# Insight video report concerning OWBs.



## tronsliver (Sep 28, 2013)

Here is a link to a recent video report concerning OWBs.  What makes this report different are perspectives from Central Boiler's law firm and Farm Bureau.  With the anticipated changes to NSPS now being debated many are concerned that EPA's Method 28 WHH does not represent real world use of so called gasifier OWBs.  You'll notice in the video that one of the complaints involves a Central Boiler EClassis 2400, 800 feet away from a neighbor.

http://wcnyconnected.com/insight


----------



## webbie (Sep 28, 2013)

Good report, IMHO.....

The Central Boiler guy is using the old "we want them to do it right"....same with the Farm guy. Pass the buck, it seems.

I have to commend the host for doing their homework. It's rare to see a fairly informed show. Sure, there is some BS being thrown around (of all types), but in general it's more accurate than most debates. 

This whole thing, IMHO, is due to the original loopholes and the many companies that don't care enough and let the greed steer them. It's one thing to phase regs in over 10 years or so, quite another to be able to sell these 25+ years after better systems were devised.


----------



## heaterman (Sep 28, 2013)

Hmmm. No admission by CB that their product might be less than satisfactory. Go figure.

Both the Farm Bureau guy and CB's lawyer seem to think .....or at least maybe parrot the company line that if you install and burn the OWB right everything will be OK. 
Go figure.

Neither the FB guy or the CB lawyer seem to grasp or at least admit to the fact that an OWB,.......any OWB and many indoor boilers too, cannot burn clean. It is physically impossible unless thermal storage is involved in the process. A fire simply cannot be cycled on/off/on and be expected to maintain combustion temperatures required to maintain a gasification burn process.

Good combustion technology coupled with storage is the only way to burn wood cleanly. Unfortunately the manufacturers will fight this tooth and nail until the EPA finally says enough and bans all wood burners period.

All I can say to everyone here is don't become a reason for others to hate wood burning. Do it right or else don't do it at all. 

I read through a new standard a couple weeks ago that actually makes sense. Let's hope it is universally adopted and enforced. Then we might still be able to burn wood in another decade and beyond.


----------



## leon (Sep 28, 2013)

AAAYYYYYY CARAMBA LUCY!!


I am certainly glad a I have a commercial wood splitter to split all my wood into small pieces !

Did you see all the unsplit blocks he has in that bloody thing just smoldering before he tossed in
another one for the benefit of the camera crew and the reporter/news lady? 


He would gain so much more good will if he filled that thing half full or more with full fire brick or
the 12 by 12 firebrick used in pizza ovens!!


Even though my neighbors are a bit away from me on either side I always burn hot and wide
open with the small amount of water in my switzer wood and coal boiler and the Buderus oil boiler.


----------



## StihlHead (Sep 28, 2013)

Well, OWBs are banned in WA and in OR now. There are different reasons and different laws in either state as to why. And yes, they are not _outright banned_, but no currently available OWBs can be sold in either state, which in effect means they are banned here. All but one IWB (the Greenwood, only available in WA state) are also banned in both states, again for different reasons. WA requires EPA testing and state certification before they can be sold, OR is waiting for clearer wood boiler regulations and testing requirements from EPA (which may never happen). Forget selling them used, they cannot be sold new or used in either state.

You scream and you will likely get more states with more laws banning more wood burning devices, and not just OWBs. I believe that smoke dragons are the far bigger issue, and by a wide measure. I mean, boilers are and never were very common out here, and we still have smoke problems in these states. The net effect of the OWB ban has been zero here. And CB is a far more responsible company than many other (if not all other) OWB builders in my experience of installing, owning and running OWBs. There are a million and one fly-by-night OWB companies out there, and they will never have EPA certs.

To the OP, who seems to be on a mission to trash talk OWBs (and particularly CB) on many forums like this on the web: I suggest that you move to WA state where you will be safe from the perils and evils of OWBs. They also have the toughest laws on all wood burning devices and burning. Or move to Santa Clara Co., CA where all types of wood burning devices have been banned in new construction and remodeling for many decades now. Its funny, but smoke is still an issue in winter months in both WA state and the SF South Bay area though...


----------



## StihlHead (Sep 28, 2013)

Oh yes, and Tronsliver has a hidden agenda, and has been banned from several good sites for his behavior regarding his crusade against OWBs, and CB in particular. Case in point over on the Forestry Forum: http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,67472.0.html


----------



## webbie (Sep 28, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> Oh yes, and Tronsliver has a hidden agenda, and has been banned from several good sites for his behavior regarding his crusade against OWBs, and CB in particular. Case in point over on the Forestry Forum: http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,67472.0.html



This was pointed out here before and threads were erased or closed.

