     "


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Feb 7, 2020)

Sodbuster said:


> "Thousands of area homes would need to switch to No. 1 fuel oil beginning in July 2020, which will increase costs. "


 Ah, found it.  A US News piece from May 2019 that includes the following: "The rules still require the signature of Republican Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer in order to become law."



			https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alaska/articles/2019-05-15/alaska-borough-residents-face-new-heating-pollution-controls
		


I find no legislation supporting this, but perhaps I don't know where to look.  Anyone?


----------



## SpaceBus (Feb 7, 2020)

Sodbuster said:


> The Golden Valley Electric Association will be asked to burn No. 1 fuel oil on bad air days, while older-model wood stoves, coal-fired heaters and outdoor hydronic heaters will have until December 2024 to be removed and destroyed.


Key term "older model". Sounds like EPA stuff is unaffected.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Feb 7, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Key term "older model". Sounds like EPA stuff is unaffected.


True enough technically, but keep in mind that the quote you are responding to also dates back to May 2019, and is conditional speculation that I've found no evidence has become law.   Another quote from that same dated AP release:

"Air pollution enforcement will focus on voluntary compliance, said conservation commissioner Jason Brune"









						Fairbanks-area residents face new controls on pollution from heat sources
					

The draft rules made public by the state  are expected to result in additional bans on burning wood and coal in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, as well as higher fuel oil and electric bills.




					www.adn.com


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 7, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> Ah, found it.  A US News piece from May 2019 that includes the following: "The rules still require the signature of Republican Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer in order to become law."
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Alaska borough residents face new heating pollution controls
					

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AP) — Residents of an Alaska borough who burn wood, coal and oil for heat are facing new air pollution control measures. The draft rules made public by the state Tuesday...




					apnews.com
				




This is all I can find, I don't know whether the Governor signed it into law or not, and I have not read the actual wording of the legislation. The article is vague as to what older stoves are, I'm assuming that it would mean anything older that does not meet the new 2020 emission standards.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Feb 7, 2020)

OK.  You were quoting taking points on an eight month old draft bill -- which is apparently now dead --as if it were law, and using it to argue a point about governmental coercion, when in fact what seems to be the case is that folks in that borough are being offered funding for cost saving, environmentally beneficial, and public health improving upgrades to their home heating system of choice.

Whether intended or not, that is very misleading, and even worse some people are happy to be mislead if it feeds into their preconceptions about how the world works.  Glad we're more clear about things now.


----------



## Sodbuster (Feb 7, 2020)

Socratic Monologue said:


> OK.  You were quoting taking points on an eight month old draft bill -- which is apparently now dead --as if it were law, and using it to argue a point about governmental coercion, when in fact what seems to be the case is that folks in that borough are being offered funding for cost saving, environmentally beneficial, and public health improving upgrades to their home heating system of choice.
> 
> Whether intended or not, that is very misleading, and even worse some people are happy to be mislead if it feeds into their preconceptions about how the world works.  Glad we're more clear about things now.



It was not my intention to be misleading, only that the legislation was there or had been there for the Governor to sign. All it takes is a new administration, and it could be right back on the table. I guess my take away from this whole thing, should be concerning to all of us who burn wood for heat. Things can start small and locally and can expand over time. I wasn't trying to be an alarmist.


----------



## thrifty (Mar 2, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> If you live in Alaska, you now have to register your wood stove when you purchase it. Any thoughts?


In my area we have occasional "air quality advisories" due to temperature inversions.  If wood burners were registered the health dept. could send out emails such as---If you have an alternative heating source please discontinue wood burning until the advisory has expired---  The way it is now I light my insert, turn on the news and then find out it wasn't the best idea.  This can happen  2 or 3 times in a winter or some years not at all .  In areas with more frequent inversions this could be a possible use for registration.


----------



## Sodbuster (Mar 2, 2020)

thrifty said:


> In my area we have occasional "air quality advisories" due to temperature inversions.  If wood burners were registered the health dept. could send out emails such as---If you have an alternative heating source please discontinue wood burning until the advisory has expired---  The way it is now I light my insert, turn on the news and then find out it wasn't the best idea.  This can happen  2 or 3 times in a winter or some years not at all .  In areas with more frequent inversions this could be a possible use for registration.



Once you register it, they can tax it.


----------



## SpaceBus (Mar 3, 2020)

Sodbuster said:


> Once you register it, they can tax it.


They already taxed it when you bought it. There's tax on the fuel, the splitter, the saw, and many other parts in this process. If you buy the wood, then that is taxed too. The man is already getting paid, don't worry. They have much more to worry about than wood stoves, which are a tiny minority of this country.


