# EPA - New Rules, Many Stoves will become obsolete



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

article:

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/20..._campaign=January+Newsletter&utm_medium=email


----------



## RKS130 (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> article:
> 
> http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2014/01/pro-wood-heating-group-says-epa.html?utm_source=Copy of December 13 Newsletter&utm_campaign=January Newsletter&utm_medium=email



Anyone have any idea how current models stack up against the new standards?


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 11, 2014)

Yep more tolatarian government.The epa has caused more financial ruin to this country than just about anything else.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

“We can harness the huge demand for this type of renewable energy if the stoves and boilers are clean enough,”

LMFAO,  yes this is the first thing that comes to mind when people switch to wood for heat.  Not money or personal independance....


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 11, 2014)

Harness means-to control.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

This article along with your metering thread does paint a pretty picture of the huge government power grab going on right now to get in in the movement that has happened towards pellets......

They got to be very careful considering the price of pellets has increased over 20% in the three years i have been burning and looks to continue.  With the time and effort that is needed to heat this way without substantial savings the sector will come to a screeching halt.


----------



## Madcodger (Jan 11, 2014)

Now, wait just a minute...

These standards are, as I read it, for new equipment.  And I'm thinking many manufacturers already meet or exceed these.  So exactly how is this really hurting us?  In fact, I wish they had gone further and implemented the efficiency standards as well.  

And please, let's keep this to a discussion of the standards and not a broader, catch-all political debate.  Like many agencies and organizations I have a mixed opinion on the EPA (some great work and some not so great, IMO) but I don't see where this particular standard will hurt us.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

Which is why I'm posting this info. Way back when I started this business the only folks that embraced what I was doing was the industry movers and shakers. Curious what the mafia types from the HPBA are going to say at the oral testimony.

Something to note though, most pellet stoves will meet compliance, wood stoves will be harder. The double auger stoves from Englander come in at 2.4 grams I think. Box stores will have a tougher time competing. Perhaps this why HHT as gotten the Pleasant Hearth and Heatilators in to the box stores.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 11, 2014)

I can see this hitting the ash can when Bart wakes up


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

Madcodger said:


> Now, wait just a minute...
> 
> These standards are, as I read it, for new equipment.  And I'm thinking many manufacturers already meet or exceed these.  So exactly how is this really hurting us?  In fact, I wish they had gone further and implemented the efficiency standards as well.
> 
> And please, let's keep this to a discussion of the standards and not a broader, catch-all political debate.  Like many agencies and organizations I have a mixed opinion on the EPA (some great work and some not so great, IMO) but I don't see where this particular standard will hurt us.



It probably doesn't hurt us today.  Its what happens in the future.  To justify their own existence they will have to continue to introduce new regulation, kinda like the 40,000 new laws that went into affect Jan 1.  Eventually hurting the industry, the economy, and the people that work in these industries.  

And don't get me wrong, there needs to be regulations for everything.  Its just that they usially end up doing more harm than good in the long term.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

here's a link to a summary of the proposed rule. The actual document is 500 pages, I'll try to find a link to that too.

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio..._campaign=January+Newsletter&utm_medium=email


----------



## Madcodger (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> Something to note though, most pellet stoves will meet compliance, wood stoves will be harder.



We have many communities around the country that have problems made worse by those stoves, so getting them to "clean up their act" - is a good thing.  One of the reasons we elected to go with pellets was the "green" aspect (and I'd like to find a good local source to make them greener).  To my mind, this is a reasonable use of regulation to benefit society.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

Not yet. I love some of these threads where people start complaining because new stoves will be more efficient. And nothing they already have is going to be affected.


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 11, 2014)

IHATEPROPANE said:


> It probably doesn't hurt us today.  Its what happens in the future.  To justify their own existence they will have to continue to introduce new regulation, kinda like the 40,000 new laws that went into affect Jan 1.  Eventually hurting the industry, the economy, and the people that work in these industries.
> 
> And don't get me wrong, there needs to be regulations for everything.  Its just that they usially end up doing more harm than good in the long term.


 I agree.If you have a few hours I could tell you about the epa,ethanol and the automotive industry,but for now I'll let it go.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> Which is why I'm posting this info. Way back when I started this business the only folks that embraced what I was doing was the industry movers and shakers. Curious what the mafia types from the HPBA are going to say at the oral testimony.
> 
> Something to note though, most pellet stoves will meet compliance, wood stoves will be harder. The double auger stoves from Englander come in at 2.4 grams I think. Box stores will have a tougher time competing. Perhaps this why HHT as gotten the Pleasant Hearth and Heatilators in to the box stores.



The box stores will never have a hard time competing.  

They sell Ariens and Husqvarna etc etc.  The Harman's of their respective industries.  I would not be surprised to see Enviro or Harman sold there one day.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Not yet. I love some of these threads where people start complaining because new stoves will be more efficient. And nothing they already have is going to be affected.



First, aren't they leaving efficiency alone for now?

Second, the worst mindset to have is " it doesn't effect me now"  lol


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

IHATEPROPANE said:


> The box stores will never have a hard time competing.
> 
> They sell Ariens and Husqvarna etc etc.  The Harman's of their respective industries.  I would not be surprised to see Enviro or Harman sold there one day.


I can see that coming too, though the hopper lids will be plastic and after every 5 years you'll need to buy a new one.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Not yet. I love some of these threads where people start complaining because new stoves will be more efficient. And nothing they already have is going to be affected.


Simple wording can change how the stoves are regulated, "sale,service or transfer of any unit will have to meet standards" could make all stoves come up to any new standards in time.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

There is an oportunity for public comment on Feb 26th, go and make yourself heard all you "Haters"


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> I can see that coming too, though the hopper lids will be plastic and after every 5 years you'll need to buy a new one.



Yes,  this will be true lol


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

The biggest part of the rule that I'm excited about is the fact that all stoves will now have to state their efficiency. No more default 78% and hide away the real numbers. This will help some models and hurt some others but many makers hide the fact that their stoves (and we are talking about very well known brands here cause I've seen the redacted documents) are simply very inefficient. Anyone know of an insert that was recently resigned? Just sayin...


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> There is an oportunity for public comment on Feb 26th, go and make yourself heard all you "Haters"



I will be working


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 11, 2014)

been fun...but gotta go to work now.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> The biggest part of the rule that I'm excited about is the fact that all stoves will now have to state their efficiency. No more default 78% and hide away the real numbers. This will help some models and hurt some others but many makers hide the fact that their stoves (and we are talking about very well known brands here cause I've seen the redacted documents) are simply very inefficient. Anyone know of an insert that was recently resigned? Just sayin...