I think this particular report and video are educational, though. Do you agree?


----------



## tronsliver (Sep 28, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Hmmm. No admission by CB that their product might be less than satisfactory. Go figure.
> 
> Both the Farm Bureau guy and CB's lawyer seem to think .....or at least maybe parrot the company line that if you install and burn the OWB right everything will be OK.
> Go figure.
> ...





heaterman said:


> Hmmm. No admission by CB that their product might be less than satisfactory. Go figure.
> 
> Both the Farm Bureau guy and CB's lawyer seem to think .....or at least maybe parrot the company line that if you install and burn the OWB right everything will be OK.
> Go figure.
> ...



I agree, it's bad enough cycling technology alone causes problems but throw on top of that wet wood, oversized units, or improper placement and you have a compounded problem.  I always asserted that one of the problems with traditional OWBs is the amount of wood they burn. Most folks start with good intentions but find they can't keep up and give in to wet wood.


----------



## tronsliver (Sep 28, 2013)

webbie said:


> Good report, IMHO.....
> 
> The Central Boiler guy is using the old "we want them to do it right"....same with the Farm guy. Pass the buck, it seems.
> 
> ...


I have some reservations about the changes to NSPS concerning Method 28 WHH but the one good thing is the elimination of traditional OWBs.  As you correctly stated greed has been the driver and the new standards will eliminate the worst of the worst.  Hopefully this will also force more manufacturers to adopt thermal storage and abandon cycling technology.


----------



## Fred61 (Sep 29, 2013)

webbie said:


> I think this particular report and video are educational, though. Do you agree?


I didn't watch the video to the very end (ran out of time) but without any mention that wood can be burned cleaner, the video damages the wood burning community in the eyes of the general public.


----------



## heaterman (Sep 29, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> I have some *reservations* about the changes to NSPS concerning Method 28 WHH but the one good thing is the elimination of traditional OWBs.  As you correctly stated greed has been the driver and the new standards will eliminate the worst of the worst.  Hopefully this will also force more manufacturers to adopt thermal storage and abandon cycling technology.




What in particular?


----------



## webbie (Sep 29, 2013)

Fred61 said:


> I didn't watch the video to the very end (ran out of time) but without any mention that wood can be burned cleaner, the video damages the wood burning community in the eyes of the general public.



Oh, interesting.
I'm watching it through the eyes of someone who knows it can.....be burned better, even in "dirty" boilers.

But, Fred, that's not the issue here. The reason regulations exist is that things often don't work right or are not operated right. There is not a single source of emission in this (or other advanced countries) which is not regulated. 

I think the video puts forward the essential question - does a neighbor have the right to smoke you out? It's not about the neighbors who don't.


----------



## leon (Sep 29, 2013)

Speaking as a New York State resident and wood and
coal burner for 31 years.

The NYSDEC has become a toothless money deficient/
low priority department of the government of the
State of  New York.

Even Prior to Governor Patterson's term in office the
NYSDEC has had year after year after year of toothless
operating budgets.   

The issue of hydrauic fracturing is also a huge factor in this simply
because of all the special interests involved and the loss in revenue
to land owners as well as the potential for harm to the surrounding
home owners that would be affected by drilling IF it is allowed.

Before I get any further;

As a certified and unregistered water well driller and pump intaller
I think I am able to look at this issue and discuss it adequately.

NOW what the various New York Stateland owners associations
and the New York State Oil and Gas Drillers association are NOT
discussing freely is this:

They claim fracturing for oil and gas has been done safely for
many many years in New York State.


WHAT THEY FAIL TO EXPLAIN IS:

There is a difference in Vertical Well Fracturing and the tecnique of
Horizontal Directional Drilling and the use of the fracturing process!

Vertical well fracturing which is very effective has worked in New York State
and worked VERY VERY well.


----------



## webbie (Sep 29, 2013)

It's always a double edged sword. Americans, by nature, would prefer that each person be responsible. But large populations simply don't worth that way - especially when a party considers it a "natural right" to burn something or, in the above case, to drill it.

I'm sure there is lots of lobbying anti-environmental money going into many state reg orgs. Which is why, as explained in the video, national standards are needed...possibly in conjunction with local enforcement. IMHO, of course!


