# Outright Ban On Anything Wood In Utah! Pellets/Cord Wood/Fireplaces



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

On November 24, 2014 Utah Department of Environmental Quality sent a memoradum to their Air Quality Board proposing that ALL wood product burning be banned in the following counties: Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah and Weber Counties...

Folks this is the entire Wasatch front!  The only exceptions will be for an estimated 100 families where wood is the sole source of heat (and the state is trying to find funds to move these families to other devices) and for wood burning above 7,000 ft.  I would guess that any visitors (hunters and skiers) know the only thing above 7,000 feet are ski resorts and the homes people with wealth can afford.

The entire stove industry, manufacturers, retailers and distributors as well as YOU wood and pellet burners should become engaged in this issue.

If a conservative region such as Salt Lake can do this then counties like yours and mine are next!

There are much better and PROVEN way to help regions reach attainment for air quality, like stove change outs.  Yet, it Utah, the short quick fix is to ban wood burning altogether.

Is anyone listening? Here is the letter/proposal attached. Give it a read.


----------



## mellow (Dec 22, 2014)

Wow, that is all I can say, downright dumbfounded.  Who is the special interest group behind this?


----------



## TimfromMA (Dec 22, 2014)

It's just a proposal at this point. There are too many people who burn wood products. I don't see this going anywhere.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

mellow said:


> Wow, that is all I can say, downright dumbfounded.  Who is the special interest group behind this?


 
This is the State's reaction to not having reached attainment and filing a SIP (state implementation program) with EPA.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

TimfromMA said:


> It's just a proposal at this point. There are too many people who burn wood products. I don't see this going anywhere.


Those are the exact same words everyone used in the late 90's when WA state proposed their own emissions standards.


----------



## mellow (Dec 22, 2014)

They have basically said to hell with the hearth industry in Utah and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

They will only grant you the privilege of burning when it is declared legal in a state of emergency.


----------



## mellow (Dec 22, 2014)

“I’m really excited about this,” said Erin Mendenall, a Salt Lake City Council Member who serves on the Air Quality Board.  <LINK>

They spelled her name wrong in that article.

Google her name and interesting stuff will come up.  Erin Mendenhall


----------



## TheRambler (Dec 22, 2014)

I would be outside the statehouse with a pitch fork, just sayin....


----------



## flyingpile (Dec 22, 2014)

Ya, 1 million people driving their cars back and forth to work every day, several refineries, many large manufacturing/industrial areas and they blame the valley pollution on the miniscule percentage of people that burn wood in their homes.  It's just an easy way for them to make it look like they are fixing the air pollution problem in the valley.


----------



## F4jock (Dec 22, 2014)

Coal and fuel oil are OK?


----------



## BCC_Burner (Dec 22, 2014)

Lots of people burn coal in open fireplaces and smoke dragons here in Utah.  Coal is extremely cheap around these parts, and I am the only person in my neighborhood with a wood burning stove who doesn't buy a ton of coal per year to supplement their firewood.

Also, I live above 7,000' feet and am poor, so watch who you're calling privileged.


----------



## F4jock (Dec 22, 2014)

BCC_Burner said:


> Lots of people burn coal in open fireplaces and smoke dragons here in Utah.  Coal is extremely cheap around these parts, and I am the only person in my neighborhood with a wood burning stove who doesn't buy a ton of coal per year to supplement their firewood.
> 
> Also, I live above 7,000' feet and am poor, so watch who you're calling privileged.


My point about the coal is one of pollution generated vs wood if that's the point of banning wood.


----------



## BCC_Burner (Dec 22, 2014)

For sure, coal is much dirtier, and I can't believe how common it is for people to burn it around here.  Growing up in northeast Pennsylvania I never encountered as many people burning coal, and at least back there they have cleaner burning anthracite.  

Part of the problem here too is that people who burn coal don't have coal stoves, they are burning coal in Franklin stoves (which for some reason are the most prevalent kind of woodstove you see in Utah homes) or even open fireplaces.

Nevermind the fact that the same pollution trapping valley is home to numerous smelters, refineries, trash incinerators and even a medical waste incinerator, plus millions of vehicles.  But it must be the couple thousand people burning wood who are truly fouling the air; that's why the entire valley has a metallic smell, akin to the way blood tastes, whenever the air quality is bad.

This is only one of many reasons that I am moving away from this awful, polluted backwater hellhole of a state.  "This is the place" my ass.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 22, 2014)

80% of the states electricity comes from coal from US Energy Imformation Administration.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 22, 2014)

The HPBA has been no help to me in reigning in our puget sound air control board either. You're dealing with the same problem as we are in the seattle/tacoma metro, a bunch of folks looking for an excuse to take away wood burning. Little by little.


----------



## TimfromMA (Dec 22, 2014)

More pellets for the rest of us.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 22, 2014)

BKVP said:


> This is the State's reaction to not having reached attainment and filing a SIP (state implementation program) with EPA.



Is a ban on wood and coal burning the only thing the State is proposing toward reaching attainment in that area?

I can't get the file posted here  but a quick google search brought up nothing but a burn ban.


----------



## moey (Dec 22, 2014)

TimfromMA said:


> More pellets for the rest of us.



You live in MA if they can do it in Utah you better believe they can do something in MA land of regulation.


----------



## TimfromMA (Dec 22, 2014)

Then all i can say is that Utah wood burners get up and yell. They won't listen to anyone out of state so until something like this comes up in MA, there's nothing for me to do except enjoy the extra pellets.


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

WA and OR are probably the strictest states for wood stove regs, some of which were championed by stove sellers.

This is not happening just in the US. As populations grow and fuel gets more expensive wood smoke is increasingly seen as an issue. In New Zealand wood smoke pollution is at crisis levels at times and they have very stiff regulations compared to here. Fireplace and open burning are the first things to be eliminated if the goal is to achieve quick results.

This is Christchurch on a bad day.


----------



## brad wilton (Dec 22, 2014)

have a ban on the island of montreal ,to much pollution in winter time,excuse me while i turn on my car and let it warm up for 15 20 minutes while i drink my coffee. I'M GETTING FED UP WITH THESE JACKASSES


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

The other issue is geography. The east coast in general, unlike the west coast doesn't have 10,000+ ft mountain ranges creating inversion bowls for the smoke to get trapped in. The air in these inversions is very bad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/utah-a-nature-lovers-haven-is-plagued-by-dirty-air.html

You would think of SLC as being relatively low industry and clean air, but the Wasatch Range acts like a barrier to hold in smoke.


----------



## GeHmTS (Dec 22, 2014)

Just curious, where there a lot of forest fires lately?


----------



## GeHmTS (Dec 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> The other issue is geography. The east coast in general, unlike the west coast doesn't have 10,000+ ft mountain ranges creating inversion bowls for the smoke to get trapped in. The air in these inversions is very bad.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/utah-a-nature-lovers-haven-is-plagued-by-dirty-air.html
> 
> You would think of SLC as being relatively low industry and clean air, but the Wasatch Range acts like a barrier to hold in smoke.
> ...


like smoking a pack a day just breathing air.


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

GeHmTS said:


> Just curious, where there a lot of forest fires lately?


By winter the forest fire season has passed in most regions.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

F4jock said:


> Coal and fuel oil are OK?


Yes this only addresses wood.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

BCC_Burner said:


> Lots of people burn coal in open fireplaces and smoke dragons here in Utah.  Coal is extremely cheap around these parts, and I am the only person in my neighborhood with a wood burning stove who doesn't buy a ton of coal per year to supplement their firewood.
> No inference intended.  However tree are some amazing homes above 7000'.  And ski resorts...
> Also, I live above 7,000' feet and am poor, so watch who you're calling privileged.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

tarzan said:


> Is a ban on wood and coal burning the only thing the State is proposing toward reaching attainment in that area?
> 
> I can't get the file posted here  but a quick google search brought up nothing but a burn ban.


Not coal....just wood.


----------



## SmokeyCity (Dec 22, 2014)

Just have everyone get Blake Kings and there will be no smoke or smell coming out of the chimney - they wont even know you are burning!




tarzan said:


> Is a ban on wood and coal burning the only thing the State is proposing toward reaching attainment in that area?
> 
> I can't get the file posted here  but a quick google search brought up nothing but a burn ban.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 22, 2014)

SmokeyCity said:


> Just have everyone get Blake Kings and there will be no smoke or smell coming out of the chimney - they wont even know you are burning!


 
Or even anything that meets current standards. You've still got a huge percentage burning in fireplaces and smoke dragons.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 22, 2014)

The proposed seasonal wood burn amendment would ban the use of solid fuel in open fireplaces and wood/coal stoves from Oct.1 to March 15.



BKVP said:


> Not coal....just wood.


----------



## Fake coal burner (Dec 22, 2014)

Good you probley havent lived here fo 70 + years Had brick factory 1 block a way burning coal black soot sticks to your nose less people. I switched from coal to wood finiley gas . We are in a bowl with the mountains all around.Smog sets low in the vallys I have seen 60 days or more with thick stuff.  Every body is not happy in some way or anther . Utah is the dumping grounds for nucluar wast and was clemical war fare that they burned for severl years.


----------



## xman23 (Dec 22, 2014)

mellow said:


> Wow, that is all I can say, downright dumbfounded.  Who is the special interest group behind this?



It happened in a small town in north east PA near me.


----------



## bioman (Dec 22, 2014)

Now utahidal.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 22, 2014)

tarzan said:


> The proposed seasonal wood burn amendment would ban the use of solid fuel in open fireplaces and wood/coal stoves from Oct.1 to March 15.


 
Sounds like coal since coal is pretty solid eh?



Fake coal burner said:


> Utah is the dumping grounds for nucluar wast and was clemical war fare that they burned for severl years.


 
I sent plenty of spent waste and reactors up the Columbia to Hanford in WA.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 22, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> Sounds like coal since coal is pretty solid eh?



Yeah, after 24 years of mining it I can attest to that. I can also attest to the fact that it's not as solid as the rock above it.


----------



## bsruther (Dec 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> WA and OR are probably the strictest stated for wood stove regs, some of which were championed by stove sellers.
> 
> This is not happening just in the US. As populations grow and fuel gets more expensive wood smoke is increasingly seen as an issue. In New Zealand wood smoke pollution is at crisis levels at times and they have very stiff regulations compared to here. Fireplace and open burning are the first things to be eliminated if the goal is to achieve quick results.
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but I get the feeling that you would love to see Utah pass this law.


----------



## Rossco (Dec 22, 2014)

Just crazy talk.

Renewable energy source. It's narrow minded people who condem wood burning and ignore other pollution sources.

Wood is one of the only renewable Heat producing energy sources. Nuclear can be reprocessed 60 times. 