This will be good for sure.  Let the market decide what they want to buy.  My concern is does the good clthat comes from this out weight the bad??  I guess we will all have different opinions on this and its the debate that makes bad ideas good and good ideas great.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 11, 2014)

What's going to change?  Particulate filters?


----------



## jtakeman (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> The biggest part of the rule that I'm excited about is the fact that all stoves will now have to state their efficiency. No more default 78% and hide away the real numbers. This will help some models and hurt some others but many makers hide the fact that their stoves (and we are talking about very well known brands here cause I've seen the redacted documents) are simply very inefficient. Anyone know of an insert that was recently resigned? Just sayin...



Yep, I though that default chit was bogus! Glad the stove I bought has an actual number! I was suprised at some of the brand names that used the default even! But, I bet there could still be some loop holes that give the brands an in even if they can't meet standards. 

Are they just looking at exhaust emissions(particulate)? With some of the stoves I have seen the heat exchangers seem to be sub par and can't figure how they could meet standards in they tighten the grip on overall efficiency.


----------



## RKS130 (Jan 11, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> What's going to change?  Particulate filters?



Rule of Thumb:  If the government is involved they will screw it up.  Just sayin.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jan 11, 2014)

this subject is beyond my knowledge, so i will ask the question from more knowledgeable members:

are the target numbers of 2.5 and 1.3 achievable and reasonable in the 12 year cycle they are proposing?

my pellet stove info states EPA tested 2 grams per hour, though it does not say at what setting.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 11, 2014)

Colorado should implement these rules first. Things have went to pot there. New meaning to Rocky mountain high!


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

bob bare said:


> Yep more tolatarian government.The epa has caused more financial ruin to this country than just about anything else.


Right on, Bob.  Be glad you don't live in Riverton, Wy They didn't just take away their stoves.  They gave the whole darn town to the Indians!  What does the EPA have to do with that?  We are lost! I hope everyone in Riverton has plenty of guns and ammo!


----------



## richg (Jan 11, 2014)

IHATEPROPANE said:


> They got to be very careful considering the price of pellets has increased over 20% in the three years i have been burning and looks to continue.  With the time and effort that is needed to heat this way without substantial savings the sector will come to a screeching halt.



Pellets are at the lowest prices I have seen in a long time. Not sure if you were heating with pellets during the Great Pellet Panic of 2008, but that was a treat. Pellets were $350.00+ per ton and that was if you could find them. Crazy people were paying $500.00 per ton on Ebay. Pellets used to be around $190.00 per ton pre-Katrina, and then immediately spiked to $220-$275.00 post Katrina. The local big box stores in NJ are currently selling them for around $200-210.00 per ton which is pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that adjusted for inflation, $190.00 in 2004 equals $235.00 today. Saving money is nice but is not assured when heating with pellets as pellet prices generally move in tandem with petroleum prices.....oil prices spike, so do pellets. The general recovery in residential homebuilding bodes well for pellets as that will provide a more reliable source of high-quality sawdust. When the residential market tanked, pellet mills had to use alternate sources including whole logs and wet chips. Not good. 

As for the proposed EPA regs, well, they don't affect stoves that have already been installed. Several manufacturers including Blaze King and Woodstock are already making wood stoves with insanely low emission rates...the Blaze King Ashford 30 produces .97 grams per hour. the manufacturers who have to watch their backs include the el-cheapo stoves that barely pass EPA regs as they currently stand.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Right on, Bob.  Be glad you don't live in Riverton, Wy They didn't just take away their stoves.  They gave the whole darn town to the Indians!  What does the EPA have to do with that?  We are lost! I hope everyone in Riverton has plenty of guns and ammo!


Ammo disappeared over a year ago. Back to bows and arrows


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

I personally am not a fan of to many regulations (I left France for that reason 33 years ago). I think the big problem is the lack of education. I hear people complaining that Wood stoves are dirty to operate (that could be true if it is not operated correctly) but I see cars on the road that are polluting also . I also see these same people not practicing what they preach.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> I personally am not a fan of to many regulations (I left France for that reason 33 years ago). I think the big problem is the lack of education. I hear people complaining that Wood stoves are dirty to operate (that could be true if it is not operated correctly) but I see cars on the road that are polluting also . I also see these same people not practicing what they preach.


Amen!  Same goes for those who refuse to use coal stoves because of their misconception that they are dirty.  They are remembering the old monsters down in the basement and don't realize what a modern coal stove is like.  And they want to save the world by not polluting.  Tell me how maybe 100 million households or less are going to save the world when billions of other households are heating and cooking with buffalo and camel dung or burning OUR COAL that we are shipping to them instead of using ourselves?  You're right > STUPID PEOPLE who long ago forgot how to think for themselves and believe whatever they are told over and over.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 11, 2014)

Do the proposed regs affect coal?


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Amen!  Same goes for those who refuse to use coal stoves because of their misconception that they are dirty.  They are remembering the old monsters down in the basement and don't realize what a modern coal stove is like.  And they want to save the world by not polluting.  Tell me how maybe 100 million households or less are going to save the world when billions of other households are heating and cooking with buffalo and camel dung or burning OUR COAL that we are shipping to them instead of using ourselves?  You're right > STUPID PEOPLE who long ago forgot how to think for themselves and believe whatever they are told over and over.



I remember several years back Al Gore saying we had to save the planet by conserving energy but the same year a reporter found out that he had more then 10000 lights decorating his house for Christmas. I also remember the former Ecology Minister Mr Mer (Of France) telling the French people to conserve energy by getting smaller cars when he has driving a gas guzzler SUV. These individuals are hypocrites but they run our contries.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> Do the proposed regs affect coal?


Good question.  Buy one now and you're grandfathered in.  My cookstove is rated at 88% efficient.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

China uses 1305 million metric tons of bituminous coal for electricity generation per year.  I use 400 pounds of anthracite per year.  Uhhh, lets divide 400 by 2,871,000,000,000 and see who is doing the most polluting...............  They have already outstripped their supply and had to shut down power plants until they could get US coal.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> China uses 1305 million metric tons of bituminous coal for electricity generation per year.  I use 400 pounds of anthracite per year.  Uhhh, lets divide 400 by 2,871,000,000,000 and see who is doing the most polluting...............  They have already outstripped their supply and had to shut down power plants until they could get US coal.



Why are you dividing 400 by 2,871,000,000,000. By my book they spend 2.5 times more then you do that is assuming you live home alone.


----------



## chken (Jan 11, 2014)

First, these are proposed standards for the future. They won't effect existing stoves.

As with any new proposed regulation, it's a wait and see. We have to see what the effect will be upon mfrs of wood and pellet stoves. What will they have to do to meet the new standards, and what will they charge consumers.