----------



## leon (Sep 29, 2013)

MY apologies, I cannot further edit my post.

BUT what I am saying is the New York State Oil and gas Producers Association is painting both drilling methods with a broad brush saying they are one and the same, they are not!

I believe Governor Coumo is just holding his cards close to the vest to wait and see what the track record of well drilling is bringing in other states as I ma sure he is aware that the actual shale geology is the issue.

ONE big thing to note is this These drillers are not running around drilling core holes to bring up rock samples in the circumferential area surrounding a potential drilling site to see how the shale rock dips and folds because it will cost them MORE MONEY.

On the positive side:

A rock core sample tells the geologist exactly what is down there in what is referred to as the potential strike zone desired for drilling the potential gas bearing strata and each core tells the geologist what the shale seam looks like at intervals of one thousand feet in distance from drill pad.


IF these drillers had simply stayed working with vertical drilled gas wells and vertical well fracturing the issue would be a mute point.


----------



## tronsliver (Sep 29, 2013)

heaterman said:


> What in particular?



Method 28 WHH does not account for startup emissions for each of the burn categories within the test. In other words, wood is loaded onto a hot coal bed for each category, starting with the initial load.  This is disingenuous to the consumer and those in proximity to the emissions.

Further, based on reports conducted on Method 28 OWHH, the average Phase II OWB has an output rating of 175K.  If you consider the design day heat load of 40K for an average home in a cold climate you end of having a oversize factor of 4.4. This represents 23% of the maximum hourly rate of the OWB. In essence, the OWB will be at or below 16% of heater output 90 percent of the heating season.

Now how does this correlate to Method 28? Method 28 does not account for over sizing in its testing categories. Nor does it account for the difference in climates which can have a dramatic affect on performance.  

I'm sure this why manufacturers claim it's not their product that is the problem but how it's operated.  Interpreted this means: dry and suitable wood, a very cold climate that stays cold throughout the heating season, and a unit matched perfectly to the heating load.  Method 28 can not realistically account for these variables.


----------



## Den69RS96 (Oct 1, 2013)

So if the EPA changes their test methods and the OWB manufacturers have to meet those new standards you will be happy then?   I'm all for cleaner air, but it seems your aim is strictly at OWBs.  There are alot more people with wood stoves vs OWBs.    I have 3 neighbors, all burn wood.  Two of them heat with a wood stove.  One of those two does not observe he best wood burning practices.  His stove puts out alot of smoke visible through any of the windows on the back of my house.  The others stove produces little smoke.    My closest neighbor has one of those big bad smoke dragons.  He burns cut split seasoned wood.   When i drive buy I hardly see any smoke.  I drive by a pretty large campsite going into town.  Pick any day of the week during the summer and you'll be greated by lots of smoke as you drive by.  If you were truly concerned about emissions, you would include all kinds of wood burning methods in your statements, but you seem to target OWB only.  Why is that?


----------



## webbie (Oct 1, 2013)

You should try visiting some of the ski resorts in VT in the wintertime. 1,000 prefab fireplaces with newbies all going at once!

It's a big world and most of us can only address a couple issues at one time. I was dead set against all the exemptions in the 1990 EPA stuff, but I understood that, due to low sales, the EPA wanted to address the bigger picture first. Here we are 23 years later and, IMHO, there is no excuse now. 

But, realistically, we had an EPA which was ordered to "stand down" for the majority of that time. That's why Christie Whitman quit and maybe even why the latest head went bye-bye (she had concern about fracking).


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 1, 2013)

There is clean burning technology that has been on the market since 1981 . The final cost  was $ 4,500 in 1983 dollars to have our Jetstream delivered from Nova Scotia to our home on Vancouver Island .
Clean burning  technology has been around for some time.  PEOPLE JUST DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT 

The PDF file  is the pages from the Jetstream Manual  on the principals of clean burning of wood .





Testing the SMOKE with the boiler at peek combustion . Air smells no different than the air coming out of a hot air register and is just hot enough to be uncomfortable to breath .



This was our first boiler , though indoor it was very much a smoke dragon .It burned 22 cords per year  to accomplish what  the Jetstream with 1,000 gallons of storage does on 4 1/2 cords .


----------



## PassionForFire&Water (Oct 1, 2013)

Hey Hobbyheater, I see you sniffing at that smoke pipe way to often.
Are you sure you are burning cordwood? .... or is it pot or something more potent your are burning?