It could be "When we run out of Coal & Oil & Gas we will need all the wood we can get"


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

bsruther, I have no stake in that race, though I agree with BKVP that open burning, fireplaces and smoke dragons should be the first step, not an outright ban. There may still be days where they have no choice but to stop all burning, but that should be indexed to air quality and not arbitrary. Not sure how bad it is there as I have never tracked their level of pollution and never been there in winter.

Ironically the last time I was in SLC was for the HPBA show with several stoves burning outdoors at the time. This was last March and the air was clear.


----------



## bsruther (Dec 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> bsruther, I have no stake in that race, though I agree with BKVP that open burning, fireplaces and smoke dragons should be the first step, not an outright ban. There may still be days where they have no choice but to stop all burning, but that should be indexed to air quality and not arbitrary. Not sure how bad it is there as I have never tracked their level of pollution and never been there in winter.
> 
> Ironically the last time I was in SLC was for the HPBA show with several stoves burning outdoors at the time. This was last March and the air was clear.


Having a stake in the race has nothing to do with whether or not you'd like to see the law passed. The correct answer would be either yes or no, but thanks for the response.


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

No, as it stands. Thought I made it clear that I am not in favor of an all out ban.


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 22, 2014)

In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.


----------



## 1kzwoman (Dec 22, 2014)

That 3.2 stuff messes with your thinkin..
Freezes to passable however


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

They have excellent brews well above 3.2. I found that out last spring.


----------



## Hardtopseadan (Dec 22, 2014)

So what I have read is that you will be able to burn all summer but not when we need to . ?


----------



## bsruther (Dec 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> No, as it stands. Thought I made it clear that I am not in favor of an all out ban.


So then, what are you in favor of having them pass? You said "smoke dragons should be the first step". Would you like to see the "smoke dragons" banned?


----------



## Jackfre (Dec 22, 2014)

If wood stoves are banned, only outlaws will have woodstoves!


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

bsruther said:


> So then, what are you in favor of having them pass? You said "smoke dragons should be the first step". Would you like to see the "smoke dragons" banned?


Not banned, but more like what we have here, indexed to the degree of pollution. Stage 1 locally means EPA 2 and pellet stoves only, no fireplace, pre-EPA stoves, or open burning. Stage 2 means no burning at all unless it is the sole source of heat. If there is no inversion and a good system is blowing through, why should any stove be banned? To encourage clean burning they could penalize the worst offenders if necessary based on the length of time and opacity of smoke. It also appears they might consider adopting CA standards for their cars if this is a major contributor to their air pollution. More aggressive filtration on the rest of local industry would also help.  Again, this is hypothetical. The only information I have on their problem has come through this thread.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 22, 2014)

bsruther said:


> So then, what are you in favor of having them pass? You said "smoke dragons should be the first step". Would you like to see the "smoke dragons" banned?



What Salt Lake needs is an opacity enforcement program.  Industry met with elected officials and ADEC in Fairbanks to encourage an opacity rule rather than a grams per hour rule. (And they still passed a 2.5 gr/hr max. for new appliances.)

Let's face it, if it smokes, it should not smoke and needs to be corrected through repair, proper burning habits, dry fuel, etc.  Even clean burning EPA stoves can burn dirty when not used correctly or burning wet fuel or trash.

The enforcement based on opacity means you can burn anything you like so long as it does not smoke.  There are times set aside for start up, refueling and even some number of minutes (6) to not be more than a specified amount opacity.

Then, depending upon projected air quality models, regional air staff can declare specific levels for each day or period of time.

This helps any outright bans.  And we need to encourage incentives for stove change out programs.

If you live in the area covered by this proposed ban, please send me a pm.  We will need to get a force together to participate in at least one if not more of the public hearings.  I will be flying down to provide testimony for the Tooele and Salt Lake events.

Let's get active to protect citizens' rights to burn clean!


----------



## begreen (Dec 22, 2014)

Good to hear that you will be attending the hearings. They need a dose of common sense.


----------



## DougA (Dec 22, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.


Correct but they won't do anything to restrict pollution from vehicles or industry so wood stoves are a natural target. That's the way gov't thinks. You elect them to do what is NOT right. 
I'm from Ontario and we're experts at electing people who do what we don't want.


----------



## bsruther (Dec 22, 2014)

begreen said:


> Not banned, but more like what we have here, indexed to the degree of pollution. Stage 1 locally means EPA 2 and pellet stoves only, no fireplace, pre-EPA stoves, or open burning. Stage 2 means no burning at all unless it is the sole source of heat. If there is no inversion and a good system is blowing through, why should any stove be banned? To encourage clean burning they could penalize the worst offenders if necessary based on the length of time and opacity of smoke. It also appears they might consider adopting CA standards for their cars if this is a major contributor to their air pollution. More aggressive filtration on the rest of local industry would also help.  Again, this is hypothetical. The only information I have on their problem has come through this thread.


Thanks for your answer.

Glad we don't have a stove gestapo watching our chimneys. I can envision a guy standing in front of a house with a smoke opacity meter pointing it at the chimney. You FAIL! No fire for you.


----------



## BradleyW (Dec 23, 2014)

I lived in Utah for 10 years. Those inversions suck. Such a beautiful place otherwise.
Unfortunately they tend not to use much common sense in the Utah legislature. They also tend not to want there to be any real government agencies with power to enforce regulations, and they certainly don't want any government handouts like a change-out program.
If it weren't for the Massachusetts change-out program I would still be using a stove too small or my house and a smoke dragon to supplement it when needed.


----------



## Kevin Dolan (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> They have excellent brews well above 3.2. I found that out last spring.
> 
> View attachment 148271
> View attachment 148272


Looks very tasty and low alcohol content.
Wonder when cremation will be banned for polluting the atmosphere.


----------



## F4jock (Dec 23, 2014)

Kevin Dolan said:


> Looks very tasty and low alcohol content.
> Wonder when cremation will be banned for polluting the atmosphere.


Just before breathing.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 23, 2014)

F4jock said:


> Just before breathing.



I don't see it that way at all. I think the ban on breathing would lead to an influx of cremations subsequently leading to the cremation ban.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 23, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.


 
This is really the important part. If we only learn one thing it is this. As wood burners we are an easy target, a minority. We can never defend ourselves from a gang of bullies stealing our lunch money.

Would they shut down industry? No, that's jobs and taxes for votes and revenue, cutting their own throat. Everybody has to drive so the majority of folks would be impacted by driving restrictions and that's votes. Wood burning? Sure, why not? It looks like they're doing something with very little downside.


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 23, 2014)

They actually admitted every one of your points in an article and interviews last February.

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/fea...hing-ban-on-woodburning-stoves-and-fireplaces


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

Gov Herbert seems to like simple minded solutions to a complex problem. A $3000 grant to replace the stove with propane or NG  is flawed. Most NG installs cost a lot more than $3K if there isn't a line already to the house. And propane is expensive.
_"Most days, even in the winter, there is a lot of air movement along the Wasatch Front, Niederhauser added.
“And we don’t have inversions on those days.”_
That backs up my thought to restrict wood burning in a 2 or 3 tiered manor depending on the severity of the inversion. They might also enforce driving restrictions during that period, perhaps based on even/odd license plate numbers. In the meantime adopt CA tier 3 auto emissions standards and 2 stroke motor regs. It's amazing that they are "waiting for technology" that already exists in a neighboring state.


----------



## branchburner (Dec 23, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> we are an easy target, a minority. We can never defend ourselves from a gang of bullies



Seems to be the way of politics in this country: under political pressure to "do something" politicians do anything, even if it does not solve the problem at hand, so long as the "solution" is quick, easy and cheap and it does not cost the politicians too much in terms of votes or campaign money.

If I was fighting this proposal I would urge people to do the math: even if ALL burning actually stopped (and nobody broke any laws) the best-case scenario is that the subsequent inversions are still 95% as bad as they used to be.

So if you had a flooded basement, this "solution" would be akin to a fix that left you 19 inches of water in the cellar rather than 20 inches. Or if you were trying to solve the problem of too much snow on a roof, it would be 57 inches deep instead of 60 inches. How much would a consumer pay for these "solutions?"

I don't have respiratory problems, but I can't imagine I would suffer that much less if I was stuck in a bus which had only 19 people smoking cigarettes instead of 20 people. It would never strike me as a "solution" to have the driver throw the smallest, weakest smoker off the bus, just because that guy can't fight back. For all practical purposes, the problem remains unaddressed.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

Politics is often about dealing with a superficial high visibility target, while letting the real and often tougher problems fester and get worse.


----------



## newatthis (Dec 23, 2014)

mellow said:


> Who is the special interest group behind this?





> This is the State's reaction to not having reached attainment and filing a SIP (state implementation program) with EPA.




Here in Virginia we don't seem to have the air quality problems you have in Utah, but we do have dumb-ass politicians taking bribes from any special interest group that will hand them out, and making decisions accordingly.  It doesn't take much money- we elect cheap whores (although our recent Governor required high-end gifts for all his kids, including wedding catering).  The local power company, Dominion, has fought hard against renewable energy, even though they benefit from net-metering just like homeowners.  So, not knowing the situation in Utah, I can only speculate, but I suspect it's the same short-sighted, half-assed leadership we see here.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 23, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> In the area they are talking about they admit that 60% of the air pollution is from vehicles 11% from industry and 5% is from wood burning.



What's the other 24% from?


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 23, 2014)

Probably lawn mowers and cow farts.


----------



## F4jock (Dec 23, 2014)

tarzan said:


> I don't see it that way at all. I think the ban on breathing would lead to an influx of cremations subsequently leading to the cremation ban.


Nah. We all do it together thus no cremations and we benefit all of the animals that will have us for munchies and we'll fertilize all the flora. It's an environmentalist"s dream!


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 23, 2014)

branchburner said:


> I don't have respiratory problems, but I can't imagine I would suffer that much less if I was stuck in a bus which had only 19 people smoking cigarettes instead of 20 people. It would never strike me as a "solution" to have the driver throw the smallest, weakest smoker off the bus, just because that guy can't fight back. For all practical purposes, the problem remains unaddressed.


 
Great post bud.

Really, I am pretty surprised that wood smoke is only 5% of the problem. Our clean air retards claim that wood burning makes up a much larger percentage.


----------



## F4jock (Dec 23, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> Great post bud.
> 
> Really, I am pretty surprised that wood smoke is only 5% of the problem. Our clean air retards claim that wood burning makes up a much larger percentage.


Probably because they want to save trees.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

Maybe because there are a higher percentage of wood burners here in WA.

Interesting fact, out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA. EPA stoves only make up 1 million or 10%. The other interesting demographic is that the majority of installations of wood heat stoves appears to be in mobile homes. Demographically the majority of owners are over 65.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> Maybe because there are a higher percentage of wood burners here.
> 
> Interesting fact, out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA. EPA stoves only make up 1 million or 10%.