I don't see the new standards as being all that onerous. They propose 2 ways to meet the new standard, one: starting at 4.5grams/hr, then 1.3grams/hr in 5 years. I think it's fair to say any pellet stove selling on the market today meets 4.5grams/hr. Most are probably in the 2grams/hr range. My Piazzetta is 2.3grams/hr. I know there were better performers when I went shopping, in the 1.x gram/hr range. 5 years is plenty of time for mfrs to improve their stoves.

The second possible implementation of the new rule seems even easier, is 4.5grams/hr now, 2.5 grams/hr in 3 years, and 1.3grams/hr in 8years! Again, that's plenty of time. My existing stove would meet that rule even if it were sold new 7 years from now.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

chken said:


> First, these are proposed standards for the future. They won't effect existing stoves.
> 
> As with any new proposed regulation, it's a wait and see. We have to see what the effect will be upon mfrs of wood and pellet stoves. What will they have to do to meet the new standards, and what will they charge consumers.
> 
> ...



I have a better plan, start out with the current crop of me regulate you folks and reduce by 50% each year.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> I have a better plan, start out with the current crop of me regulate you folks and reduce by 50% each year.


 
I have no idea what you are talking about


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 11, 2014)

Regulate the regulators.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> Regulate the regulators.



I personally would fire them all.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> Regulate the regulators.



You got it.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> I personally fire them all.



Well I am slowly, 50% gone each year. 




DamienBricka said:


> Why are you dividing 400 by 2,871,000,000,000. By my book they spend 2.5 times more then you do that is assuming you live home alone.



He doesn't live home alone and that figure he has you calculating shows what his consumption represents of the amount China is burning. .


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Well I am slowly, 50% gone each year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 lol


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> lol



Take that big number and lop off the last 9 zeros and divide it by 1.3 and you have the per ca-pita coal burning rate in pounds in China.

Take tj's figure and divide by 2 to get the same figure for his case.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> Why are you dividing 400 by 2,871,000,000,000. By my book they spend 2.5 times more then you do that is assuming you live home alone.


Je ne comprende pas?  Spending??  That's the number of POUNDS of coal they use.  I am/was showing how much of an impact I have on world pollution versus China.  Multiply the number of people like me by 100,000 and it's still nothing!

And this is going to the ash can.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Je ne comprende pas?  Spending??  I am/was showing how much of an impact I have on world pollution versus China.  Multiply the number of people like me by 100,000 and it's still nothing!
> 
> And this is going to the ash can.



I agree with you 100%


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Take that big number and lop off the last 9 zeros and divide it by 1.3 and you have the per ca-pita coal burning rate in pounds in China.
> 
> Take tj's figure and divide by 2 to get the same figure for his case.


Actually China has  BANNED the burning of coal for domestic use because they need every pound for power generation.  Welcome to Communism.  Did they do that in France, Damien? No, that's right.  France built a huge number of nuclear reactors and then drove the people to cut back on electrical use.  They cut back so much that they had to shut down half the reactors because there was not enough demand.  BIG GOVERNMENT AT WORK!


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Actually China has  BANNED the burning of coal for domestic use because they need every pound for power generation.  Welcome to Communism.  Did they do that in France, Damien? No, that's right.  France built a huge number of nuclear reactors and then drove the people to cut back on electrical use.  They cut back so much that they had to shut down half the reactors because there was not enough demand.  BIG GOVERNMENT AT WORK!



That is why I do not need so much government involvement. Last fall I was told by the city code enforcer that black home grown raspberries were weeds and i had to remove them from my yard.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> That is why I do not need so much government involvement. Last fall I was told by the city code enforcer that black home grown raspberries were and i had to remove them from my yard.


That's crazy!  Vote those bastards out!  What happens when we have more food shortages or we keep printing money and no one can afford to buy food?  Oh, we're there now!


----------



## Stevekng (Jan 11, 2014)

RKS130 said:


> Anyone have any idea how current models stack up against the new standards?


I'll bet this will boost stove sales before the new regulations go into effect. You just know that the new stoves will be more expensive because of the new designs. I will make sure that I replace my stoves with the pre- regulation ones.


----------



## Lake Girl (Jan 11, 2014)

Bioburner said:


> Simple wording can change how the stoves are regulated, "sale,service or transfer of any unit will have to meet standards" could make all stoves come up to any new standards in time.



Which means a very large amount of the stoves currently burning will not be able to be serviced or sold with a home... if that wording is used.
Dirty Dave posted this link in another thread - lots wouldn't meet the standard of 1.3.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/Wood_Pellet.pdf

On average, what I have noticed is the higher BTU stoves have a corresponding higher pm value - so you could have 3 or 4 small pellet stoves but not one larger one?  Any consideration to particulate matter to BTU ratio?


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> Which means a very large amount of the stoves currently burning will not be able to be serviced or sold with a home... if that wording is used.
> Dirty Dave posted this link in another thread - lots wouldn't meet the standard of 1.3.
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/Wood_Pellet.pdf
> 
> On average, what I have noticed is the higher BTU stoves have a corresponding higher pm value - so you could have 3 or 4 small pellet stoves but not one larger one?  Any consideration to particulate matter to BTU ratio?



I would not be one bit surprised if that wording DOES get included somewhere in the 1000 pages!  'We have to pass it to see what's in it' once again is uttered in the House of Morons.


----------



## PoolGuyinCT (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> There is an oportunity for public comment on Feb 26th, go and make yourself heard all you "Haters"




In our industry we are very vocal with legislation, it is appreciated by both sides. Get up & heard.


----------



## ZBrooks (Jan 11, 2014)

I love it when the Executive branch thinks it is the Legislative branch of government.  

I don't care if these regs are the greatest ideas since sliced bread.  There is zero accountability when the EPA can rule by fiat.


----------



## Harvey Schneider (Jan 11, 2014)

bob bare said:


> Harness means-to control.


Harness means to control the profits.


----------



## Bioburner (Jan 11, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> Which means a very large amount of the stoves currently burning will not be able to be serviced or sold with a home... if that wording is used.
> Dirty Dave posted this link in another thread - lots wouldn't meet the standard of 1.3.
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/Wood_Pellet.pdf
> 
> On average, what I have noticed is the higher BTU stoves have a corresponding higher pm value - so you could have 3 or 4 small pellet stoves but not one larger one?  Any consideration to particulate matter to BTU ratio?


What, and make sense?


DamienBricka said:


> That is why I do not need so much government involvement. Last fall I was told by the city code enforcer that black home grown raspberries were weeds and i had to remove them from my yard.


I got told by the local government agronomist  that my field was full of English origin grass and was to destroy it. Week latter it headed out and was Rye. Good thing the BATF didn't see that as I would probably have had to have a distillers permit.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

ZBrooks said:


> I love it when the Executive branch thinks it is the Legislative branch of government.
> 
> I don't care if these regs are the greatest ideas since sliced bread.  There is zero accountability when the EPA can rule by fiat.