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 1, 2013)

PassionForFire&Water said:


> Hey Hobbyheater, I see you sniffing at that smoke pipe way to often.
> Are you sure you are burning cordwood? .... or is it pot or something more potent your are burning?


 

I just like re-posting that picture.  Loose memory chip I think,   but firm GRIP on the ladder!


----------



## BoilerMan (Oct 1, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> I just like re-posting that picture.  Loose memory chip I think,   but firm GRIP on the ladder!


 
Well said my good sir! 

I think the general problem of wood-burning and good burning practices is laziness or just plain ignorance.  You have to pay to play, we all know that, we have advanced burning equipment as well as thermal storage.  We have a good idea of the principals involved is proper seasoning and processing of wood (no log lifters to get the wood in the boiler door). 

We also know that by burning the way we do in the advanced appliances we have we are able to burn _less than half _the wood those guys burn.  To me that's not only smarter, cleaner.............and less work!

TS


----------



## heaterman (Oct 1, 2013)

Tron........The test method I was referring to is not EPA28

There is another one developed by Brookhaven Labs and it reflects cold to cold and hot to hot operation as well as storage. Looks very promising to me. Dated in February of this year so it's a recent development.
Actually uses real cord wood instead of kiln dried dimension lumber.
  In and of itself that is a major step in the right direction.

From the way it reads it will be a very fair but very tough test method.

Are you aware of it?


----------



## jebatty (Oct 2, 2013)

In the public debate on wood burning it is essential to educate legislators, regulators and the public on clean wood burning. An environmental learning center I work continually is involved in doing this. It has a Wood Gun E500 (external 4000 gal storage), a Garn WHS3200 (integrated 3200 gal storage) and a Froling FHG-L50 (external 1650 gal storage), all located in the middle of and in close proximity to classrooms, dormitories and staff living quarters. The facility is visited by about 10,000 persons every year, including during the cold weather heating season. It is surrounded by hills on three sides and a lake on the 4th side. There is no smoke issue from any of these.


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 2, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Tron........The test method I was referring to is not EPA28
> 
> There is another one developed by Brookhaven Labs and it reflects cold to cold and hot to hot operation as well as storage. Looks very promising to me. Dated in February of this year so it's a recent development.
> Actually uses real cord wood instead of kiln dried dimension lumber.
> ...


Yes, and I agree it is a major step in the right direction.  The question becomes will the EPA adopt the changes for WHH? As we speak (unless the government shutdown affected the process) OMB is taking comments from select groups concerning changes to NSPS. The proposed changes to NSPS, with respect to hydronic heaters, is projected to use the  current Phase II standards employing WHH as the discriminator.   The positive aspect about including Hydronic Heaters in NSPS is the volunteer program will be dead, and as such the EPA will no longer need to over compromise to get participation. If the changes to NSPS are ultimately adopted manufacturers will be forced to comply. The question then would become  how to incorporate the Brookhaven changes. As we all know change is difficult and slow in government programs.


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 2, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> .



From the start and of as of yet you have not stated your personal interest in this debate ! 
Would you possibly represent a Fossil Fuel lobby that wants the total market share of home heating fuels ?


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 2, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> From the start and of as of yet you have not stated your personal interest in this debate !
> Would you possibly represent a Fossil Fuel lobby that wants the total market share of home heating fuels ?


Hello Allen,

As I stated in an earlier post, I do not represent any special interest nor am I obligated to any specific wood burning manufacturer, although I am partial to thermal storage OWBs and believe based on current technology it is the cleanest way to burn in a hydronic heater.  I also feel that wood is a great alternative fuel if the technology realistically allows for a clean burn. In fact, I am currently looking at supplementing my geothermal unit with a clean burning indoor wood burner for emergencies. Any suggestions?


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 2, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> Hello Allen,
> 
> As I stated in an earlier post, I do not represent any special interest nor am I obligated to any specific wood burning manufacturer, although I am partial to thermal storage OWBs and believe based on current technology it is the cleanest way to burn in a hydronic heater.  I also feel that wood is a great alternative fuel if the technology realistically allows for a clean burn. In fact, I am currently looking at supplementing my geothermal unit with a clean burning indoor wood burner for emergencies. Any suggestions?



Glad to here this !
The clean burn ability of our 30 year old Jetstream with storage , I beleive  still exceeds that of many units now on the market today.  Four years ago we got new neighbor , and over that period he had seen us putting wood into the woodshed . He had to come and ask what did we do with the wood , did we sell wood ? I said NO , but we heated our home and domestic hot water year round with wood . Again he was surprised as he had never seen smoke coming out of the chimney! As a wood burner that is the ultimate compliment .