That's, in large part, in the U.S. anyhow, because more must be done toward educating wood burners. This place is great but what percentage of the 9.3 million ever find there  way here?

I've suggested before, a MM should come with every new stove to help drive home the point beyond just what's in the owners manual used to start the first fire.

I'm sure there could be more beyond that we can do, just a suggestion.

Imagine if those numbers were reversed I your situation or even in the Wasatch Front. Speciation but I wonder if we would even be having this conversation.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

According to US census numbers the majority of wood burners are over 65 living in mobiles. It's a stretch to assume they even use the internet. And I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those installed were pre-EPA. I see this type of install right in our rural neighborhood and all around the state. Many without even a class A chimney.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> According to US census numbers the majority of wood burners are over 65 living in mobiles. It's a stretch to assume they even use the internet. And I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of those installed were pre-EPA. I see this type of install right in our rural neighborhood and all around the state. Many without even a class A chimney.



So 10 years, problem solved! Lol

There are many wood burners in my area, many under 65 but I also live in a poverty stricken area. The biggest problems I see are folks avoiding EPA stoves like the plaque because there brothers wife's cousin had one and he could never get it to burn.

From some posts here from people all over, I get the feeling that goes on in many other locations.


----------



## branchburner (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA.



That about lines up with my experience with friends, neighbors and co-workers... I am always slightly shocked when I bump into that 1 in 10 that has an EPA stove, and can actually converse about secondary combustion.

The fact that newer stoves employ efficient, clean combustion technology has to be one of the best kept secrets in this country. Policymakers rarely understand this, and even if they do, the voting constituencies remain largely in the dark. They mostly all think a stove is a stove is a stove. Even woodburners think that!

If voters and politicians all understood the vast differential in emissions from EPA stoves vs. fireplaces and smoke dragons, let alone open burning, these blanket-bans would never fly.

If wood smoke is only 5% of the problem here, and 90% of stoves are pre-EPA, and those pre-EPA stoves emit far more particulates per stove, even a child can see that virtually NO effective pollution arises from the use of modern stoves... only a tiny fraction of a percent. Far from being the problem, EPA stoves are THE SOLUTION.

Why on earth would policymakers want to ban the solution? They should be doing all they can to promote it. I hate advocating for ANY tax, but maybe greater tax credits for EPA stoves could be funded by a tax on open fireplaces in new construction... at least that would be a far more progressive tax than most. As it stands, a ban on wood stoves has all the weight of a regressive tax, with poorest folks bearing the financial burden of the change.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

Yes, short chimneys with lots of elbows to take the single-wall out through the window don't mix well with wood split yesterday.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

branchburner said:


> If wood smoke is only 5% of the problem here, and 90% of stoves are pre-EPA, and those pre-EPA stoves emit far more particulates per stove, even a child can see that virtually NO effective pollution arises from the use of modern stoves... only a tiny fraction of a percent. Far from being the problem, EPA stoves are THE SOLUTION.
> 
> Why on earth would policymakers want to ban the solution? They should be doing all they can to promote it. I hate advocating for ANY tax, but maybe greater tax credits for EPA stoves could be funded by a tax on open fireplaces in new construction... at least that would be a far more progressive tax than most. As it stands, a ban on wood stoves has all the weight of a regressive tax, with poorest folks bearing the financial burden of the change.



The problem is that the Utah numbers are generalized. Woodsmoke, especially PPM 2.5 is much worse than 5% according to WA State DoE. They have been doing much better tracking and data keeping for the past couple decades. Note that WA state has a much higher percentage of certified stoves due to legislation passed in the 90s.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> Yes, short chimneys with lots of elbows to take the single-wall out through the window don't mix well with wood split yesterday.



Funny/sad but unfortunately true.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

I see that today the air quality is pretty good in Utah. What good wood a wood burning ban due today? > Not much.
http://air.utah.gov/currentconditions.php?id=slc


----------



## bbqribman (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> The problem is that the Utah numbers are generalized. Woodsmoke, especially PPM 2.5 is much worse than 5% according to WA State DoE. They have been doing much better tracking and data keeping for the past couple decades. Note that WA state has a much higher percentage of certified stoves due to legislation passed in the 90s.
> View attachment 148330
> View attachment 148331



Where did you get that data? I'm curious to see what local area this comes from. How are they differentiating the different data sources? The ironic part is that the worst section of winter usually doesn't remotely compare to the worst section of forest fire season. I remember multiple month stretches of horrid air in Boise from it.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

WA State DoE - It is for the whole state I believe. No doubt that wildfires are a problem too, though we have a lot less control over them and they are not a winter issue, which is when this report is from.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/airhome.html

Here's the publication:


----------



## bbqribman (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> WA State DoE - It is for the whole state I believe. .
> http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/airhome.html
> 
> Here's the whole publication:



Thanks, now to find the info.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 23, 2014)

bbqribman said:


> Thanks, now to find the info.


 
2005 info. Getting long in the tooth. Almost 10 years ago which is all it would take for a generation of 65 year old trailer park residents to expire.


----------



## begreen (Dec 23, 2014)

The US census info is from 2013. There are some current stats on WA state air quality, but most are in spreadsheet form. They are quite interesting and worth a look. These are 2011 numbers:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/EmissionInventory/PDFs/2011_Comp_Em_Inv_Summary_Upd10.2014.xlsx


----------



## bbqribman (Dec 23, 2014)

Its definitely a winter cyclical thing. Some interesting tidbits to me that came out of the report. Woodstoves are about 22% of the yearly total for PM2.5. Farming is about 20%. Cars are about 7%. Roads themselves attribute 10%. One of the more intersting is that wildfires account for only about 5%. So effectively in Washington we burn 4 times as much wood for fuel as we lose in wildfires. Also, construction throws as much in the air as wildfires. That seems a little off. But it also reinforces how renewable the energy resource is.

Looking at it, there is relatively equal amounts all year around, just the geography and weather trap it during the winter. It then creates more intense and localized problems.


----------



## BradleyW (Dec 23, 2014)

begreen said:


> Interesting fact, out of the ~9.3 million wood stoves in use approximately 8.3 are pre-EPA.


Wow, changing over to EPA stoves is a much larger project than I imagined.



begreen said:


> Maybe because there are a higher percentage of wood burners here in WA.


There aren't many wood burners in Utah because there just isn't that much available wood. There is wood in the mountains of course, but most of that is owned by the feds.



branchburner said:


> That about lines up with my experience with friends, neighbors and co-workers... I am always slightly shocked when I bump into that 1 in 10 that has an EPA stove, and can actually converse about secondary combustion.


I have a friend with a nice EPA stove whose wife insists the stove top temp stay over 500 no matter what. I don't even know how she manages to do it. It's like anything else, people will figure out the strangest possible ways to do things wrong.


----------



## rasp21 (Dec 24, 2014)

In the vein of the OP, keep in mind that not only is an EPA stove going to emit less particulate matter to air, but with a cat. or secondary burn tube EPA stove, the efficiency is going to result in a 30% to 50%  immediate drop in wood consumption due only to the resulting efficiency of the certified stove. Get rid of the BELCH FIRE-SMOKE DRAGONS and see less ppm emmissions and LESS wood consumption overall . Win Win. Utah is definitely going down the wrong trail here, and very short sighted. We need to pay attn. here.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

tarzan said:


> That's, in large part, in the U.S. anyhow, because more must be done toward educating wood burners. This place is great but what percentage of the 9.3 million ever find there  way here?
> 
> I've suggested before, a MM should come with every new stove to help drive home the point beyond just what's in the owners manual used to start the first fire.
> 
> ...


 

The draft of the new NSPS from EPA does require a moisture meter be supplied with each stove shipped.  We'll see in February what the final rule stipulates.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

branchburner said:


> That about lines up with my experience with friends, neighbors and co-workers... I am always slightly shocked when I bump into that 1 in 10 that has an EPA stove, and can actually converse about secondary combustion.
> 
> The fact that newer stoves employ efficient, clean combustion technology has to be one of the best kept secrets in this country. Policymakers rarely understand this, and even if they do, the voting constituencies remain largely in the dark. They mostly all think a stove is a stove is a stove. Even woodburners think that!
> 
> ...


 

Everyone keep in mind that there are still to this date EPA exempt wood stoves.  These have been available since 1988 and continue to sell every day in the country.  They are low tech, low cost and with low efficiency, they draft very easily.  There was a disservice done when EPA did not stipulate "pellet stoves are exempt " but rather made the statement....affected facilities with air/fuel raatio of 35:1 or greater are exempt.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

rasp21 said:


> In the vein of the OP, keep in mind that not only is an EPA stove going to emit less particulate matter to air, but with a cat. or secondary burn tube EPA stove, the efficiency is going to result in a 30% to 50%  immediate drop in wood consumption due only to the resulting efficiency of the certified stove. Get rid of the BELCH FIRE-SMOKE DRAGONS and see less ppm emmissions and LESS wood consumption overall . Win Win. Utah is definitely going down the wrong trail here, and very short sighted. We need to pay attn. here.


 

Excellent point!  Two stoves of equal gr/hr but with different efficiencies will both contribute different amounts of PM to the atomosphere over the period of a winter heating season when used in the identical fashion, in the same region etc...


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 24, 2014)

I always thought the 35:1 was put in there so as to not impact open fireplaces. And that VZ and a few others ran through the hole with 35:1 stoves.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

OK, we all realize this Utah attempt to ban wood burning is not the correct solution.  Lots of good posts, thank you.

But now let's move on.

1)  What can we as wood burners offer as aletrnate solutions?

2)  Who is willing to organize the wood burners in this affected region to be in person on January 15th in Salt Lake at DEQ headquarters to protest and also speak up in opposition?  Remember if this only comes from industry and not the wood burners, it will be perceived solely as self serving.  This is YOUR chance to protect your right to burn wood....any wood!


----------



## tarzan (Dec 24, 2014)

Maybe an article in local papers with the premise toward getting the  community to the meetings?

Really short notice.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

tarzan said:


> Maybe an article in local papers with the premise toward getting the  community to the meetings?
> 
> Really short notice.


 
Thank you...good suggestion.


----------



## begreen (Dec 24, 2014)

Rather than reinventing the wheel I suggest Utah legislators look at other states that have already dealt with this issue for guidance. They need to phase out pre-EPA stoves and to ban open burning and fireplaces during an inversion. If the inversion worsens, then they need to the authority to temporarily ban all burning until the air is cleared by a change in the weather. Seeing that automobile emissions are a major issue they should consider adopting Calif. tier 3 standards. Do these measures and then do periodic reviews to see if the program has accomplished its goals.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 24, 2014)

begreen said:


> Rather than reinventing the wheel I suggest Utah legislators look at other states that have already dealt with this issue for guidance. They need to phase out pre-EPA stoves and to ban open burning and fireplaces during an inversion. If the inversion worsens, then they need to the authority to temporarily ban all burning until the air is cleared by a change in the weather. Seeing that automobile emissions are a major issue they should consider adopting Calif. tier 3 standards. Do these measures and then do periodic reviews to see if the program has accomplished its goals.