Tell that to the folks in Riverton, Wyoming!  How can the EPA do that?  Talk about over-reach of authority!


----------



## SwineFlue (Jan 11, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> Do the proposed regs affect coal?



Nope, wood only:
"Today’s proposed rule would not affect existing woodstoves and other wood-burning
heaters currently in use in people’s homes. The proposal also would not apply to outdoor
fireplaces, pizza ovens, barbecues or chimineas, and it would not apply to new or existing
heaters that are fueled solely by oil, gas or coal. In addition, the proposal would not prohibit
or restrict the use of wood-burning appliances for residential heating."

And fireplaces are exempt because "they are not effective heaters".


----------



## iron stove (Jan 11, 2014)

TJNAMTIW,  What is this Riverton Wyoming thing you talk about ? any articles ???


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

I have been waiting for somebody to mention that new standards were developed seven years ago and the EPA has been holding off and now many states and independent organizations are suing them to get them off the dime implementing them.


----------



## SwineFlue (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> I have been waiting for somebody to mention that new standards were developed seven years ago and the EPA has been holding off and now many states and independent organizations are suing them to get them off the dime implementing them.



True.   And the new PFI standards were part of this.  From the EPA website:


*MilestoneDate*
Initiated09/11/2009
NPRM: Sent to OMB for Regulatory Review07/25/2013
NPRM: Received by OMB07/26/2013
NPRM: Regulatory Review Concluded01/02/2014
NPRM: Published in FR01/2014 (projected)


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

iron stove said:


> TJNAMTIW,  What is this Riverton Wyoming thing you talk about ? any articles ???




Google is your friend.  Google the town.


----------



## SwineFlue (Jan 11, 2014)

Stevekng said:


> You just know that the new stoves will be more expensive because of the new designs. I will make sure that I replace my stoves with the pre- regulation ones.



And used prices will probably go up too.

The  Impact Analysis says the EPA estimates  new stoves will become 4.3% to 10.7% more expensive because of these new regulations.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

iron stove said:


> TJNAMTIW,  What is this Riverton Wyoming thing you talk about ? any articles ???


Hi, iron stove.  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...borders-of-wyoming-governor-appeals-decision/

Unbelievable!


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

If I remember, Romney said he would reign in the EPA in order to create jobs............  The other guy let go of the reigns!


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 11, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> The double auger stoves from Englander come in at 2.4 grams I think. Box stores will have a tougher time competing.


 

we're working on it  the other manufacturers got in to the big box by underbidding us. not because they had better stats.

ive started digesting the requirements (aint easy to sit and read, very dry stuff) when the rubber hits the road though , we'll be there aint gonna be easy , but its going to get done, that's how we roll at ESW


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Not yet. I love some of these threads where people start complaining because new stoves will be more efficient. And nothing they already have is going to be affected.


 

the term is "ex post facto" and its specifically forbidden in the Constitution. most folks know of it as the "grandfather clause"


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

"ex post grandpa".


----------



## Lake Girl (Jan 11, 2014)

EPA approved as of December 2013
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

Just like every year since 1988.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> EPA approved as of December 2013
> http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf



Wrong stove lists


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 11, 2014)

here's my take , and those of you stil running pre - epa stove please don't take offense to what im saying.

rather than implementing more stringent standards (which wont have any effect for decades with woodstoves, sooner with pellet stoves as the turn over rate is higher) why not work harder to bring the current fleet of roughly the 35% of woodburners in north America which are pre-epa units up to the current standard through incentives. say "cash for chokers"  similar to state and locally run swap out programs?

if you look at the differential between phase 2 units and non regulated one the differential is massive compared to the gains between the current new stove requirements and the ones coming down the pike. to me this is where real progress could be made faster if you take a quarter million pre epa units off stream the effect would be the same as replacing 2 million phase 2 stoves with the new standard ones if not greater.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> if you take a quarter million pre epa units off stream the effect would be the same as replacing 2 million phase 2 stoves with the new standard ones if not greater.



But I don't need none of that new stuff. The old stuff works just fine.

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Lake Girl (Jan 11, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Wrong stove lists



What do you mean wrong stove lists?


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> What do you mean wrong stove lists?



The EPA is famous for running multiple lists and not all approved devices are always on each one.   A lot of those stoves are only there because of being exempt and thus do not meet the new certification standards.

They are allowed by default and a lot them will not be salable as meeting the "new standards".  

Being approved is not the same as meeting current certification standards.  Funny that

It is a huge play on words.  Exactly like the efficiency numbers.  Government like a bad neighbor is always there to ....


----------



## Lake Girl (Jan 11, 2014)

Realize many listed will not meet new standards but it is the current list of "certified".  Informative list as has pm values...


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 11, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> Realize many listed will not meet new standards but it is the current list of "certified".  Informative list as has pm values...



I choose to call it an approved stove list since most of the stoves on that list do not meet any certifications and were as Mike mentioned grandfathered by law (but given current stuff going on here in the good ole USofA I'm surprised that they haven't just simply removed all of the exempt stoves and sent around the stove destruction police).


----------



## The Grintch (Jan 11, 2014)

Another rule to follow by the Nanny!


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

I ain't worried about the EPA. And I retired from an oil company with a couple of exes in its name. And still have a basic ton of their stock.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> I choose to call it an approved stove list since most of the stoves on that list do not meet any certifications and were as Mike mentioned grandfathered by law (but given current stuff going on here in the good ole USofA I'm surprised that they haven't just simply removed all of the exempt stoves and sent around the stove destruction police).


I can see us all in line at the police station to turn in our stoves and the cops cutting them up with chop saws.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> I ain't worried about the EPA. And I retired from an oil company with a couple of exes in its name. And still have a basic ton of their stock.


One oil spill by that oil company and Big Brother EPA will turn that stock into pretty toilet paper.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

Two last year. Stock is up 33% in that year. Since when does the EPA control stock prices?


----------



## Madcodger (Jan 11, 2014)

Holy cow...  I go off and do things on a Saturday and when I return some folks have built themselves a bunker and holed up to prepare for an onslaught by imaginary storm troopers.  It's a proposed regulation, open for public comment.  Take a few minutes, write up your opinion, and let 'em know.  Personally, I like the idea of cleaner, likely more efficient stoves. The advantage we can have in the US is technology.  Creating regulation that requires better technology supports that advantage.  

And as long as I'm commenting, let me point out that we can't do anything about how much coal they burn in China except buy less of the stuff made there and more of the stuff made here.  Raise the standards, and you support that AND get some cleaner air as well.  But again, the regs are PROPOSED.  The nice thing about being in the U.S. is that you get to have a voice somewhere more official than the pellet stove forum.  Go use it by all means, and then let's get back to comparing stoves and pellets and arguing about things we can do something about.  I haven't had a good OAK argument in 2 or 3 days!