The Garn Junior in the pdf below , I believe represents the best option of clean burning wood technology in the market today. Clean burning , with integral unpressurized storage , simple to operate , and product support with parts still available for its earliest models.


----------



## Chris Hoskin (Oct 2, 2013)

Fred61 said:


> I didn't watch the video to the very end (ran out of time) but without any mention that wood can be burned cleaner, the video damages the wood burning community in the eyes of the general public.



I agree, the general impression most people will have from this report is that all wood burning is polluting.  This report was much more thorough than most "news" stories, but, still, it would have been helpful if they had pointed out the better options that are out there.  For example, they could have explored why indoor boilers are not regulated by DEC.


----------



## Chris Hoskin (Oct 2, 2013)

hobbyheater said:


> Glad to here this !
> The clean burn ability of our 30 year old Jetstream with storage , I beleive  still exceeds that of many units now on the market today.  Four years ago we got new neighbor , and over that period he had seen us putting wood into the woodshed . He had to come and ask what did we do with the wood , did we sell wood ? I said NO , but we heated our home and domestic hot water year round with wood . Again he was surprised as he had never seen smoke coming out of the chimney! As a wood burner that is the ultimate compliment .
> 
> hobbheater, now THAT's the story that needs to get out there!  Thanks for sharing.
> ...


----------



## Chris Hoskin (Oct 2, 2013)

StihlHead said:


> To the OP, who seems to be on a mission to trash talk OWBs



you say that like it's a bad thing......


----------



## maple1 (Oct 2, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> ... although I am partial to thermal storage OWBs and believe based on current technology it is the cleanest way to burn in a hydronic heater.


 
I would say you'd be better off with an IWB....


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 2, 2013)

If you have been selling Tarm for 30+ years then we have had a few chats on the Phone in the past and recently . I The stopped  phoning  both times I found the Jetstream!


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2013)

Chris Hoskin said:


> I agree, the general impression most people will have from this report is that all wood burning is polluting.  This report was much more thorough than most "news" stories, but, still, it would have been helpful if they had pointed out the better options that are out there.  For example, they could have explored why indoor boilers are not regulated by DEC.



Unless I missed something in the video one of the owners had replaced their OWB with an indoor unit. It would have been valuable to learn exactly what was going on with that thing based on the amount of smoke coming out of it in one of the scenes.
It looked fully as bad as the OWB it replaced. Probably a non-gasser with no storage, which is in effect about the same as an OWB.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> Yes, and I agree it is a major step in the right direction.  The question becomes will the EPA adopt the changes for WHH? As we speak (unless the government shutdown affected the process) OMB is taking comments from select groups concerning changes to NSPS. The proposed changes to NSPS, with respect to hydronic heaters, is projected to use the  current Phase II standards employing WHH as the discriminator.   The positive aspect about including Hydronic Heaters in NSPS is the volunteer program will be dead, and as such the EPA will no longer need to over compromise to get participation. If the changes to NSPS are ultimately adopted manufacturers will be forced to comply. The question then would become  how to incorporate the Brookhaven changes. As we all know change is difficult and slow in government programs.




If you have contact information for the parties involved would you share it here?


----------



## Chris Hoskin (Oct 2, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Unless I missed something in the video one of the owners had replaced their OWB with an indoor unit. It would have been valuable to learn exactly what was going on with that thing based on the amount of smoke coming out of it in one of the scenes.
> It looked fully as bad as the OWB it replaced. Probably a non-gasser with no storage, which is in effect about the same as an OWB.



I think the neighbor identified the indoor unit as a Harmann.  I don't remember which model, but a non-gassifier, almost certainly without storage and very likely over-sized.  Tronsilver and Heaterman, would your expectation be that this type of boiler will go away with the new EPA regs?


----------



## hobbyheater (Oct 2, 2013)

This boiler, when the draft would open after a period of idling, would smoke just as bad as the new indoor boiler in the video!
My daughters who were about 5 and 7 years of age called this unit "THE PIG"!


----------



## JrCRXHF (Oct 2, 2013)

heaterman said:


> If you have contact information for the parties involved would you share it here?