----------



## gzecc (Mar 3, 2020)

Grizzerbear said:


> My guess is down the road the registration will lead to some form of a tax.


Bingo


----------



## gzecc (Mar 3, 2020)

Sodbuster said:


> Once you register it, they can tax it.


Bingo!!


----------



## Bad LP (Mar 3, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> They already taxed it when you bought it. There's tax on the fuel, the splitter, the saw, and many other parts in this process. If you buy the wood, then that is taxed too. The man is already getting paid, don't worry. They have much more to worry about than wood stoves, which are a tiny minority of this country.


Not when I buy it in NH or stove shop took my cash. My spliter is electric so the tax man only gets a few shillings for the gas in the saw. LOL.

However he did get his blood on my wages.


----------



## Sodbuster (Mar 3, 2020)

gzecc said:


> Bingo!!



Bought my saw through the farm, no tax, bought my splitter used, no tax,  and when was the last time you paid tax to a private individual selling firewood, it's called CASH. Don't think they won't look at wood stoves in the future, like a gas guzzler tax on big trucks.  If they want to discourage an activity, they tax it, I don't smoke and never have, but look at cigarettes. I was behind a guy the other day that dropped $150 on a cartons of ciggys.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Mar 3, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> They already taxed it when you bought it. There's tax on the fuel, the splitter, the saw, and many other parts in this process. If you buy the wood, then that is taxed too. The man is already getting paid, don't worry. They have much more to worry about than wood stoves, which are a tiny minority of this country.


You missed the "potential biggie" here in the land of big Govt: property tax.
A central air system install, where there was none, will cost about $10-12K to the contractor. The town requires a permit for that and happily adds that to the home's assessed valuation. Here on LI,NY that's good for about $100-150 per year on your home tax bill, forever. 
Install a new swimming pool with concrete sitting area? That adds between $800-1000 per year to your annual Property Tax bill, forever.

So it is not beyond reason to assume the "registration" will finally catch those dastardly homeowners who install a wood-stove for cash and try to avoid the Town Tax Man Person.


----------



## SpaceBus (Mar 3, 2020)

CaptSpiff said:


> You missed the "potential biggie" here in the land of big Govt: property tax.
> A central air system install, where there was none, will cost about $10-12K to the contractor. The town requires a permit for that and happily adds that to the home's assessed valuation. Here on LI,NY that's good for about $100-150 per year on your home tax bill, forever.
> Install a new swimming pool with concrete sitting area? That adds between $800-1000 per year to your annual Property Tax bill, forever.
> 
> So it is not beyond reason to assume the "registration" will finally catch those dastardly homeowners who install a wood-stove for cash and try to avoid the Town Tax Man Person.


There's not a lot to be gained in a home value from wood burning appliances. In some cases they could devalue the house.


----------



## Sodbuster (Mar 3, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> There's not a lot to be gained in a home value from wood burning appliances. In some cases they could devalue the house.



Around here they use any excuse to raise your property taxes. Just because a house has a wood burning appliance doesn't mean you have to use it.


----------



## Ludlow (Apr 20, 2020)

I dont think burning wood for heat will survive the Green new deal should it ever get implemented. I am sure it is in the crosshairs  like everything else.  There are just way too many people on this planet for things staying the same. It's the monster that just keeps growing.  No government ever stops coming up with ideas to control your life.


----------



## bholler (Apr 20, 2020)

Ludlow said:


> I dont think burning wood for heat will survive the Green new deal should it ever get implemented. I am sure it is in the crosshairs  like everything else.  There are just way too many people on this planet for things staying the same. It's the monster that just keeps growing.  No government ever stops coming up with ideas to control your life.


That is not backed by any facts at all.


----------



## SpaceBus (Apr 21, 2020)

Ludlow said:


> I dont think burning wood for heat will survive the Green new deal should it ever get implemented. I am sure it is in the crosshairs  like everything else.  There are just way too many people on this planet for things staying the same. It's the monster that just keeps growing.  No government ever stops coming up with ideas to control your life.


What's your reasoning for this?


----------



## Ludlow (Apr 21, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> What's your reasoning for this?




What does : "All homes will be zero emissions" mean to you?


----------



## CaptSpiff (Apr 21, 2020)

Ludlow said:


> What does : "All homes will be zero emissions" mean to you?


That is absolutely the stated goal: zero emissions.
Naturally the details get worked out in negotiations and agreements. Nothing happens immediately, but within 10 years all emissions will be regulated on a point source (ie individual appliances). Our open fireplaces will probably have a "user fee" under the guise of recreational use, addressed by both federal, state and local regulations.