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 11, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Two last year. Stock is up 33% in that year. Since when does the EPA control stock prices?


Wow, spill oil and make money!!  Who would have thunk it?  Haven't you noticed, the EPA controls everything, including which towns the Indians are awarded.  Riverton, Wyoming.  All they need to do is enact new rules to prevent those spills that involve impossible regulations and solid gold valves and pipes.  Just kidding.
Now that you're retired, have you noticed you have no time to do all the stuff you did when you worked?    (not counting monitoring all the crazies on here!)


----------



## MountainSean (Jan 11, 2014)

My take on the regulations is that they are a good thing. I am using a twenty+ year old stove design that is over 81% efficient with 1 G/Hour emissions. If a stove that old can meet the requirements that are still years down the road then why can't new stoves be made to that standard? It may affect my thoughts on it that I live in one of those areas where wood smoke is a huge problem in the winter since we are ringed by mountains and have a lot of inversion layers through the season. If the goals were unrealistic or hideously expensive (see some of the EPA coal plant requirements for that) then I might be against them, but the technology has existed to hit the numbers they are looking at for years now at a pretty comparatively low cost.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 11, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Now that you're retired, have you noticed you have no time to do all the stuff you did when you worked?



Yes. I don't know how that happens.


----------



## ZBrooks (Jan 12, 2014)

Are there any stoves in production today that do not meet the proposed regs?


----------



## ivanhoe (Jan 12, 2014)

Madcodger said:


> Holy cow...  I go off and do things on a Saturday and when I return some folks have built themselves a bunker and holed up to prepare for an onslaught by imaginary storm troopers.  It's a proposed regulation, open for public comment.  Take a few minutes, write up your opinion, and let 'em know.  Personally, I like the idea of cleaner, likely more efficient stoves. The advantage we can have in the US is technology.  Creating regulation that requires better technology supports that advantage.
> 
> And as long as I'm commenting, let me point out that we can't do anything about how much coal they burn in China except buy less of the stuff made there and more of the stuff made here.  Raise the standards, and you support that AND get some cleaner air as well.  But again, the regs are PROPOSED.  The nice thing about being in the U.S. is that you get to have a voice somewhere more official than the pellet stove forum.  Go use it by all means, and then let's get back to comparing stoves and pellets and arguing about things we can do something about.  I haven't had a good OAK argument in 2 or 3 days!



There's not much un-Chinese made stuff to buy anymore. Our governments let go on the reigns to keep manufacturing jobs here for our future citizens so all for CEO's and share holder's fill their pockets. They drove the oil price up before implementing higher gas mileage regulations vehicle's so they could bleed us to death. I do not trust any government officials, I've seen too many corrupted stories and regulations and would be very hesitant to believe it's for the better...  Been a proposal, you better get your voice heard or get ready for higher pellet cost in the very near future. I say government should be OAK'ed so we could live more efficiently!


----------



## krooser (Jan 12, 2014)

iron stove said:


> TJNAMTIW,  What is this Riverton Wyoming thing you talk about ? any articles ???


*Riverton* (Arapaho: Hóóxonó'oo [6]) is a city in Fremont County, Wyoming,United States that the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior and Department of Justice in early December 2013 declared to be under the jurisdiction of the Wind River Indian Reservation as delegated authority under the Clean Air Act.[7] The city's population was 10,615 at the 2010 census.


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 12, 2014)

MountainSean said:


> My take on the regulations is that they are a good thing. I am using a twenty+ year old stove design that is over 81% efficient with 1 G/Hour emissions. If a stove that old can meet the requirements that are still years down the road then why can't new stoves be made to that standard? It may affect my thoughts on it that I live in one of those areas where wood smoke is a huge problem in the winter since we are ringed by mountains and have a lot of inversion layers through the season. If the goals were unrealistic or hideously expensive (see some of the EPA coal plant requirements for that) then I might be against them, but the technology has existed to hit the numbers they are looking at for years now at a pretty comparatively low cost.


 Your old stove would never meet the "new testing method standards because manf.will not reproduce "new" old style stoves just for testing,and they will not come to your house for testing.Then the next step is your insurance company."your heating appliance does not meet the new standards,you have to upgrade"Ever wonder why there are no "new " small airplanes?


----------



## Harvey Schneider (Jan 12, 2014)

bob bare said:


> Yep more totalitarian government.The EPA has caused more financial ruin to this country than just about anything else.


I have worked in two industries controlled by government agencies. The medical device industry controlled by the FDA and Commercial aviation controlled by the FAA. Trust me when I say that the people at the EPA are rank amateurs, by comparison, when it comes to screwing up an industry. Something happens to ordinary people when you give them absolute power over a thing.


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 12, 2014)

Harvey Schneider said:


> I have worked in two industries controlled by government agencies. The medical device industry controlled by the FDA and Commercial aviation controlled by the FAA. Trust me when I say that the people at the EPA are rank amateurs, by comparison, when it comes to screwing up an industry. Something happens to ordinary people when you give them absolute power over a thing.


 I believe you have probably seen the worse!Being in the automotive field I can show you why your $10,000 truck costs $55,000,and your older units are being forced into obsolesnce?(sic?) by ethanol.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jan 12, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Yes. I don't know how that happens.


it will be there tomorrow.


----------



## Stevekng (Jan 12, 2014)

SmokeyTheBear said:


> Wrong stove lists


I didn't see QuadraFire Castile FS or St. Croix Afton Bay.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 12, 2014)

ZBrooks said:


> Are there any stoves in production today that do not meet the proposed regs?


Yes. There are many. However. many of them are older designs still in production. The Englander double auger stoves come to mind...those are 30% of my service volume, not cause their bad...just because they are plentiful. Every other person has one it seems. They can still use them, they just need a redesign to comply.


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 12, 2014)

bob bare said:


> Your old stove would never meet the "new testing method standards because manf.will not reproduce "new" old style stoves just for testing,and they will not come to your house for testing.Then the next step is your insurance company."your heating appliance does not meet the new standards,you have to upgrade"Ever wonder why there are no "new " small airplanes?


I have wondered that..it is always a 1983 Cesna or something like that


----------



## MarkF48 (Jan 12, 2014)

My theme song for 2014 through 2016.....


----------



## Don2222 (Jan 12, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> The biggest part of the rule that I'm excited about is the fact that all stoves will now have to state their efficiency. No more default 78% and hide away the real numbers. This will help some models and hurt some others but many makers hide the fact that their stoves (and we are talking about very well known brands here cause I've seen the redacted documents) are simply very inefficient. Anyone know of an insert that was recently resigned? Just sayin...



This is not good for Dealers is it?