I think they said he put in a harmon SF-160 which is close to the same boiler i have. My boiler does not really smoke much after start up because i turn off the heat in my house during the day and burn it hard all night to get the house heated back up. I also burn seasoned wood. I wish i could add a gasifier and storage but the money and room for storage is not there right now so i do the best i can with the tools i have. But by looking at how these people are burning wood i think this is also a big problem. Putting in 14" green logs is not helping with the BTU's and also not helping his smoke issue.


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 2, 2013)

Chris Hoskin said:


> I think the neighbor identified the indoor unit as a Harmann.  I don't remember which model, but a non-gassifier, almost certainly without storage and very likely over-sized.  Tronsilver and Heaterman, would your expectation be that this type of boiler will go away with the new EPA regs?


Hi Chris,

Yes, traditional OWBs not meeting Phase II standards would not be allowed to be sold after the regs are established. However, those already sold would most probably be grandfathered.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 2, 2013)

Chris Hoskin said:


> I think the neighbor identified the indoor unit as a Harmann.  I don't remember which model, but a non-gassifier, almost certainly without storage and very likely over-sized.  Tronsilver and Heaterman, would your expectation be that this type of boiler will go away with the new EPA regs?




There is no way a non-gasser will meet the specs I read. There is probably no way a gasser without storage will meet the specs either. It will likely take a very good gasser WITH storage to be able to meet the criteria. 
But hey......that's the way they have been doing it in Europe for years. The example is right out in front of us.

The issue is pretty simple. Every on/off cycle increases emissions and reduces efficiency. Less on/off cycles (with storage) = cleaner and more efficient. Those facts cannot be disputed regardless of what some manufacturers claim about their unit running without storage.  Martin Lunde has had this concept down pat for over 30 years with the Garn. It's just taking the rest of the industry a while to get up to that level of performance.

And no, that is not an advertisement for Garn. It's just the way wood burning works.


----------



## maple1 (Oct 2, 2013)

tronsliver said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> Yes, traditional OWBs not meeting Phase II standards would not be allowed to be sold after the regs are established. However, those already sold would most probably be grandfathered.


 

You're still talking all OWBs, while others here are also talking indoor units. You seem to be skirting or ignoring indoor units at times - your response quoted above was with respect to an indoor Harmon, not an OWB.


----------



## BoilerMan (Oct 2, 2013)

I think we need to get off the IWB vs OWB thing.  A conventional IWB operated poorly is basically the same thing as an OWB accept it's pressureized and has a smaller firebox.

Just for the sake of argument, lets say the "bad neighbor" has replaced his OWB with a Garn, or Tarm for that matter.  Still burned green wood in it, and figured out a way to shut the air way down "to get it to burn for more than three dang hours".  Either of those great boilers would smoke up a storm as well.  We can regulate all we want and even force everyone to be like Europe, but we still can't fix stupid!

When I had my old NY wood/coal boiler I burned actual seasoned wood and had the same storage I have now.  It was quite clean, there was smoke coming out of the chimney during half of the burn............not the most efficient, but certainly nothing a neighbor 600' away was ever going to complain about and have a legitimate case against.  As in the video.

I'm not saying we need to leave things the way they are, but there is simply no way to regulate wood to be consumed cleanly............even with the best boilers out there.  There is just too much variable in moisture content.

Would you advocate we have trolls going around and checking particulate emission of our chimneys boilers?  Checking the MC of your wood pile?  I know there are times when there is quite a bit of smoke coming from my chimney during a cold start, or some bridging for example.  Nothing like the video but still.......

Also the guy compairing wood stoves to boilers, this guy needs to do some research!
TS


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 2, 2013)

heaterman said:


> If you have contact information for the parties involved would you share it here?


I believe OMB will post the results of the groups involved on their website within a week or so.


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 2, 2013)

maple1 said:


> You're still talking all OWBs, while others here are also talking indoor units. You seem to be skirting or ignoring indoor units at times - your response quoted above was with respect to an indoor Harmon, not an OWB.


It's my understanding that WHH includes indoor boilers as well.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Oct 3, 2013)

BoilerMan said:


> Just for the sake of argument, lets say the "bad neighbor" has replaced his OWB with a Garn, or Tarm for that matter. Still burned green wood in it, and figured out a way to shut the air way down "to get it to burn for more than three dang hours". Either of those great boilers would smoke up a storm as well. We can regulate all we want and even force everyone to be like Europe, but we still can't fix stupid!



No we can't fix stupid but we can educate to reduce it & tax the crap out of it when it still persists. I consider speeding fines to be a tax on the stupid. Cali has emission laws for auto's so why not?



