Do people do shopping by comparative numbers?

[elkimmeg]

Car shopping, we all examine the EPA mileage estimates that weigh in our decision

When we appliance shop the EPA yellow energy usage sticker can be comparative and the deciding factor.

It seems the EPA is looked upon to determine energy consumption, emmitance and efficiencies.

But wait a minute WEB says We can use EPA GPH figures to shove shop. The EPA is the only controlled environment testing that exist that all wood stoves are rigidly test to the same standards Even the amount of times and the sequence time for stirring the coals monitored I mot saying Web brings some valid point about homeowner usage But the statement goes in the Auto world you mileage may Very For some reason he want to tell you about opinions of others but no hard concrete facts The discounts test because the are preformed in Labs What better place to control a consistent environment I believe many chemical test are done in Labs The lab and testing procedure and requirements are the control which any person familiar with science knows there must be a control elements to draw comparisons.

Are we to believe that one can not trust the EPA certification of efficiencies They please tell me why one would get rid of a perfectly good cloths washer only a year in a half old or so and buy a top loader? I’ll tell you why the yellow EPA tags say it is more efficient.
American buying public does sticker shop the use statistical date supplied by the tags to make buying decisions. I willing to bet, more than a few forum members when grocery shopping look at the label to determine trans Fat

What about the hue and cry for the EPA. to get involved with cleaning up Outdoor wood boilers. If their testing procedures are as bogus as Web says why would anyone want the EPA involved? Perhaps they are the best available to do the job

A statement was made that in real world wood stoves burn 10x dirtier than lab testing/ To me this is painting a wide brush statement without one iota of scientific backing It could be true, or the statement could be made up but without valid scientific statistical data IT has no validity

The poster quotes from a conversation how scientific is that. Let me ask this poster if the EPA testing procedures are so bad then please tell me why nothing has changed in 20 years. The same guy you spoke to why has he not partitioned the EPA with alternative solutions? I know I have code amendments being considered and some have been approved. IT is one tying to diss the crap out of an issue but not to offer solutions is hollow and shadow

So let the debate begin I say it is ok for the American Public to sticker shop After all they are comparing results in a controlled environment that all stoves are tested and subjected to

 

[KeithO]

Elk, the EPA recently had to revise the way they come up with the mpg figures for cars and trucks. The result is that the new mpg numbers are substantially lower than last time around. The EPA is not infallible. They do some market research in order to define how they test. Later, they may get a lot of complaints from car owners who say that they have never been able to achieve the published fuel economy. So they go back out again and maybe this time the survey covers a wider group of drivers, from more locations and lo and behold, they find that drivers accelerate much harder than the first estimate showed. Maybe they brake harder too and use the transmission kickdown more often than originally thought. So this results in the test being re-defined and not surprisingly, the mpg results are lower (but closer to the truth).

The regulations and test definition for wood stoves is not all that old. As the cost of energy goes up and more people turn to alternative fuels, there will be more people who complain about woodsmoke and fingers will get pointed at some modern EPA rated stoves that are simply not being operated properly. Proper or not, the neighbors cant tell except for the fact that smoke comes out the chimney. When the cries get loud enough, you can expect the test procedure to be modified and the result will more than likely favor stoves that have a wider "clean" operating range (cats) as opposed to narrow operating window (non cats). The situation is fluid and revolves around politics, consumers and technology. The only thing certain is change...

 

[EatenByLimestone]

<<<<<< Doesn't look at the back of packages or window stickers on cars. Unless they tell the price. I'm not going to choose Diet Mtn Dew over regular Mt Dew because of the calories. 2 mpg on the highway will not stop me from buying the vehicle I like better.

High gas prices are going to do more in the end than any CAFE numbers the govt sets. To those who need a SUV or truck to fill their needs, mpg will not be all that important.

Matt

 

[babalu87]

EPA numbers are in a controlled environment, real world will create many differences.
No matter what little extra smoke I am putting out the chimney, its the right kind. We all know wood smoke is better than oil smoke.

I first decided "I better get something big enough to heat the whole house AND the planned family room addition down the road"
THEN
I looked at the stove and said "damn, we're going to be looking at this for 10+ years from across the living room, we better like how it looks"
THEN
I said to myself "they have been building stoves since Abe Lincoln was President, they must be doing something right"
THEN
I looked at EPA numbers and thought "hell, even in a perfect World there aint much difference between most modern stoves"
THEN
I drove to New Hampshire and bought the stove.

 

[webbie]

My experience of owning a stove shop and selling stoves for 10 years after the regs came in was that NO ONE (not a soul) in that time came in my store comparing EPA numbers. We may have mentioned them to some people, and explained the situation - but then, as now, we informed them of the same thing that the experts say (the test lab guys - Omni Labs, etc.) - NOT to shop by the numbers. This applies to BTU ratings also.

Elk forgets to mention one thing - the EPA says to compare cars by their standards. The experts say NOT to compare stoves this way. That's a pretty big difference.