According to the specs, some of the Enviros are only 1.6 or 1.7 and 2.0 g/hr so will some of your showroom stoves be headed of the scrap heap?

*Enviro Empress*

Efficiency 83.5%. EPA Tested *1.7 g/hr emissions.*

*Enviro Mini*

Heats 600 to 1200 sq. ft. 75% Efficiency. *EPA Tested 1.6 g/hr*

*Enviro M55 Steel*

Nicest pellet flame in the industry! 55,000 BTU’sHeats up to 2500 sq. ft. 76.6% Efficiency. *EPA tested 2.0 g/hr emissions

Enviro M55 Cast
*
Nicest pellet flame in the industry! 55,000 BTU’s. Heats up to 2500 sq. ft. 76.6% Efficiency.* EPA tested 2.0 g/hr emissions*


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 12, 2014)

Don2222 said:


> This is not good for Dealers is it?
> 
> According to the specs, some of the Enviros are only 1.6 or 1.7 and 2.0 g/hr so will some of your showroom stoves be headed of the scrap heap?
> 
> ...


It's 2 grams or under per hour...it's not right away either...maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe 8 years. I don't think dealers will be effected either way...unless regulation starts to make it difficult to use stoves and everybody just goes back to oil, electric or propane.


----------



## MountainSean (Jan 12, 2014)

Not all government regulations are bad. If it wasn't for government regulations our kids would be working for a factory at 7 years old while getting paid company script rather than wages. Without government regulations manufacturing companies could dump toxic waste onto the bare ground like they used to. Without government regulations we would have cars that are much less safe and more polluting than current ones are. To be certain that there are government regulations themselves that are wasteful, onerous and just plain wrong. There are also government actions that are illegal or blatant power grabs and that should get the people in charge thrown in prison such as Wyoming, TSA, NSA  etc. But when I step outside my house in Montana in a town with 3,000 people living in it and I can't see a mile because of the haze of smoke from peoples inefficient and unclean pellet and woodstoves then I do wonder if something couldn't be done. When I further see that the technology to make the stoves burn cleaner has been available for decades and is cheap as can be then yes, I do think that some regulations requiring the manufacturers to clean things up might be a good thing. I am willing to pay $250 more for a $3k stove if doing so means that I can breathe when I step outside and more importantly that I will be participating in a way to leave my kids a cleaner world rather than a dirty cesspool. If my 20+ year old stove will eventually no longer be allowed to be used then so be it, it has had a good life and provided a lot of heat keeping people warm though due to grandfathering I won't likely have to throw my stove out. These are of course my opinions and your opinions may differ but as has been pointed out, these rules are in draft form and open to public commentary, so go and register and make your opinion known.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 12, 2014)

MountainSean said:


> Without government regulations manufacturing companies could dump toxic waste onto the bare ground like they used to. Without government regulations we would have cars that are much less safe and more polluting than current ones are. To be certain that there are government regulations themselves that are wasteful, onerous and just plain wrong.



I do not believe that government should be doing this controlling that you suggest. I think WE the people could take care of most of that. And We can do that by getting educated. Today the majority of the people just follow our leaders blindly without thinking. I can tell you that if you take the best car in the world and give it to someone who does not care the pollution levels will still be high. On the other hand if you take someone who cares this will not occur. Education is the KEY not the government.


----------



## SwineFlue (Jan 12, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> It's 2 grams or under per hour...it's not right away either...maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe 8 years..



There are two options in the proposed regulations, in two or three phases over either 5 or 8 years to ultimately get to a 1.3 g/hr limit.  They are specifically asking for comments to help decide which option to take.

Either way, the first phase requires emissions of less than 4.5 g/hr, which they say most pellet stoves (221 out of  224 in Washington State's certification list) already meet.  I don't know how many pellet boilers/furnaces  are already compliant with the first phase numbers.

Also, they say that existing models can be made until their current 5-year certification expires, so the manufacturer doesn't have to shut down the day after this takes effect.


----------



## Don2222 (Jan 12, 2014)

Hello

I recall that when the new cars had to meet the new EPA requirements and micro computers had to be installed to monitor the emissions. Depending upon the year of your car say 1996 to 2000 you could have 2 systems fail and still get a sticker. In order to get the sticker you have to reset the computer and then drive your car thru all the drive cycles to reset each sensor monitor. I have done it in 25 miles by doing combined highway and stop and go driving. Then get the sticker before driving anymore, which can cause more failures to register in the computer. Some sensors rest much faster than others! Just understanding each drive cycle to reset each sensor takes an engineer to figure out! The car manufactures are very reluctant to give out this information and the people working there do not understand it for the most part. I had to stand around the car shop and refuse to go home until I got the technical docs on how it all works!

Anyway, perfecting all these changes and the computer to be reliable was a manufacturing nightmare. Many people did not buy new cars for years until all the bugs were ironed out. Just having new EPA approoved stoves in your showroom does not mean they will be big sellers, in fact they may go bust! I am not so sure I want a black box computer in my pellet stove and maybe paying $400 dollers for a new one evertime it goes bad!


----------



## rona (Jan 12, 2014)

How much more will the stove cost?  Most of you know a few years ago you could get a rebate from both State and Fed income tax if your stove was a % efficient. Most of the time the companies simply had to send the gov their information and their company was put on the approved list.


----------



## heat seeker (Jan 12, 2014)

A rebate from the government? Getting my own money back? They shouldn't take it in the first place.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 12, 2014)

heat seeker said:


> A rebate from the government? Getting my own money back? They shouldn't take it in the first place.



The year I got the rebate it just covered what I would have owed in taxes. So I got your money back, not mine.

Thanks!


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 12, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> The year I got the rebate it just covered what I would have owed in taxes. So I got your money back, not mine.
> 
> Thanks!



Now there is some sound logic lol


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 12, 2014)

Harvey Schneider said:


> Something happens to ordinary people when you give them absolute power over a thing.



Kinda like moderators on internet forums.


----------



## boomhour (Jan 12, 2014)

chken said:


> First, these are proposed standards for the future. They won't effect existing stoves.
> 
> As with any new proposed regulation, it's a wait and see. We have to see what the effect will be upon mfrs of wood and pellet stoves. What will they have to do to meet the new standards, and what will they charge consumers.
> 
> ...



With Paromax .06 g /hr. efficiency rating from the boys in Ottawa, this stove looks highly efficient 8 years out. Would gasification be in the future for some of the manufacturers?


----------



## Lake Girl (Jan 12, 2014)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Lord Acton 1887.  Seems to be an age old problem.