BoilerMan said:


> I'm not saying we need to leave things the way they are, but there is simply no way to regulate wood to be consumed cleanly............even with the best boilers out there. There is just too much variable in moisture content.



Education again. AFA regulation well that's easy heck Germany has emission regs for fossil burners that they enforce. Not servicing your heating equipment & causing it to burn dirty there can be very costly indeed. Simple flue gas analysis lets the inspector know if the unit is burning too dirty.

I guess my bottom line is yes we can do it all much cleaner. My belief is that we are too lazy & greedy to do so. Way too much me, me, me over here.

Far too easy to say let the other guy look after his own clean air.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 3, 2013)

t*here is simply no way to regulate wood to be consumed cleanly............even with the best boilers out there. There is just too much variable in moisture content.*

This is absolutely correct. The best equipment even with storage can be rendered useless. My "favorite farmer" proved this with his Garns. You can't do much better than a Garn but the guys on his farm managed to make that pair of 2000's look like they had a coal fired steam engine running back there.

This is why I have a hunch that unless we (the industry) get behind a useful standard and really bang the drum on best practices, we may be looking at a situation where the only equipment we can buy in 10 years will be pellet fired.
It's pretty logical really if you process and think through the problem from a regulatory agency point of view. Emissions can be drastically reduced if you control the fuel as well as the combustion process.


----------



## maple1 (Oct 3, 2013)

...and operating procedures.


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 3, 2013)

heaterman said:


> View attachment 113482
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree especially if climate control begins to take hold and soot falls in the crosshairs.  As I read the horror stories on the web about people being smoked out of their homes I can't help to fault local government for not fixing these problems  as they surface.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 3, 2013)

jebatty said:


> In the public debate on wood burning it is essential to educate legislators, regulators and the public on clean wood burning. An environmental learning center I work continually is involved in doing this. It has a Wood Gun E500 (external 4000 gal storage), a Garn WHS3200 (integrated 3200 gal storage) and a Froling FHG-L50 (external 1650 gal storage), all located in the middle of and in close proximity to classrooms, dormitories and staff living quarters. The facility is visited by about 10,000 persons every year, including during the cold weather heating season. It is surrounded by hills on three sides and a lake on the 4th side. There is no smoke issue from any of these.




I could not agree more Jim. There is nearly complete ignorance of the process involved in burning clean on the part of our rule making bodies that it is scary. 
Then throw in all the "smoke and mirrors" that some of the heavy hitters in the industry are throwing around and our legislators don't have a clue. This is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Den69RS96 (Oct 3, 2013)

Even if the EPA sets more realistic standards for OWB etc, the problem will still exist.  As pointed out, new standards will not solve the problem if people don't make it an effort to burn clean.   And this applies to all wood burning applicances.   I'm surprised the govt hasn't already put meters on the end of all all wood burning smoke stacks and monitor the emissions.  Since they can not regulate the wood, this seems to be where they are headed.  Maybe all those bad neighbors will clean up there act if they get significant fines.


----------



## boilermanjr (Oct 3, 2013)

Gentlemen,

Emission and efficiency results can be improved with lambda control and a simple run time hour meter.  While neither of these technological add-ons can completely fix operation with poor fuels or bad techniques, they give ample feedback to the user so that shortcomings can be realized more easily.  Until I had an hour meter for instance, I had no idea how severely over-sized my boiler was for my house and 500 gallons of storage.  The boiler was entering slumber long after I lighted it and had gone to bed.  In the morning, the boiler had burned out cleanly and there was no evidence of slumber.  After seeing hours of run vs. hours of slumber, I put in a smaller boiler.  Here is how the lambda control helps:  Wet wood will generally result in higher oxygen readings and low stack temperatures.  Some boilers will simply shut off when thresholds for those measurements are reached.  A careless operator will likely learn best practice more quickly when their machine will not cooperate with improper use.  Of course lambda control also cleans up even normal and good operation, but it really can help educate a lazy, naïve, or ignorant operator.

On another note that has come up in this string, the thing that a lot of people don't talk about is that EPA is not currently going to begin the NSPS with a single test method that allows comparability across all wood burning boilers (OWB, IWB, HH or whatever one may call it) and better yet, all wood burning devices.  At the moment, I understand that a consumer may be faced with up to three different methods for wood boilers with very poor comparability across the methods.  While EPA compliance will be a good thing, the consumer will be left with many questions about what to buy if trying to compare across models with different test methods.  For the benefit of the consumer and wood burning in general, I would like to see all of the confusing data be put to rest with a single, reliable test method.