Personally I prefer the details be managed by state or local entities, under umbrella type regulations from the fed. But I'm under no illusion that the "chimney" will join the horse carriage in the history books.


----------



## Ludlow (Apr 21, 2020)

CaptSpiff said:


> That is absolutely the stated goal: zero emissions.
> Naturally the details get worked out in negotiations and agreements. Nothing happens immediately, but within 10 years all emissions will be regulated on a point source (ie individual appliances). Our open fireplaces will probably have a "user fee" under the guise of recreational use, addressed by both federal, state and local regulations.
> 
> Personally I prefer the details be managed by state or local entities, under umbrella type regulations from the fed. But I'm under no illusion that the "chimney" will join the horse carriage in the history books.



Some refuse to admit it. Seems like they deflect from it for some reason. It may not happen in my lifetime. It will happen.


----------



## SpaceBus (Apr 21, 2020)

Wood as an energy source will never be outlawed. It's renewable which offsets the emissions, which in practical terms makes wood heat zero emissions. Wood burning appliances will become more and more efficient, with lower and lower emissions. At some point all of the particulates will remain in the ash and the chimney will only exhaust hot air and water vapor.


----------



## bholler (Apr 21, 2020)

Ludlow said:


> Some refuse to admit it. Seems like they deflect from it for some reason. It may not happen in my lifetime. It will happen.


It will never happen nationally.


----------



## bholler (Apr 21, 2020)

Ludlow said:


> What does : "All homes will be zero emissions" mean to you?


That is physically impossible so it will never happen


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 21, 2020)

Use the hoops that California  went through on ZEVs, PZEX, SULEVS and PHEVs (probably missed a few. It depends where the bubble is drawn. Up until Navajo Electric shut down, PZEVs could be cleaner than ZEVs charged with grid power. The devil is always in the details. The Manomet study that Mass paid for came to the conclusion that burning biomass was dirtier than coal. Even the authors came out afterwards and admitted that they were told what conclusions they needed to come to prior to writing the study. One of the big issues of late is the speed where a technology breaks even on sustainable, In order to make climate change "real" to the general population is to accelerate the impact to shorten the time scale, thus there are discussions  that a technology is not sustainable enough and should be net positive in environmental impact.

There are lot of fingers pointed at the Drax power generation station in the UK. Its was converted to burn biomass to the tune of 7.5 million tons a year. Its generally regarded that it burns about 10 % of the wood pellets produced in the world.  It was a coal plant previously. So  this is great progress from the UKs point of view?  Now pull back and look at the world climate point of view and it gets bit dicier, the UK doesn't have a lot of trees and they sure dont want to cut them to make pellets so they ship the pellets in from the southeast of the US and Canada.  I am unsure for the Canadian supplies but the US pellets are made  from plantation grown genetically altered wood. This is not scraps from lumber operations these are trees designed and grown to be ground up into pellets.  How do these pellets get to the UK? they go on cargo ships fueled by bunker C fuel oil.  There are also issues that the nutrients are getting sucked out of the soil in the US and never being returned, this degrades the soil long term.

Biomass plants are not incredibly efficient, they do not burn as hot as coal so the cycle efficiency is lower than coal. The plants generally need to be base loaded.  Compare that to a natural gas combined cycle plant at a considerable higher efficiency which can vary its output.

Now it gets bit murkier on exactly how sustainable Drax is. It all depends on who draws the boundaries. The same thing is going to apply to the Green New Deal.


----------



## bholler (Apr 21, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> Use the hoops that California  went through on ZEVs, PZEX, SULEVS and PHEVs (probably missed a few. It depends where the bubble is drawn. Up until Navajo Electric shut down, PZEVs could be cleaner than ZEVs charged with grid power. The devil is always in the details. The Manomet study that Mass paid for came to the conclusion that burning biomass was dirtier than coal. Even the authors came out afterwards and admitted that they were told what conclusions they needed to come to prior to writing the study. One of the big issues of late is the speed where a technology breaks even on sustainable, In order to make climate change "real" to the general population is to accelerate the impact to shorten the time scale, thus there are discussions  that a technology is not sustainable enough and should be net positive in environmental impact.
> 
> There are lot of fingers pointed at the Drax power generation station in the UK. Its was converted to burn biomass to the tune of 7.5 million tons a year. Its generally regarded that it burns about 10 % of the wood pellets produced in the world.  It was a coal plant previously. So  this is great progress from the UKs point of view?  Now pull back and look at the world climate point of view and it gets bit dicier, the UK doesn't have a lot of trees and they sure dont want to cut them to make pellets so they ship the pellets in from the southeast of the US and Canada.  I am unsure for the Canadian supplies but the US pellets are made  from plantation grown genetically altered wood. This is not scraps from lumber operations these are trees designed and grown to be ground up into pellets.  How do these pellets get to the UK? they go on cargo ships fueled by bunker C fuel oil.  There are also issues that the nutrients are getting sucked out of the soil in the US and never being returned, this degrades the soil long term.
> 
> ...