 
Thank you.....


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 27, 2014)

BKVP said:


> OK, what can we as wood burners offer as alternate solutions?



How can me make seasoning damp wood and burning dry wood sexy?

At the end of the day anyone burning wet wood right now is going to have to process two years worth of wood in one year, go back on a 1:1 split:burn rotation, and then have dry wood to burn for the rest of their life~ or until they break a hip.  I am looking forward to being 20 years ahead on wood someday so I can put down my maul. 

Burning seasoned wood is all about investing for the future and behaving like an adult, more or less diametrically opposed to the "now now now" mentality that turns a dial on the wall so a machine can heat the McMansion during a TV show.  How may new burners buy a stove, one cord of seasoned wood and then show up here in October out of seasoned wood?

I guess we could make a video, bunch of not fat guys in flannel shirts and heavy boots swinging tools, popping Motrins and quoting The Federalist Papers.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 27, 2014)

I like this idea.  We could produce several videos of EPA  wood stoves burning and if anyone sends them to me, I will find a way to submit those videos.  Perhaps I will include them in our written comments.  If possible, I would show them at the hearing on January 15.

Keep videos short and to the point.  "Here is my clean burning EPA stove.  Here you can see a fire and now outside, here is my chimney.  See, no smoke."

Of course residents of Utah should really get active and I have not heard from any Utah wood burners willing to protect their rights to burn wood and pellets.

Time is running out.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 27, 2014)

BKVP, I just got back from browsing Youtube.  The single best video about seasoning firewood  I saw was from Stihl.  I saw two from the EPA, high production quality, factual, but not riveting.

I will check with the wife, her SLR can do HD video, 1080p I think, but we only got a couple hours of daylight to work with here.   But I can see the top of the stack from the north side of the house to get the steam plume with the sun behind it.


----------



## tarzan (Dec 27, 2014)

We can only hope that residents are more offended by this than we know. It would be ideal to have even a few non-wood burners against this. If the only minority voice in this issue is the VP of a well known stove company then I'm afraid it's hopeless despite intentions.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 27, 2014)

Poindexter said:


> BKVP, I just got back from browsing Youtube.  The single best video about seasoning firewood  I saw was from Stihl.  I saw two from the EPA, high production quality, factual, but not riveting.
> 
> I will check with the wife, her SLR can do HD video, 1080p I think, but we only got a couple hours of daylight to work with here.   But I can see the top of the stack from the north side of the house to get the steam plume with the sun behind it.


Excellent!  First because as a Interior resident, you were part of a well-run stove change out person and second, because just maybe others will take this issue seriously.

Thank you!


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 27, 2014)

My wife is kinda interested in the pre-committed stage.  She has won a couple awards as a serious amateur film maker.  If she were to take on making a 30 second short film (or two) what question(s) would need to be addressed in the short film, what are the corroborating facts and what is the footnote reference for those facts?

The main thing in short films is making the point, answering the question, making the statement.  No time for character arc or budding romance and so on, just make the point artistically, visually and believably.

So the single most important first concept is "What is the question?" or "What is the statement?"


----------



## BKVP (Dec 27, 2014)

The question is:

Is there much of difference between pre EPA and today's EPA stoves with respect to their contribution to particulate in the atmosphere?

The statement:

First hand experience with regard to having owned both types of stoves, the contribution can be enormous.

I base this upon the fact that this is likely the only way we are going to convince and educate regulators as to the benefits of removing pre EPA stoves in exchange of much cleaner burning EPA stoves.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 27, 2014)

During the past 5 years of working with regulators at nearly every level, it appears that a nation-wide program is unlikely.  That requires regionally designed change outs.  I will need to read more about burning habits of wood stove users in greater Salt Lake basin.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 28, 2014)

BKVP said:


> The question is:
> 
> Is there much of difference between pre EPA and today's EPA stoves with respect to their contribution to particulate in the atmosphere?
> 
> ...



OK, that's fine.  And you know I am not insulting you by following through with the logical follow up question.  You're an intelligent guy, I am an intelligent guy, truly  no offense intended - but what about burning dry wood, like 12-16% MC in a pre-EPA stove?  How much difference does that make in atmospheric particluates?


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 28, 2014)

Truly I am not trying to insult Chris.  Were he in Fairbanks, us together at a table over a platter of chicken wings he would take this question completely in stride and probably already has stats to back up whatever it is he is about to respond.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 28, 2014)

First, remember we Use Method 28, the current test method, which was designed to give an apples to apples comparison between burning attributes of different models, and is very precise in the method.  It was never intended to represent real world emissions data!  That is why the ASTM group is working on a cord wood method.

Since Method 28 is all we have for this analysis, a current King model produces a weighted average of 1.76 gr/hr.  The weighted average of a pre EPA King model was in excess of 65 gr/hr.

Method 28 may have some margin of error due to lab technician variances, but not that much.  Paul Tiegs of OMNI did a paper for EPA and found when the studies of a single stove are done by the same technician, in the same lab, there was less than 12% of variation in results.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 28, 2014)

I justa kinda knew you would have that answer right away ;-)

I had no idea it was that much.  65 grams per hour running presumably Blaze King approved or at least planned for wood in a Blaze KIng stove at a EPA certified lab.  And now the King is down to 1.76grams per hour. 

Thanks for the fact Chris.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 28, 2014)

Poindexter said:


> I justa kinda knew you would have that answer right away ;-)
> 
> I had no idea it was that much.  65 grams per hour running presumably Blaze King approved or at least planned for wood in a Blaze KIng stove at a EPA certified lab.  And now the King is down to 1.76grams per hour.
> 
> Thanks for the fact Chris.


That's not the worst of them either.  There are products that are still made today that are EPA exempt that can PLUG the filter in just a few hours!


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 28, 2014)

Do we have a community agreed nickname for the guy down the street burning wet wood, making thick smoke with enormous creo-sicles hanging off his chimney cap?

Mr. Couch Potato?

I get that somebody somewhere has been burning responsibly for years, broke their leg this summer, didn't get their wood split in time and is burning damper wood than they want this year.  I mean the guy blowing nasty smoke year after year after year even though he has room on his lot to season plenty of wood.


----------



## Highbeam (Dec 29, 2014)

When do you need the videos? Deadline? The this is my stove, this is my wood, see it burn, see me warm, see no smoke type.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 29, 2014)

Thank you.  The sooner the better but I fly to Salt Lake on the 14th.  I would love to have it within a week or 10 days if possible.  We can then present them in person or electronically.  We may even try to get them played on a special web site being designed to combat this legislation.

Thank you Highbeam...we need to stop this!


----------



## Grisu (Dec 29, 2014)

Another way of visualizing the difference between an EPA-stove and the rest:
Sweep a chimney and collect the soot. Weigh it and put it in containers according to the average amounts emitted per hour (per EPA). At your presentation pull it out and show:"That's how much you get from a fireplace, a pre-EPA stove, an EPA-1 stove; and here is what a BK stove emits:..." If you can find the numbers you could also include the amount from a diesel truck.


----------



## BKVP (Dec 29, 2014)

Grisu said:


> Another way of visualizing the difference between an EPA-stove and the rest:
> Sweep a chimney and collect the soot. Weigh it and put it in containers according to the average amounts emitted per hour (per EPA). At your presentation pull it out and show:"That's how much you get from a fireplace, a pre-EPA stove, an EPA-1 stove; and here is what a BK stove emits:..." If you can find the numbers you could also include the amount from a diesel truck.


Yet another great idea

I will keep BK out of it and just use EPA stove designation.  But this is a great idea.  I know a sweep in Fairbanks.  Question is, is creosote considered a hazardous material and not able to be flown via carrier?

I will have to look into this.  Thank you Grisu


----------



## Grisu (Dec 29, 2014)

BKVP said:


> Question is, is creosote considered a hazardous material and not able to be flown via carrier?



Thanks. Have not thought about that possibility. If it turns out to be a problem, just use the soot to get an idea how much it is and then fill in the containers something like this or some other black granulated material:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/30g-...52NsYPP1TObGPIcWZkvcYB_sM3s35qCx7MaAu8q8P8HAQ


----------



## BKVP (Dec 29, 2014)

I like the idea of not having the smell of creosote...regardless of the amount.  On the other hand, nothing like a picture of the sweep next to the two see-thru glass containers...a bit like an endorsement, testimonial.


----------



## Hoozie (Dec 30, 2014)

You can also show the success of other areas that have multi-tiered restrictions in place (like where I am).

www.klamathair.org/
http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/planning/docs/kfalls/KFallsAttPlan2012.pdf

Jim, the local air quality guy is nice to talk to (541-883-5118), and probably has more up-to-date data than I do.


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2014)

Can anyone look at the Utah AQ data and say definitively this much is from cars and this much is from wood stoves?  

http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/currentpollution/index.htm


----------



## Poindexter (Dec 31, 2014)

I think I found it.

http://www.cleanair.utah.gov/images/charts/WinterPM 25pollutiontriggers.jpg


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 1, 2015)

I have a different opinion about lots of these issues.  I just think that in urban areas with bad inversions, really strict regulations on wood burning are justified, along with stricter regulations on other air pollution sources.  With all due respect, a lot of comments about the benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown.  Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people.  I think any changeout should only be from wood to pellets or gas.  And, a sunset law, banning the use of uncertified stoves after 2018, for example, could be a really good idea.  Regardless, Salt Lake is going to have to put up more funding for enforcement.  Bot wood to wood changeouts are not going to get the air quality gains needed.  It was only a year or two ago that we were fighting against Central Boilers campaign to keep selling outdoor wood boilers on the Wasatch Front.  They hired a lobbyist, which hopefully won't be same lobbyist that HPBA hires.  That lobbyist spread all sorts of disinformation to the Utah legislature, insisting that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves, etc. etc. I believe Salt Lake has already banned the installation of uncertified stoves, like Washington and Oregon do, and that is a vital first step.  But you can still buy exempt Vogelzangs at some of the big box stores along with Wasatch front.  So again - they need to start investing in more enforcement so they can at least enforce some of the good regulations they already have on the books.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 1, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> I have a different opinion about lots of these issues.  I just think that in urban areas with bad inversions, really strict regulations on wood burning are justified, along with stricter regulations on other air pollution sources.  With all due respect, a lot of comments about the benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown.  Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people.  I think any changeout should only be from wood to pellets or gas.  And, a sunset law, banning the use of uncertified stoves after 2018, for example, could be a really good idea.  Regardless, Salt Lake is going to have to put up more funding for enforcement.  Bot wood to wood changeouts are not going to get the air quality gains needed.  It was only a year or two ago that we were fighting against Central Boilers campaign to keep selling outdoor wood boilers on the Wasatch Front.  They hired a lobbyist, which hopefully won't be same lobbyist that HPBA hires.  That lobbyist spread all sorts of disinformation to the Utah legislature, insisting that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves, etc. etc. I believe Salt Lake has already banned the installation of uncertified stoves, like Washington and Oregon do, and that is a vital first step.  But you can still buy exempt Vogelzangs at some of the big box stores along with Wasatch front.  So again - they need to start investing in more enforcement so they can at least enforce some of the good regulations they already have on the books.