A Froling FHG (that we loaned NYSERDA) was used to help develop the new Brookhaven test method for boilers with remote thermal storage.  Having been updated as to the test method from time to time, I find the method to be sound, fair, accurate, honest and somewhat more expedient than Method 28 or ASTM2618.  In fact, I think the method while being expedient, most accurately portrays normal use compared to all other current methods.  However, The method is still not one that can be used with boilers that are not connected to remote thermal storage.


----------



## maple1 (Oct 3, 2013)

*After seeing hours of run vs. hours of slumber, I put in a smaller boiler.*

I think I would have put in more storage.

And I am quite doubtful that lambda controls can help burn wet wood much better than non-lambda.

IMHO.


----------



## heaterman (Oct 3, 2013)

My humble opinion only, for what it's worth........Thermal storage should be part and parcel to every wood boiler installation. Every wood boiler will run better with adequate storage.


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Oct 3, 2013)

heaterman said:


> Thermal storage should be part and parcel to every wood boiler installation.



Bingo. Want to burn clean & efficient this is step 2 right after seasoned fuel as step 1. Can't for the life of me understand why we don't learn from our cousin's across the pond. Heck they teach for free all we have to do is listen.


----------



## curtis (Oct 3, 2013)

I'm a diesel mechanic and so I try to relate everything to vehicles somehow. Having a wood burning device burning clean requires a certain air/fuel mixture just like a internal combustion engine. But when you choke off the air on a wood burner and it still has the same amount of fuel in it, it will burn dirty and inefficient.  Just like a Diesel engine, have you ever seen a truck run with a clogged air filter? The injection pump is still giving the same amount of fuel to the engine but the air is severely restricted cause the truck to blow black smoke which is un-burnt fuel. So it's not the storage the makes the unit burn clean, the storage allows it to burn clean  at the correct air/fuel mixture through the entire load of wood by having a large amount of water to heat up.


----------



## tronsliver (Oct 4, 2013)

boilermanjr said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Emission and efficiency results can be improved with lambda control and a simple run time hour meter.  While neither of these technological add-ons can completely fix operation with poor fuels or bad techniques, they give ample feedback to the user so that shortcomings can be realized more easily.  Until I had an hour meter for instance, I had no idea how severely over-sized my boiler was for my house and 500 gallons of storage.  The boiler was entering slumber long after I lighted it and had gone to bed.  In the morning, the boiler had burned out cleanly and there was no evidence of slumber.  After seeing hours of run vs. hours of slumber, I put in a smaller boiler.  Here is how the lambda control helps:  Wet wood will generally result in higher oxygen readings and low stack temperatures.  Some boilers will simply shut off when thresholds for those measurements are reached.  A careless operator will likely learn best practice more quickly when their machine will not cooperate with improper use.  Of course lambda control also cleans up even normal and good operation, but it really can help educate a lazy, naïve, or ignorant operator.
> 
> ...


I agree that in its entirety it wouldn't fit, but there are a few procedures within the method that would strengthen WHH especially the cold-to-cold test bed to account for startup emissions.  You also correctly hit on the most important negative issue surrounding cycling technology and that's oversized boilers. As I stated in an earlier post, with the average size Phase II boiler having a 175K output and the average home only needing 40K of heat, it compounds the problem.  As Webbie pointed out greed has driven the OWB industry to this point and as a consequence an Army of people are now fighting the manufacturers.  Unfortunately,  traditional wood burners have suffered collateral damage because of this greed. ( the video bears this out) Essentially what we see now is a patch work of regulation already implemented or on the drawing board to stuff the leaking emission holes generated from OWBs without thermal storage.  There are just too many variables that cannot be controlled that effect the technology and even the most conscious operator cannot keep the unit from cycling.


----------



## __dan (Oct 4, 2013)

Found this surfing NYSERDA website. Pretty good information in the report, percentage of volatile gas fuel vs charcoal in cordwood (67% to 33%), effects of excess H2O and excess air on combustion efficiency (some, but not huge imo). 

They come done pretty solidly in favor of downdraft gasifiers, what they call two stage underfire burners. TTT, time turbulence, and temperaure. They show combustion temp has to be at or above 1200 to 1300 F to reduce CO and C in the flue gas to minimal levels.

http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Publicati..._european_wood_heating_technology_survey.ashx


----------