----------



## boomhour (Jan 13, 2014)

Lake Girl said:


> Which means a very large amount of the stoves currently burning will not be able to be serviced or sold with a home... if that wording is used.
> Dirty Dave posted this link in another thread - lots wouldn't meet the standard of 1.3.
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/indoor_woodsmoke/pdfs/Wood_Pellet.pdf
> 
> On average, what I have noticed is the higher BTU stoves have a corresponding higher pm value - so you could have 3 or 4 small pellet stoves but not one larger one?  Any consideration to particulate matter to BTU ratio?





Lake Girl said:


> EPA approved as of December 2013
> http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf




Unless i missed it, i never seem to be on any list.


----------



## MCPO (Jan 13, 2014)

boomhour said:


> With Paromax .06 g /hr. efficiency rating from the boys in Ottawa, this stove looks highly efficient 8 years out. Would gasification be in the future for some of the manufacturers?


Theoretically this seems the best technology of all to get the most out of the fuel with the least emissions and evidently Paromax has accomplished just that to a degree and with some success but it really needs to be adopted by a company with the means to provide more R&D and better support than what I`ve read about. .


----------



## kenny22 (Jan 13, 2014)

This could kill the wood and pellet appliance industry. There is not a current stove on the market that would pass these proposed EPA Standards. Thousands of jobs will be lost. The emissions specs are not the problem. It is the testing procedure. Under the current procedure, some stoves would pass. However, a lot of manufacturers would be forced to close (just like what happened in the 80s when the EPA released the first NSPS) and thousands will lose their jobs.

The problem is the new testing procedure that does not take averages of the four burn settings (low, medium low, medium high, and high). This is where is gets complicated. It is pretty much going to take the least efficient setting (high burn) then do more burns at that setting and then take the average of that. Very confusing but under this, no stove will pass. Not even a current pellet stove would pass.

The big joke is the "environmental benefits". These new stoves will be SOOOOO EXPENSIVE that most will not be able to afford them. They will instead keep their old units that are pouring out high amounts of carbon. It will actually make the air quality a lot worse. But hey, whatever makes people think it's better is all they care about.


----------



## SmokeyTheBear (Jan 13, 2014)

stoveguy2esw said:


> we're working on it  the other manufacturers got in to the big box by underbidding us. not because they had better stats.
> 
> ive started digesting the requirements (aint easy to sit and read, very dry stuff) when the rubber hits the road though , we'll be there aint gonna be easy , but its going to get done, that's how we roll at ESW



Lower your air flow through the device and add an ash extractor and a larger and better heat exchanger.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

I was going to buy a 2 cf stove this year because my CFM-FW240007 is so small. I guess a better wait before buying anything. I sure don't want the government to knock on my door and take my brand new stove.


----------



## kenny22 (Jan 13, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> I was going to buy a 2 cf stove this year because my CFM-FW240007 is so small. I guess a better wait before buying anything. I sure don't want the government to knock on my door and take my brand new stove.



They can't. This is not even law yet. Just open for public comment. Even so, it would not go into effect until 2015 I believe. You will be safe.


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

kenny22 said:


> They can't. This is not even law yet. Just open for public comment. Even so, it would not go into effect until 2015 I believe. You will be safe.



And there will be a 3 or 5 yr grace period. To me this is a pretty silly "the sky is falling" thread. Cleaning up emissions helps us all. It helps dealers sell new stoves, we get more heat from our fuel, the air doesn't stink of wood smoke, kids asthma rate will hopefully start reversing from record highs, and hearth.com gets a whole new set of posters trying to figure out this new tech.  Stop worrying folks, no one is going to take your stove out of your burning hot hands. But maybe, just maybe you will like the next gen of burners. I certainly like what reduced emissions and greater fuel economy is doing to cars and trucks.

My proposal to reduce emissions: Provide a $200 incentive toward installing a wood shed. Dry wood will clean up emissions for all woodstoves, including older units.


----------



## IHATEPROPANE (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> And there will be a 3 or 5 yr grace period. To me this is a pretty silly "the sky is falling" thread. Cleaning up emissions helps us all. It helps dealers sell new stoves, we get more heat from our fuel, the air doesn't stink of wood smoke, kids asthma rate will hopefully start reversing from record highs, and hearth.com gets a whole new set of posters trying to figure out this new tech.  Stop worrying folks, no one is going to take your stove out of your burning hot hands. But maybe, just maybe you will like the next gen of burners. I certainly like what reduced emissions and greater fuel economy is doing to cars and trucks.
> 
> My proposal to reduce emissions: Provide a $200 incentive toward installing a wood shed. Dry wood will clean up emissions for all woodstoves, including older units.



I agree with everything you said with the exception of helping dealers sell more stoves.  If it is adds more costs than sales will go down.  And as far as saving money because they will be more efficient I doubt the majority will save anything since to achieve such efficiencies the stoves will have to be very clean....which we all know many people don't have any idea what that means.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

IHATEPROPANE said:


> And as far as saving money because they will be more efficient I doubt the majority will save anything since to achieve such efficiencies the stoves will have to be very clean....which we all know many people don't have any idea what that means.



That is why the government should not get involved with these stupid regulations. I believe that education is the key to everything. After being on this forum for a few month I have learned to make my little stove burn better. Did I ask for government involvement. NO. We as a society have become enabled and we want the government to solve all of our problems. It never works and never will work. IMHO


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

Right, people in West  VA right now are so grateful they voted to keep govt. regulations out of way. Same thing for the folks in West TX keeping OSHA and the feds away. Nobody wants them until someone gets hurt.


----------



## Justin M (Jan 13, 2014)

This!


begreen said:


> My proposal to reduce emissions: Provide a $200 incentive toward installing a wood shed. Dry wood will clean up emissions for all woodstoves, including older units.



90% of the wood burners I know don't season and store their wood properly.  It is a critical issue with cat stoves.


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

Looks like the EPA is on it - $215 wood shed plans

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/WoodShedDiagram.pdf


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> Looks like the EPA is on it - $215 wood shed plans
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/WoodShedDiagram.pdf


One cord?


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 13, 2014)

I wonder what the new wood burning insert is going to look like?  How to remove that particulate filter every couple of weeks?  Catalytic converter?  Or does that not help with particulates?


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> I wonder what the new wood burning insert is going to look like?  How to remove that particulate filter every couple of weeks?  Catalytic converter?  Or does that not help with particulates?



Wood burning will be banned..........................................lol


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 13, 2014)

Gasificating wood burning inserts?  I like that euro boiler/room heater that you see on ads here.  Now all I'd have to do is tear out the old one, rip out some sheetrock and studs, put it in the chase, plumb it up, and cut up about 35 cords of wood to 12" length.


----------



## boomhour (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> Stop worrying folks, no one is going to take your stove out of your burning hot hands.