Oh I have heard this statement way tooooooooooo many times... "The benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown.  Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people."

Please link me to the study by any neutral body that proves either of these contentions to be correct.  Personal observations aside, just the facts.   There are wood stoves that burn cleaner than some pellet stoves, so pellet stoves are not the fix (all unto their own but part of the solution).

Stove change outs do work.  Not just in emissions reduction!  In fact, we support the need for manufacturers to include a moisture meter in the new NSPS.   They get wood burners thinking about proper burning.  Think about it this way....old wood burner burns his pre EPA stove with trash, oil filters etc. (Not all do this but some).  Give that guy a new EPA certified stove of and it will choke on the same rubbish.  He will complain and get a second chance at a teachable moment.  Just look at the number of people that purchase EPA stoves and search this very web site prior to purchase and subsequently when they run into performance problems.  Not too many seek guidance with proper use of the PRE EPA Stoves.

As Sargent Friday always said..."Just the facts"


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 1, 2015)

BKVP said:


> Please link me to the study by any neutral body that proves either of these contentions to be correct.  Personal observations aside, just the facts.
> 
> As Sargent Friday always said..."Just the facts"



As I read through this string of comments, I was surprised how many people were citing emission levels from stoves in labs.  Those aren't the emissions that stoves give off on the Wasatch front or anywhere else.  So, yes, we need to start using statistics on the average amount of PM that the average wood burner emits. And, what we will find is that the average guy burning an EPA certified stove is a lot better than the average guy burning on old stove.  But the average amount of PM from a certified stove is a lot of PM to be putting out in a densely populated area with bad inversions.  If the average stove put out 3 grams an hour in the real world, it wouldn't be so bad, but its far more than that, partly because so many people aren't even using dry wood. Some folks think that only about 50% of the country is using wood under 20% moisture. That matches with my experience in my town too.  I think pellet stoves are far, far better for densely populated areas with inversions, because you can't use unseasoned pellets and ratchet down the air too far.  They do burn dirtier in the real world than the lab, especially if you don't clean them - and you can easily lose 15 - 30% efficiency too if you don't regularly clean a pellet stove.  In California, a big air district is offering rebates to change out any stove - certified or uncertified - if the homeowner will switch to pellets or gas.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 1, 2015)

When the Oregon test method was developed, it was not anticipated that it would demonstrate how a stove performs in the  real world.  It was intended to show how one stoves' emissions compared to another's.

When EPA adopted (with minor changes) the Oregon method, they too never saw the test method as representative of real world emissions.

EPA stoves have been designed to pass the standards, using the test method.  In 1988, as a knee jerk reaction, the standards resulted in hundreds of catalytic wood stoves that again made the grade, but were not robust or well engineered for durability and predictable performance.

Back to Salt Lake, we need to prevent any agency from an outright ban of wood burning products.  It won't fix the problem and knee jerk reactions have terrible consequences, learning from our past experiences.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 1, 2015)

Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox.  Fighting with youtube.  My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 1, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox.  Fighting with youtube.  My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.


I've met your wife...good disclaimer! (And cover your butt!)


----------



## BKVP (Jan 1, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox.  Fighting with youtube.  My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.


Highbeam just sent me one....just email to me.

Chris


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2015)

John, visited your website and stopped to think (twice) before I open my big mouth.  

As a resident of a non-attainment air quality area with bad inversions, I agree that strict regulations on wood burning are coming and will be here to stay.  I think significant areas upwind from the known non-attainment area should be included in the regulated air shed.

Your statement that certified stoves in the real world "put out far more than"  3 grams per hour is unsubstantiated.  I invite you to come instrument my stack, I'll even hold your beer in one hand and the ladder you are climbing with the other.  In the meantime I have no scientific reason at all to believe you really know what you are talking about and thus can not give much weight to your conclusions.  

There are too many people in the SLC basin driving too many cars too many miles.  Their wintertime air quality sucks.  As referenced in post #116 above, according to Utah's own data, all wood burning devices _and_ all area and point solvents COMBINED are less deleterious to wintertime air quality than motor vehicle exhaust.  Those people need to start carpooling.  Not only will that reduce vehicle miles driven, there will also be less point solvent emissions from pumping less gas at all the gas stations.

In my personal subdivision the one guy running coal has no visible stack emissions.  The two pellet stacks I can see from my deck both look pretty good.  The five wood stove stacks I can see from my same deck, four of them look great, and I got the one "that guy" in my neighborhood.  One out of eight.  If you would like to bring your instruments my home zip is 99709, nearest airport is FAI.  I'll PM you my cell as soon as you get your ticket, I readily admit my eyeball is not an EPA certified measurement device.

While I agree you can't buy unseasoned pellets, I am curious to know how long it takes to dry pellets if they accidentally get wet.

I doubt regular folks are any more likely to clean their pellet stoves than they are to season their cordwood.  Actual enforcement of reasonable stack exhaust parameters should solve both problems quickly.

I find it ironic that your website has a picture of a rotting, methane emitting log lying on the forest floor labeled 'forest preservation', your "carbon hero" was a couple that burnt 10 cords annually for 50 some years, and you are advocating installation of carbon liberating natural gas burners in the SLC airshed.  I am somehow certain you have a reasonable explanation for all of these observations.

In the meantime, oil heat costs me three times as much per BTU as cordwood.  I got three kids in college.  Banning wood stoves is a really really bad idea.  Running dry cord wood in certified stoves is a good idea.

Best wishes.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2015)

BKVP said:


> Highbeam just sent me one....just email to me.
> 
> Chris


on the website PM system, or do you wanna PM a regular email addy to me like  chris.@ gmail dot com?  

The data file is 16.7 MB, probably too big for the messaging system here.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2015)

John,

I am going to respond to the above, again, this time making a real effort to be conciliatory.

Your website "for green heat" has as a carbon hero a couple that burnt 10 cords of carbon neutral cordwood every year for 50 some years.  Yet under "forest preservation" you have a picture of a rotting log off gassing methane, and above here you are advocating the use of carbon liberating natural gas.  I don't understand what exactly "green heat" means to you.

I am very curious to know how much of what is actually emitted by a certified stove in the real world; I mean instrumented, not estimated.  You are cordially invited to come instrument my stack.  I really want to know from having measured.  Bring your own moisture meter so we both know what I am putting in my stove...

I am in favor of regulated stack output, I live in a non-attainment area myself.  However, cordwood costs me, BTU for BTU about 1/3 the price of oil and I got three kids in college.  If the EPA comes up here with a precedent that they can force my local government to ban all wood burning devices it's going to be ugly.

Banning wood burning devices is opposed by the environmentally conscious who prefer carbon neutral solutions, opposed by fiscal conservatives in favor of cutting expenses, and opposed by libertarians in favor of free markets.  Yet all of these groups are also in favor of having clean air to breathe.  Buring dry cord wood in certified stoves is a really good idea.

Best wishes.


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 2, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> Your statement that certified stoves in the real world "put out far more than"  3 grams per hour is unsubstantiated.
> 
> There are too many people in the SLC basin driving too many cars too many miles.  Their wintertime air quality sucks.  As referenced in post #116 above, according to Utah's own data, all wood burning devices _and_ all area and point solvents COMBINED are less deleterious to wintertime air quality than motor vehicle exhaust.  Those people need to start carpooling.  Not only will that reduce vehicle miles driven, there will also be less point solvent emissions from pumping less gas at all the gas stations.
> 
> ...



Poindexter,

Hi, will respond to a few of your key points, quoted above.  Most experts believe that cord wood will have higher emissions than crib wood, so I don't see how anyone thinks the average wood stove in the real world emits what it did on a certification test in the lab.  Also, a lot of certification tests probably represent the best that the stove is capable of, using crib wood. Many stove designs are dialed in to nail the EPA test method and are not even designed to perform optimally with cord wood in the hands of the average consumer.  

As for your points about too many cars driving too much in SLC, I couldn't agree with you more.  If SLC were to crack down on stoves without cracking down on other sources, it would be a farce.  But from what I've read (which isn't a whole lot) they are addressing all sources.

And as for regular folks being no more likely to clean their pellet stove than to burn seasoned wood; I completely agree there too.  But the big difference, is that a pellet stove tested at 2 grams can easily produce 4 when its not cleaned.  But a wood stove that produces 2 grams in the lab can produce 10 - 15 with wet wood.  And an outdoor boiler has a huge potential for putting out far more emissions in the real world than in the lab.

Lastly, I made no hints of supporting a ban on wood heating products.  My suggestions were 1. sunset clause for uncertified devices, 2. a wood to pellet stove change out, 3. banning install of 2d hand uncertified stoves and 4. more enforcement.  But longer "no burn" days are probably also in the future and using opacity to measure individual offenders, etc.  All this is being done in the NW and could also work in Utah.

OK, I am still supposed to be on vacation and need to play with my son and nephew!

John


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 2, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> As I read through this string of comments, I was surprised how many people were citing emission levels from stoves in labs.  Those aren't the emissions that stoves give off on the Wasatch front or anywhere else.  So, yes, we need to start using statistics on the average amount of PM that the average wood burner emits. And, what we will find is that the average guy burning an EPA certified stove is a lot better than the average guy burning on old stove.  But the average amount of PM from a certified stove is a lot of PM to be putting out in a densely populated area with bad inversions.  If the average stove put out 3 grams an hour in the real world, it wouldn't be so bad, but its far more than that, partly because so many people aren't even using dry wood. Some folks think that only about 50% of the country is using wood under 20% moisture. That matches with my experience in my town too.  I think pellet stoves are far, far better for densely populated areas with inversions, because you can't use unseasoned pellets and ratchet down the air too far.  They do burn dirtier in the real world than the lab, especially if you don't clean them - and you can easily lose 15 - 30% efficiency too if you don't regularly clean a pellet stove.  In California, a big air district is offering rebates to change out any stove - certified or uncertified - if the homeowner will switch to pellets or gas.