???  Not sure I understand how this relates.


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 21, 2020)

The thread had shifted over to zero emission homes. I was pointing and illustrating that who and how zero emission is defined will vary.  If someone wants to define wood burning as zero emssions then no need to register the stove but if the want to define them another way as gross polluter than they may need to be registered.


----------



## bholler (Apr 21, 2020)

peakbagger said:


> The thread had shifted over to zero emission homes. I was pointing and illustrating that who and how zero emission is defined will vary.  If someone wants to define wood burning as zero emssions then no need to register the stove but if the want to define them another way as gross polluter than they may need to be registered.


They only need to be registered in one community in Alaska.


----------



## bholler (Apr 21, 2020)

And there are no zero emission homes


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Jul 30, 2020)

Isn't it funny. The EPA said that wood stoves where causing pollution. What about the chem trails that they have been blowing into the atmosphere for years and years. That is your problem, not stoves.


----------



## begreen (Jul 30, 2020)

No it isn't. That is an entirely different issue.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jul 31, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Isn't it funny. The EPA said that wood stoves where causing pollution. What about the chem trails that they have been blowing into the atmosphere for years and years. That is your problem, not stoves.


Are they a problem?


----------



## bholler (Jul 31, 2020)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Isn't it funny. The EPA said that wood stoves where causing pollution. What about the chem trails that they have been blowing into the atmosphere for years and years. That is your problem, not stoves.


Wow.


----------



## paulnlee (Jul 31, 2020)

Don't diddle Riddlefiddle, too many greenies here


----------



## bholler (Jul 31, 2020)

paulnlee said:


> Don't diddle Riddlefiddle, too many greenies here


What does being a greeny or not have to do with chem trails?  Or wanting to look at actual facts instead of rumors.


----------



## SpaceBus (Jul 31, 2020)

paulnlee said:


> Don't diddle Riddlefiddle, too many greenies here


Do you also believe the chem trails are harmful?


----------



## begreen (Aug 1, 2020)

SpaceBus said:


> Do you also believe the chem trails are harmful?


There is some evidence regarding higher cancer rates in residences close to major airports. Other than that, most reports seem to be conspiracy theory if talking about water vapor trails in the high atmosphere. This is way off-topic.








						Chemtrails conspiracy theory gets put to the ultimate test
					

What happened when 77 atmospheric scientists actually took a look at the claim that aircraft are spewing out mind-controlling chemicals, wonders Phil Plait




					www.newscientist.com


----------



## WiscWoody (Aug 3, 2020)

I wouldn’t really care if a stove I bought was registered at the POS. (thats point of sale...) I highly doubt the wood stove police would be knocking on my door someday to take away my heater. And I don’t care if they want to take away my guns cos I dont own any. I don’t  see any reason to own any myself. Up here we leave the keys in the trucks and the doors to the houses unlocked. I don’t feel the least bit frightened by anyone or anything up here. Oh, and I don’t hunt either.


----------



## ABMax24 (Aug 3, 2020)

My question is what purpose does registering a stove actually serve? Other than to give the government control to either tax them or restrict their use. Either way I'm not a supporter, forcing manufacturers to build emissions approved stoves is the best way to prevent pollution anyway.


----------



## SpaceBus (Aug 4, 2020)

It's a way to study how folks are burning their stoves, what stoves they are burning, and how this affects emissions and air quality. This specific instance is a local government initiative, not a federal or high up government. I don't think community leaders are looking to outlaw wood stoves in Alaska.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 3, 2022)

Well, it sounds like my home will demand a premium should I decide to sell it!


----------



## Riddlefiddle (Mar 3, 2022)

Although if you already have an existing wood stove, it sounds like you will be grandfathered in.


----------



## stoveliker (Mar 3, 2022)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Well here we go. The current governor of New York has said that by October 22nd 2022, any new builds can only be heated by electric only in New york state. Bye bye wood stoves.



Can you please provide the source?
Quite concerning (and shortsighted) if true...


----------



## bholler (Mar 3, 2022)

Riddlefiddle said:


> Well here we go. The current governor of New York has said that by October 22nd 2022, any new builds can only be heated by electric only in Jew york state. Bye bye wood stoves.


That is not what the bill says.  I don't agree with what it does say but there isn't anything in it regarding woodstoves.   Try actually reading the bill


----------