After our stove was inspected and passed by our current house ins. co. (Co-operators), we called our car insurance co. (O.T.I.P.) to get a quote as we would like to have it all under one roof to enable us to get a discount. O.T.I.P. said that we could only burn one ton of pellets max. per year in order for them to insure us.  As part of the inspection, we were asked how many pellets we would burn a year.  We did not have an answer because we have never been through a winter with this stove.  That part was left blank and we have never had a follow-up call from our current insurance co.  I guess we will just sleeping dogs lie.   Could other ins. co. implement this with the new standards that  may come into effect?


----------



## smwilliamson (Jan 13, 2014)

boomhour said:


> Unless i missed it, i never seem to be on any list.


You are there: 
Dell Point Technologies
before it was Paromax


----------



## boomhour (Jan 13, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> You are there:
> Dell Point Technologies
> before it was Paromax



Yes. I saw that, but, the stove has changed some, was hoping for a update.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 13, 2014)

Can someone point me to the section in the Constitution that says that the Federal Government shall have the authority to regulate how I heat my house.............


----------



## Mt Bob (Jan 13, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Can someone point me to the section in the Constitution that says that the Federal Government shall have the authority to regulate how I heat my house.............


 It's right under-you have to purchase health insurance!


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 13, 2014)

bob bare said:


> It's right under-you have to purchase health insurance!


EXACTLY!


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 13, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Can someone point me to the section in the Constitution that says that the Federal Government shall have the authority to regulate how I heat my house.............



Article one, section eight, clause eighteen.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

bob bare said:


> It's right under-you have to purchase health insurance!



And you have to buy car insurance and homeowners insurance all laws passed by the government


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 13, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> And you have to buy car insurance and homeowners insurance all laws passed by the government



No law requires you to buy homeowner's insurance. Your mortgage company is the one that requires that.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> Article one, section eight, clause eighteen.



Here is the clause that BrotherBart is talking about : "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

velvetfoot said:


> I wonder what the new wood burning insert is going to look like?  How to remove that particulate filter every couple of weeks?  Catalytic converter?  Or does that not help with particulates?


I suspect the new Woodstock stove already meets the spec. The Lopi Cape Cod (freestander) too. No reason why that tech couldn't apply to an insert as well. So far no one is complaining about unusual maintenance requirements, but they are extolling the virtues of more heat.

I have to say it was darned impressive in DC at the decathlon to see 8 chimneys all with no indication of smoke and no smoke smell downwind. This is with current technology.


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

tjnamtiw said:


> Can someone point me to the section in the Constitution that says that the Federal Government shall have the authority to regulate how I heat my house.............



Tell me where the new regs say that. They just determine what will be on the market about 3-5 yrs from now.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> I suspect the new Woodstock stove already meets the spec



Are you referring to the Progress Hybrid? 
I believe the two stoves you are referring too are to big for my house.


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

I was referring to the Ideal Steel. There will be plenty of new models, sizes and options if the new regs pass. The point is that this can be done with current tech. Regardless, no one is telling you to get rid of your current stove if that works well.


----------



## DamienBricka (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> I was referring to the Ideal Steel. There will be plenty of new models, sizes and options if the new regs pass. The point is that this can be done with current tech. Regardless, no one is telling you to get rid of your current stove if that works well.



I have the CFM-FW240007. It is a little to small when the temperature drops below 35F in my 1320 square feet home. And I hate reloading every 4 hours that is why I need to upgrade to a 2cf stove if I can find the right stove at the right price for my needs.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 13, 2014)

I love the "cost more" lines. The EPA doesn't require all of the ritzy crap most people want on their stoves. My current EPA stove was cheaper than my old smoker was back in 1985 dollars. In fact adjusted for inflation it cost me a third of what the old one did.


----------



## jatoxico (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> Looks like the EPA is on it - $215 wood shed plans
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/pdfs/WoodShedDiagram.pdf



Now if only the old horses that really need one will drink.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> I suspect the new Woodstock stove already meets the spec. The Lopi Cape Cod (freestander) too. No reason why that tech couldn't apply to an insert as well. So far no one is complaining about unusual maintenance requirements, but they are extolling the virtues of more heat.
> 
> I have to say it was darned impressive in DC at the decathlon to see 8 chimneys all with no indication of smoke and no smoke smell downwind. This is with current technology.


The latest Fireplace Xtraordinair Hybrid, with tubes and cat, as someone posted, might already meet the bill.  Tubes and Cats de rigueur in future?


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 13, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> Here is the clause that BrotherBart is talking about : "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."



'Execution the foregoing Powers' ...... I don't think home heating was one of the foregoing powers.


----------



## tjnamtiw (Jan 13, 2014)

DamienBricka said:


> I have the CFM-FW240007. It is a little to small when the temperature drops below 35F in my 1320 square feet home. And I hate reloading every 4 hours that is why I need to upgrade to a 2cf stove if I can find the right stove at the right price for my needs.


Just posted this on another thread but it fits you too.    85,000 btu's should keep you warm! >
''I just can't help it again! You live in Pennsylvania, land of cheap coal and there's a whole new breed of efficient, CLEAN, free standing and inserts that burn good ole Pa. Anthracite! Twice the btu's per hour out of the stove and coal has way more btu's per pound and the price is stable at about $220 a ton depending on where you live.
http://nepacrossroads.com/
http://readingstove.com/
http://www.leisurelinestoves.com/
http://www.keystoker.com
''


----------



## SmokeEater (Jan 13, 2014)

smwilliamson said:


> article:
> 
> http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2014/01/pro-wood-heating-group-says-epa.html?utm_source=Copy of December 13 Newsletter&utm_campaign=January Newsletter&utm_medium=email



Don't want to seem too ignorant, but there is talk of numbers  allowed.  What are the units??  Grams of what?  Particulates or a combustion gas such as CO or CO2?  None were mentioned or I missed them.


----------



## begreen (Jan 13, 2014)

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads...ves-will-become-obsolete.121816/#post-1631673


----------



## ZBrooks (Jan 13, 2014)

begreen said:


> My proposal to reduce emissions: Provide a $200 incentive toward installing a wood shed. Dry wood will clean up emissions for all woodstoves, including older units.



Why should someone have the authority to take my money and give it to someone else to build a woodshed?



begreen said:


> Right, people in West  VA right now are so grateful they voted to keep govt. regulations out of way. Same thing for the folks in West TX keeping OSHA and the feds away. Nobody wants them until someone gets hurt.



Incidents like these should point out that people should be more aware and involved of what is going on around them.  If they were, chances are that they would police themselves and holding people accountable for the actions/inactions, rather than wasting their money, time, energy, etc. on inefficient government involvement.

If the general populous is so worried about the pollution of wood and pellet stoves, where is the uprising to show for it?  Where are the masses demanding the improvements?


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 13, 2014)

I looked real hard trying to find the word pellet. Didn't find it.


----------