 


just going to interject my opinion into this, most of you guys know what i do and my friend John above and i have met and i have a lot of respect for him.

its obvious that the PM readings in real world use are not going to be the same as the "test loads" provide,  however the cleaner burning technology employed today is a big advance over old PRE-EPA units. (just as new cars have far less emmissions than an old car burning leaded fuel back in the day), now that doesnt mean its the "ultimate cure" but it was a massive step in the right direction, just as more efficient cars was in cutting down on pollution.

now, this doesnt mean that everyone is going to operate the stove and maintain the stove as they should (how many folks own cars and dont maintain them properly resulting in poorer performance and higher emissions.) doesnt mean we should ban the automobile.

the issues with woodburning need to be addressed in a wide variety of ways, the biggest is education on good burning habits, with wood processing being near the top of the list. getting people to understand the advantages of modern wood burning is another. many folks look no further than "if it aint brooke dont fix it" the old stove they have been burning is doing what they expect it to do so they see no reason to upgrade. what they may not realize is that they can get even better performance out of a modern appliance


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 2, 2015)

I am willing to believe wood stove ratings are analogous to mpg ratings for new cars.  My last new car was "rated" 28 mpg highway, I usually see 22-24.  I did get 28 mpg highway with that car one time, driving downhill out of the Rockies with a tail wind.

And we can add the fuel variable to the wood stove equation that is less problematic with motor vehicles.

Still and all I think it unlikely that my new catalytic stove that comes in under 1 gr/hr in the lab is producing more than 3gr/hr from my living room.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Jan 2, 2015)

yeah, im using the car example to emphasize the fact that not everyone does the scheduled maintainance on their carts and as a result they do not operate as efficiently, replacing air filters and changing oil on a regular basis allows the engine to run at its cleanest.

 as for a cat stove, you could expect a reasonably clean operation with cordwood (not as good as crib wood i imagine which is simply used to provide a "control" for testing purposes)

what people do not seem to wrap their head around is that the EPA rating is not the expected PM average that should be found running cordwood at home, in order to provide a standard the fuel has to be at a measurable standard which the PM range is "tied to" .  testing with "cordwood" and expecting to get the same emissions as with the cribwood simply aint gonna happen. that said however the non-epa stoves would probably do better with crib wood as well, but would be far and away dirtier in emissions than a modern unit would be.


----------



## Hoozie (Jan 2, 2015)

A couple years ago I was able to burn the exact same wood in both the old smoke monster and the 30NC.    WOW was there a difference in smoke output!

Back on topic, this is the type of burn ban I can really get behind.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/lo...stove-burning-in-eugene-springfield.html.csp# (just banned through the weekend until the inversion breaks)



> He also noted that technically, the ban is on visible smoke emissions from a chimney. LRAPA tests for homeowner compliance by looking at whether a chimney is emitting visible smoke. If it is, LRAPA may cite the homeowner. However, *homeowners with modern, efficient woodstoves burning well-dried wood may be able to burn without any visible emissions*.


----------



## NWfuel (Jan 2, 2015)

Education efforts need to be visible in real time media. If governments (Utah) see forms of wood burning clean education every day, every minute and make it common as a latte then we have a better chance of success with our efforts to keep wood burning well. We need to quit playing defense and start our offense. So much info could be at the click of the mouse. I will donate www.burnban.com domain for this educational purpose. Burnbans could be common and healthier for all of us.
Happy New Year
Thomas


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 2, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> Still and all I think it unlikely that my new catalytic stove that comes in under 1 gr/hr in the lab is producing more than 3gr/hr from my living room.



I think cat stoves are more likely to perform in the real world similar to how they performed in a lab compared to non-cat stoves.  And, some testing has shown that they can handle cordwood as well as they can handle crib wood.  And, I suspect they will prove to be able to handle unseasoned wood better than non-cats.  But much more testing on more models needed to confirm this.

One thing to keep in mind is that visible smoke can disappear around 2 - 3 grams an hour.  So if your chimney is smokeless, you may be under 3 grams an hour, according to Ben Myren.

In any case, I think the wood burning community is far more impressed than the fossil fuel community when we talk about reducing emissions by 90% and consistently getting under 4.5 grams an hour, or even under 2.  Remember, we are competing with technology that is consistently getting under 0.1, and operator error is not really an issue.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 6, 2015)

New FaceBook web site.  Post your videos and comments in support of clean burning EPA stoves!!

https://www.facebook.com/ResponsibleUtahns


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 7, 2015)

BKVP said:


> New FaceBook web site.  Post your videos and comments in support of clean burning EPA stoves!!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ResponsibleUtahns


Is this an industry supported facebook page? It doesn't really say who is behind it or have any contact info, which gives it less credibility than it should have.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 7, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> Is this an industry supported facebook page? It doesn't really say who is behind it or have any contact info, which gives it less credibility than it should have.


Post away Sir.  There is no lack of access for anyone to comment, that lends to credibility.


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 7, 2015)

BKVP said:


> Post away Sir.  There is no lack of access for anyone to comment, that lends to credibility.



Well, by that measure I don't have much credibility, as I have hidden or deleted a handful of comments on the Alliance for Green Heat Facebook page lately, posted by anti-wood burning folks. For some reason, they are focusing on my site these days and are far more active posting comments than pro wood burners.  And whenever I hide or delete a comment that I feel is impolite or just way too self--righteous, they get bent out of shape.  That may happen to this Utah FB site too.  They seem to be much more active than a few years ago.  Some of them come to this honestly, and live downwind of an outdoor boiler, or a nuisance stove burner.  Its hard to argue with those folks.  And others have decent points, but they can't see any value in wood heating because for them, the PM cancels out any benefit of using a renewable and avoiding fossil fuels.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 7, 2015)

Perhaps you can offer the old thumbs up or thumbs down...but more importantly..let's get the Hearth.com members to visit and post to the Alliance For Green Heat Face Book page...

Come on Guys and Gals, let's support our advocates!


----------



## Hoozie (Jan 8, 2015)

Someone post a picture of a chimney not blowing smoke, with the caption:

"I'm burning right now.  Or maybe I'm not?  Modern stoves 'burn the smoke', providing more heat and dramatically less pollution. In fact, many can't tell during a burn if you're burning at all.  Why should I not be able to burn when the conditions allow?"

I wood would but I don't have any good pictures at the moment


----------



## GoldFather (Jan 9, 2015)

This is crazy, but I understand where the lawmakers are coming from. I lived in Utah for 10 years, and we were right on the cusp of this sort of thing nearly that whole time.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 9, 2015)

_This is part of the press release that we received today:
The Salt Lake County Board of Health has passed Health Regulation #35, Solid Fuel Burning, which prohibits burning coal, wood or pellets in fireplaces or wood burning stoves, and bans outdoor fires—including bonfires, patio pit and charcoal grill fires—on days that the State of Utah designates as either mandatory or voluntary air action (no burn) days.
 The regulation gives the health department the authority to issue notices of violation after investigating a complaint of wood burning on air action days. State law allows for penalties up to $299 per day, but the department will likely assign the highest fines only to repeat offenders.
 “During this first year [2015], the health department will focus on educating residents about the regulation and the health issues associated with solid fuel burning,” explained Gary Edwards, Salt Lake County Health Department (SLCoHD) executive director. “We will not assess violation fines related to this regulation until January 2016.” The department may, however, still assess fines for not complying with statewide mandatory air action days, as it has for several inversion seasons.
 The new regulation exempts households that use a wood-burning stove or fireplace as their sole source of heat, and it allows wood burning in emergency situations such as power outages.
 Health officials say that solid fuel burning is a significant contributor to the Salt Lake Valley’s air pollution. *One fireplace emits as much particle pollution as 90 sport-utility vehicles, and the pollution from one traditional wood-burning stove is equivalent to the amount emitted by 3,000 gas furnaces producing the same amount of heat per unit. Even EPA-certified stoves still emit as much pollution as 60 gas furnaces.*_


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 9, 2015)

At least the fine is reasonable unlike our clean air retards and their 1000$ fine.

It allows "only source of heat" burning which is less strict than our regs that require you apply, pay, and renew annualy your "only source of heat waiver".

It is not an outright ban. Seems like a compromise. THe devil is in the details. How and when are these "action days" established? Is it a statewide action day or county by county, city by city? Would be silly if they just declared no burning from September to May on day one.


----------



## tarzan (Jan 9, 2015)

Well, at least they can still burn coal as long as it is in a coal stove I suppose


----------



## rblackmoore (Jan 11, 2015)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/

 1/29/2014 @ 8:00AM 233,905 views
*EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People*

It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore.  The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.


----------



## begreen (Jan 11, 2015)

This is silly and the kind of crappy "reporting" that Forbes is getting to be known for. The EPA hasn't banned anything. Rural people are not "threatened". The new regs haven't been finalized have they? The phase 3 regs are not even in effect yet. and when they are they will be phased in. One will not have to stop using their current stove and replace it. The whole article is inflamatory anti-EPA rhetoric designed to inflame the uniformed. The author is an anti-govt. shill and the article is a year old. It has almost nothing to do with the Utah issue.


----------



## webfish (Jan 11, 2015)

*Op-ed: Clean-burning stoves minimize health risks*

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2036253-155/op-ed-clean-burning-stoves-minimize-heisksalth-r


----------



## BKVP (Jan 11, 2015)

One factor that is not brought to the fore front often enough is not that EPA stoves are cleaner burning, but the fact that they are 10-20% more efficient that pre EPA stoves translates to less wood being burnt and therefore less particulate being put into the environment.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 16, 2015)

Good morning all from Salt Lake.  Just an update.  I attended a meeting in Tooele (pronounced two will lah).  There were more than 200 people in attendance.  In two hours of public comments and many of them very emotional, not one person spoke in favor of the ban.  Most called into question the logic of such a ban given the amount of pm contributed by industry, which is massive here.  Other comments focused on excessive idling taking place by cars at intersections and diesel trucks, trains etc.  There are actually ordinances against excessive idling, but rarely enforced.

The most common theme by more than 37 persons against the ban was an exemption for EPA certified wood stoves, pellet stoves and masonry fireplaces.

Last nigh the community meeting was projected to be a landslide in favor of the ban as the meeting was held near down town Salt Lake.  With hundreds of people, standing room only, many people wishing to comment had to stand in the hall way as local Fox affiliate broadcast the hearing.  One very clever person commented that while the local new media was pushing for the ban, their TV broadcast vehicles were sitting the parking lot idling!!

In the end, the meeting went well over 2.5 hours.  My count was 5 people commented in favor of the ban while 40+ commented against the ban.  There are more public comment sessions next week.  

Unfortunately I cannot attend these but I hope some folks from the counties affected will attend.

Chris


----------



## begreen (Jan 18, 2015)

One thing I have not heard of is the state's position on fireplaces and open burning. Have these pollution sources been included in these discussions? They certainly should be.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 18, 2015)

Everything  that burns wood! Outdoor pits, grills, fireplaces, pellet stoves, inserts, boilers, furnaces....etc.


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 20, 2015)

I think if the stove community is serious about helping reduce wood smoke in the Wasatch Front, we should be talking about phasing out uncertified wood stoves - and beefing up enforcement.  The HPBA solution, of allowing EPA certified devices to be used during the first stage of bad air quality days, and then everything banned during the second stage, does very little to really address the issue.  Salt Lake already has the power to do that, but they need help with new strategies to show that they have a plan to get back into attainment.  Otherwise, they lose highway funds.  The Utah Air Quality Board sees the HPBA proposal as moving backwards, not forwards, because they can already ban all burning during an inversion, and they may just start doing that, more and more, until folks can only heat with stoves for half the winter or less.  Its easy to oppose the kind of ban that the Utah Governor proposed - and there may be few states that can oppose such a thing as well as Utahns can.  

We make the case here that phasing out uncertified stoves could reduce a lot of smoke and it too would be a tough sell in Utah, but not impossible, like the Governors' ban seems to be:

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/clearing-air-in-utah-wood-stove.html


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 20, 2015)

BKVP said:


> _This is part of the press release that we received today:
> The Salt Lake County Board of Health has passed Health Regulation #35, Solid Fuel Burning, which prohibits burning coal, wood or pellets in fireplaces or wood burning stoves, and bans outdoor fires—including bonfires, patio pit and charcoal grill fires—on days that the State of Utah designates as either mandatory or voluntary air action (no burn) days._



Glad someone noticed this development, as its a big deal, but not necessarily the direction that lots of folks want.  By banning all stove use on both mandatory and voluntary air action days, Salt Lake County is showing that they are not buying the strategy of letting EPA certified devices burn on voluntary days.  This county is the most urbanized and has more than a third of the entire state's population.  I predict the ban proposed by the Governor will be voted down, but if several key, populated counties follow Salt Lake County's lead, it may be a Pyrrhic victory as more and more days each winter are air action days.  We'd like to at least see pellet stoves exempted from these periodic bans.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 21, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> Glad someone noticed this development, as its a big deal, but not necessarily the direction that lots of folks want.  By banning all stove use on both mandatory and voluntary air action days, Salt Lake County is showing that they are not buying the strategy of letting EPA certified devices burn on voluntary days.  This county is the most urbanized and has more than a third of the entire state's population.  I predict the ban proposed by the Governor will be voted down, but if several key, populated counties follow Salt Lake County's lead, it may be a Pyrrhic victory as more and more days each winter are air action days.  We'd like to at least see pellet stoves exempted from these periodic bans.



So you and I have had this discussion....pellets stoves that are improperly installed or operated do not burn as clean as you might hope. Same goes for wood stoves.  There are wood stoves that burn(in lab to lab comparisons) cleaner than pellet stoves.  And HPBA is not offering anything new and never said they were....they are asking for recognition of the millions of dollars that have been spent for advanced, cleaner burning appliances, wood and pellet.   An exmeption for these efforts by manufacturers and consumers that invest in these cleaner burning appliances to burn them on all but the worst air quality days.

You are spot on...old wood stoves need to be replaced.  If the Alliance For Green Heat has any say with Utah regulators or the Gov. himself, encourage a rewarding and highly incentived wood stove change out program.  It will help reduce PM2.5, stimulate clean burning practices (you can't abuse an EPA stove like you can a smoke dragon and still get optimal performance) and help the economy.  Make mositure meters mandatory at time of purchase and a 30minute orientation class on the proper operation of THE STOVE that is being purchased.


----------



## flyingpile (Jan 21, 2015)

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/so...cle_c8672f44-9da6-11e4-9349-4f63d9a753ff.html

Never heard it explained this way.


----------



## begreen (Jan 22, 2015)

Thanks for posting that link. That is a well written response. On the front page of the HJ there is also an article posted yesterday. 99% are against the ban. 
http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/pe...cle_a8daa2fa-a1f2-11e4-af08-3feccab0db29.html


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 22, 2015)

flyingpile said:


> http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/so...cle_c8672f44-9da6-11e4-9349-4f63d9a753ff.html
> 
> Never heard it explained this way.



Yes, nice to read new perspectives and learn more about the science behind ozone.  Our community has focused so much on PM, that VOCs and NOx get lost.  I can't find any stats now, but catalysts are pretty effective at reducing VOCs.  Anyone have figures?I ran this article by a couple of experts in this area and here is what they said:

"VOCs are likely to be much more important than the NOx.  There is very little thermal NOx because of the relatively low combustion temperatures.

He's wrong about the 2.6 grams of "stove ash". First, the field value of PM is almost certainly higher than the lab certification value. Secondly, the PM is mostly tar (OC, from smoldering combustion) and soot (EC, from flaming combustion). You get flyash from things like larger high efficiency pellet and cordwood boilers, where velocities are high,  but that would be a lot less than than 2.6 g/kg of fuel, according to some of the data I have seen. VOC's are not measured in the EPA number, only solids ("dust" as measured in Europe and by the Wohler and Testo 380) and semi-volatile condensibles (tar droplets) - analagous to cigarette smoke."

John


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 23, 2015)

begreen said:


> Thanks for posting that link. That is a well written response. On the front page of the HJ there is also an article posted yesterday. 99% are against the ban.
> http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/pe...cle_a8daa2fa-a1f2-11e4-af08-3feccab0db29.html



99% sounds about right to me, based on what I've heard from people attending the hearings.  The proposed ban is DOA, but the alternatives may not be so great either, and another proposal is likely to come out in the Spring.  I just wrote another blog on the Salt Lake County decision, which could lead to periodic bans of half the winter or more.  This blog won't make me too popular with the wood stove guys, as I still think far too many people don't operate their certified stoves very well, making pellet stoves the best alternative for densely populated areas. http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/as-utah-debates-seasonal-stove-ban-salt.html

john


----------



## BKVP (Jan 23, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> Yes, nice to read new perspectives and learn more about the science behind ozone.  Our community has focused so much on PM, that VOCs and NOx get lost.  I can't find any stats now, but catalysts are pretty effective at reducing VOCs.  Anyone have figures?I ran this article by a couple of experts in this area and here is what they said:
> 
> "VOCs are likely to be much more important than the NOx.  There is very little thermal NOx because of the relatively low combustion temperatures.
> 
> ...


 

Keep in mind some technologies actually have lttle change/difference between test fuel and cord wood fuel emissions tests.  Second, keep in mind pellet stove lab numbers are also not necessarily the same in real world applications.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 23, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> 99% sounds about right to me, based on what I've heard from people attending the hearings.  The proposed ban is DOA, but the alternatives may not be so great either, and another proposal is likely to come out in the Spring.  I just wrote another blog on the Salt Lake County decision, which could lead to periodic bans of half the winter or more.  This blog won't make me too popular with the wood stove guys, as I still think far too many people don't operate their certified stoves very well, making pellet stoves the best alternative for densely populated areas. http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/as-utah-debates-seasonal-stove-ban-salt.html
> 
> john


 
You are correct, that is an unpopular opinion to a cord wood stove guy.  However, it is JUST AN OPINION and not based upon real world facts.....yet.


----------



## begreen (Jan 23, 2015)

Pellet stoves almost more than some wood stoves rely on routine maintenance to run cleanly. If they are not cleaned they will burn poorly.


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 23, 2015)

BKVP said:


> You are correct, that is an unpopular opinion to a cord wood stove guy.  However, it is JUST AN OPINION and not based upon real world facts.....yet.


I'm a cord wood stove guy too.  I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions.  If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong.  There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 23, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> I'm a cord wood stove guy too.  I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions.  If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong.  There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.



OK, but pellets have to be processed.  Somebody somewhere is using some electricity or natural gas or something to turn green cord wood into pellets, and selling them at a profit; after buying green cordwood and some energy and making the mortgage payment on the factory.

I think if we included the carbon footprint of _making_ pellets in with the rest of pellet emissions the difference between properly seasoned cord wood and pellets is going to get blurry.

How can we (you, me, everybody) make burning DRY cordwood attractive?


----------



## John Ackerly (Jan 24, 2015)

Poindexter said:


> How can we (you, me, everybody) make burning DRY cordwood attractive?



Speaking of dry cordwood, your hometown, Fairbanks, is first in nation, I believe, that is requiring dry firewood in the smoke zone?  My question: is there an accepted protocol for measuring MC?


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 24, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> Speaking of dry cordwood, your hometown, Fairbanks, is first in nation, I believe, that is requiring dry firewood in the smoke zone?  My question: is there an accepted protocol for measuring MC?



I was in California for the first public hearing but will be attending the second later this month.  Clearly if someone's stack is out of compliance and there wood pile is outdoors, some kind of sample will have to be warmed up in a lab before a reliable electronic reading of conductance or resistance can be made.  And the smoke cops will have to follow all the chain of evidence protocols already in place for handguns used in murders and cash recovered from bank robberies and so on for the fine to stick.

The only part of the proposed regs I am really thinking about objecting to is banning all wood burning, even EPA compliant stoves burning dry wood, when the air quality is bad enough.  I am not certain I will object to it, but I think I am going to.


----------



## tom dee (Jan 25, 2015)

you ever try n buy below 20 percent moisture content wood  logs or split  its the biggest bunch o bullshiet ever imagined no matter the cost  folk in this buis are deliverance folk  most do not know what a cord is unit of measure of wood only  how it is checked  by stacking only  most only know they ll bring you a cord in their truck bed wrong that's bout a 1/3 cord all this buis is out to do is rob folk when you know the deal  folk hang up  almost no dealer of wood in NC USA will talk to me cuz they cannot rip me off .. I now buy in 4400 pound loads  kiln dried  from like American woodyard  or such  theyre a legit buis and must deal with state boards of weight and measures  most wood lots do not theyre private co op or whatever gets round legal;


----------



## tarzan (Jan 26, 2015)

John Ackerly said:


> I'm a cord wood stove guy too.  I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions.  If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong.  There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.



John, you say you are a cord wood guy but contend that pellet stoves are better for densely populated areas, yet you list your location as a densely populated area?

That aside, excluding the choice to burn cord wood in an efficient, modern stove would be a disservice to many and from what I gather, not solve anything.

I think there are many steps that should be taken before arriving at banning.


----------



## tom dee (Jan 27, 2015)

And shiet like this is Why were in the toilet as a whole (country)  were not taken seriously anymore by any country worth their salt  all of em looki that wild west spirit now  he he ..


----------



## j7art2 (Jan 27, 2015)

I sat down this morning and took the time to read every single post on this thread. I am not from Utah, however I am one of the millions who have a pre-EPA wood stove, and I heat solely with wood, with propane backup.

Last year we used propane alone, and spent nearly $3500 in propane heating our home at 62 degrees all winter, and were without heat numerous days because there were such high back orders on propane. I have a high efficiency LP furnace, and a fairly well insulated home. This year was my first year heating with wood, and I have spent $120 and have burned 6-7 cords of seasoned wood thus far, starting in October. 

The big thing is the cost. If I had to spend $3500 again this year and every year beyond that, I'd literally have to sell my home and move. I simply cannot afford to heat it anymore. The cost of propane has increased to ridiculous proportions. 

Furthermore, a new EPA approved wood furnace setup for me STARTS at $3000, not including shipping, not including HVAC installation. 

By the end of the day, we're looking at $6000 for me to be in compliance with the EPA. Who the hell has that kind of money? Not this guy. I'm a 31 year old social worker with his first kid on the way. I've got $100,000 in college loans that equate to a second mortgage every month ($750) as well as a house payment, 2 car payments, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, I have one way to heat my house, and that's wood. Propane is not a realistic option. Upgrading to EPA regulations is not an option. Using what I already have, regardless of it's poor efficiency is my ONLY option. 

If the government tells me I suddenly can't use it anymore, they're going to have to come take the stove out of my house to stop me. If they're going to take it from my home, it'll have to be by force, which I can only hope will bring national attention to the matter.


----------



## Poindexter (Jan 28, 2015)

Welcome to the discussion j7art2.

As an RN I want every single patient of mine to have a Social Worker of their own.   You are doing important work, I hope you are adequately recognized for it.

With four kids of my own in college, I fully understand your economics.  Before the wood stove went in I was burning 2000 gallons of oil every year to make heat and domestic hot water.  With a mild winter so far this year and a mild winter last year, I have purchased 826 gallons of oil in the trailing 12 months.

Are you located in an EPA "non-attainment area" where average air quality doesn't meet EPA standards?  

Like Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, I live in a non-attainment area.  We are having an "event" right now.  It was -38dF when I last checked a few minutes ago, we have an inversion layer of cold air trapped against the ground, lots of wood smoke and car exhaust in the cold air.  If I drive less than two miles from my home and drive up the nearest ridge surrounding the city I will climb maybe 200 feet to break out of the inversion layer into clean warm air up on the ridge.  Its probably only -20, maybe -15dF up there with miles and miles of visibility, but that warm air can't push the cold air down in the valley out to anywhere, its trapped until the weather breaks.

Did I mention it's -38dF at my house right now?  Darn right my stove is running.  

Proposed regs in SLC are to ban all wood burning from September to March - basically heating season- to help clean up the air.  Proposed regs for me in Fairbanks are to ban all wood burning - even in EPA certified stoves like mine - when air quality is "unhealthy" like it is now and probably will be all week.  

Last winter with an older EPA certified non-cat stove in weather like this I could and did burn a cord in one week, several times.  A face cord every two or three days.  Basically all I can do is work, eat, sleep and feed the stove.  No time for TV or other pleasurable activities.  With my new this year EPA cert cat equipped stove, my wood consumption in weather like this is down noticeably. If I had to let the stove burn out and heat with oil it would be many many dollars, at -40dF my oil burner runs about 56 minutes out of every hour and can barely keep the inside of the house at +62dF.

If the proposed reg goes through here my wife and I probably can't afford to stay.  Losing an RN with 20 years experience is bad enough, the irony is my wife is an expert at documenting EPA compliance for large plants like oil refineries and power generation plants.


----------



## j7art2 (Jan 28, 2015)

I don't live in an area where EPA standards do not meet requirements to my knowledge. Every single house on my street burns wood and I can still see the stars clearly at night, so I'd imagine not. 

One thing that I noticed mentioned here is that Utah doesn't have a lot of trees. Potential elevation issues aside, simple botany can tell you that plants in general utilize carbon dioxide, etc and give off clean oxygen.

That being said, I live in the middle of state land. I literally go outside my front door, and hit hundreds of miles of dirt bike trails. Largely the amount of wood I gather is through my DNR firewood permit from state land which allows 5 cords of dead and down wood harvesting a year. Even if I was allowed to, I'd never have to take a live tree in my lifetime. 

Essentially what I'm getting at, is that there seems to be other factors that could come into play that would dramatically help the situation other than simply banning wood burning devices. I don't know how feasible it is to plant more trees, but that seems like a very large win/win situation to me. 

The solution I am seeing right now is that the government is breaking _BOTH_ your legs, then giving you a pair of crutches to walk on. Clearly it doesn't work that way. The solution addresses the problem bass ackwards, but does not fix the problem. 

I'm not from Utah or from a polluted air area, but I do have a loud voice. I've utilized it as a Libertarian, and utilized it as an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor standing up for my second amendment rights. That being said, if you make any headway and need another loud voice, I'd be happy to do my part from Northern Michigan, whatever it may be.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 29, 2015)

I hate to do this to a wood heat supporter but...

People that put themselves in a situation where the only way they can heat their homes is with free or nearly free heat perhaps should move. Sounds like a losing situation to me if you aren't living within your means enough to be able to pay for heat.

I make good enough money to be able to live in my location and heat with whatever I want. I could not afford to live in NYC in the same house. Same with Hawaii.


----------



## j7art2 (Jan 29, 2015)

Highbeam said:


> I hate to do this to a wood heat supporter but...
> 
> People that put themselves in a situation where the only way they can heat their homes is with free or nearly free heat perhaps should move. Sounds like a losing situation to me if you aren't living within your means enough to be able to pay for heat.
> 
> I make good enough money to be able to live in my location and heat with whatever I want. I could not afford to live in NYC in the same house. Same with Hawaii.




Easy to say until something happens when you can no longer live within your means. I'm a social worker, and this is all I deal with from clients on a daily basis.

Medical bills, broken leg, loss of a job, unexpected children (in my case), etc. Life happens. Sh*t happens. We aren't fortune tellers. We don't want to walk this road of discussion. Let's end this conversation before it starts -- it has no place here.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 29, 2015)

j7art2 said:


> Easy to say until something happens when you can no longer live within your means. I'm a social worker, and this is all I deal with from clients on a daily basis.
> 
> Medical bills, broken leg, loss of a job, unexpected children (in my case), etc. Life happens. Sh*t happens. We aren't fortune tellers. We don't want to walk this road of discussion. Let's end this conversation before it starts -- it has no place here.


 
Here's how this conversation applies. Nomatter your financial situation I will never agree with you burning tires or plastic trash in your fireplace every day because that was all you could afford. This is the argument you have to expect in response to your excuse that you have no choice but to heat with wood. The reasons and justification for wood burning must be better.

Could be that:

1) The house has this appliance that was legally installed to burn a legal product and you depended on that heat source when you made the house purchase.
2) The burning of wood is less polluting than the alternative whether that be due to carbon impacts or your moral objection to petroleum.


----------



## j7art2 (Jan 29, 2015)

Wood is a free and renewable resource. I got creative. I went to FIVE different people's houses on local Facebook yard sale groups to remove read trees last year on top of the 5 cords I gathered from state land, totaling 10 cords for the winter. Heating wood is not for everyone. If you're not willing to work for it, then wood heat is not for you. It isn't easy and it's a chore. If you can't handle the chore, then I don't know what to tell you. I bought my house with the intention on using my wood furnace one day if it was serviceable to use. It's a questionable appliance given that it's 40 years old, but it's held its own all year and has kept my family warm. Next tax season, I'll be getting a new unit.

The units we have are not designed to burn garbage, they're designed to burn wood and coal. If you're burning stuff that isn't supposed to be burned in them and are polluting the air because you're not using the unit as designed, of course there should be consequences. The argument i'm seeing being made here is the exact same thing as punishing law abiding gun owners for criminal acts of gun violence. It does nothing to solve the problem, and only punishes law abiding gun owners. 

If they want to punish people who use their units as incinerators rather than the wood burners they are, that's fine, and I'd encourage that behavior. Punishing all of us because 99% of us burn wood and don't mind the labor it brings though isn't kosher. 

Not everyone has the ability to up and move. I am one of them. Cost is a factor, pride is a factor, convenience is a factor. I have homesteaded my home, and have invested thousands upon thousands of hours on my property, building a gun range for teaching concealed pistol license classes, have built a large chicken coop with run, etc. I moved there with the sole plan of heating with wood. I live in thousands of acres of forest, and bought a house with a wood heating apparatus. Getting spanked with $3500 last year in heating costs only reiterated what I already knew -- heating with LP gas isn't going to work for me.

Suddenly having the EPA tell me I can't because some idiot burns tires and pollutes the air isn't going to work for me either. I don't commit crimes and don't deserve punishment for crimes I didn't commit. 

It's the approach here that I have a problem with, and punishing all of us because some idiot burns pine off the stump is not the solution.


----------



## Highbeam (Jan 29, 2015)

Now we're getting somewhere. See, to the proban people, burning wood is the same thing as burning tires. A polluting and unnecessary thing. The things that make up woodsmoke are certainly toxic if you eat enough of it. So to a probanner how do you justify emitting wood pollution but not tire pollution? I think you can make a good argument about how buning wood is better than burning tires but your income level is NOT the argument.

I burn wood for 100% of my heat, have for many years. I want you to have a good argument so that you can help us.


----------



## BKVP (Jan 29, 2015)

Highbeam is correct.  Having been through hundreds of meetings with EPA and other regulators in the past 15 years, everything is data driven.  However Highbeam, keep in mind that imposed standards must also be cost effective.  An example might be, does a change in a standard from 4.5 gr/hr to 4.2 gr/hr have a health dollars benefit when compared to the increased cost for engineering and design and corresponding retail cost....not likely so there's little shot of getting it approved. But going from 4.5 to 2.0, now that opens a whole new list of possibilities.....and that much reduction in pm inventory can make a reduction of the standard of that magnitude much more likely.

It will always come done to money...


----------



## Dieselhead (Feb 3, 2015)

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2131384-155/wood-burning-ban-coming-off-the-table


----------



## tom dee (Feb 18, 2015)

well ive no issues in NC USA yet .. My progress rarely has anything but heatwaves exiting the chimney  ive a camera mounted up there.. so anyone come a lookin they aint gonna see much   now next door and all round me are outdoor stoves (boilers) im up wind from them no bother to moi but the holler I live in is smoked out all round me.. bunch o good ole boys with limited edumacation at best.. But im the Jerk that aint smoking out da place  Doh..


----------