I'm a patient man - I already have a LOT of data proving this, but a lot more is coming up the pike. So if people want to fool themselves...well, be my guest, shop by the numbers. Someday, lord willing, I will invite Elk and anyone else up to our new test lab to witness cordwood tests.

On thing for certain - you will never see the Highway Safety Institute letting car manufacturers do their own crash tests (stove companies often do their own EPA emissions test..using their own lab and their own "experienced" technicians to stir, load, etc.)

The entire intention of this site is to help people and tell them the truth.....however, we can lead a horse to water, but not make 'em drink Some people really think that Aquafina is better than tap water (it IS tap water).

 

[elkimmeg]

Aquafina is better than tap water (it IS tap water).

From the tap water of Ayer MA..

I'm also saying in general the American public does shop labels. It is quite hard to get them out of the buying habit

No one answered the question of bringing in the EPA to clean up OWB's IF the Gph numbers are invalid then what is the sense to test ans assign them?

When Discussing Smoke pollution to the town Alderman , can anyone tell me GPH numbers are not being debated?
Please give me scientific basis to debate the merits of wood stove smoke and OWB smoke with them , if I can't use EPA testing data.
If no other question is answered ,then please answer this one as Our town is contemplating restrictions. Give me something I can counter if I can't use EPA testing data

this is the reason I started this post. Note when discussing clean burning with the idiots over at Burning Issues. GPH was being discussed and touted for its advances and .75 Gph quoted

No one told them Web discounts its significance that .75 gph hushed up a lot of negativity there Well it the same deal with our aldermen discussing smoke restrictions
Give me some ammunition if I can 't use EPA gph

My experience of owning a stove shop and selling stoves for 10 years after the regs came in was that NO ONE (not a soul) in that time came in my store comparing EPA numbers.

They want to Ban OWB's outright and I'm telling them wait a minute I know the EPA has been asked to step in and force them to clean up their act But WEB discounts the EPA

Ten years ago technology has change a bit . the d fastest computers were touting PIII 700's Mac were woefully slower the PC's using G3's Can you tell me one stove that approached .75 gph back then? or twice that GPH? Hate to tell you this technology has changed and advanced since then? AS have stove efficiencies and emmitancess. Was EPA phase II present back then?
take a look at the state of Oregon's GHP requirements now 4.65 Gph I think you should write a letter and inform the politicians in the state they can't uses EPA gph numbers

Tell them what criteria they should be using tell the fallacy of assigning GPH requirements But again no one should factor in GPH My point is made people do factor them in Oregon factors them

Owb's today wood stoves tomorrow

 

[MrGriz]

I can't believe that any significant number of people buy a stove based on the EPA emission numbers. I have to say that when I decided to put a wood burning insert in our fireplace, the emission rating did not enter into the equation at all. The things that mattered were the heat output, looks, budget and fitting my existing fireplace. Beyond that, I didn't even know that there were emission ratings for stoves. Of course the driving force that led to the insert at all was lowering my electric heat bill.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the less emission a stove puts out, the better. I just don't see this as a major buying motivation for most consumers (and by most I would say 99%). One of the best compliments I received after beginning to burn last winter came from my neighbor across the street, who also heats with wood and was the one who got me interested in it. A couple of weeks after he came over to look at the install, he stopped in one day to see if everything was ok with the insert. He hadn't seen any smoke from the chimney and thought I hadn't been burning. I happily told him that it had been going almost non stop for over a week.

I'm glad I can heat with a renewable resource in a way that does not pollute or more importantly irritate my neighbors. That leads me to the point about OWB. No one is running to their local government and asking that their neighbor's OWB be banned because its emissions are too high based on the EPA rating, or lack there of. They are up in arms because they have a hard time finding their way to the mailbox at the end of the driveway with all the smoke that thing is belching out; not to mention that they hack and cough all the way back to the door from the smoke inhalation. Ok, I'm over exaggerating but you get my point. No one cares if a stove or OWB puts out .7 or 7.5gph, all they care is if they can see and smell the smoke.

That part of the rant being said, I don't see anything wrong with the EPA trying to clean up wood stove and OWB emissions. Everyone does need to realize that no one in the real world is going to achieve the same emissions that are seen in the lab (even Elk). However, a stove that tests to a lower emission should still put out lower real world emissions than one that tests higher. After all, in that case the stoves are the constant and everything else is variable.

 

[webbie]

They SHOULD ban OWB's!
Of course, I assume you agree. The standard for OWB's is voluntary, and about 0.1% of units out there now and being sold are to that voluntary standard.

But you make a good point as to what to put into any "law". They should allow OWB's which meet the voluntary standard and are tested to such by a lab or by the manufacturer and witnessed by the lab. The standard is actually as strict or stricter (on a BTU for BTU basis) than the wood stove tests.

When it comes to regular stoves, it comes down to this - wood stoves used to put out from 30-60+ grams per hours (measured in the current fashion) - now they probably average 5-15 grams per hour, depending on the wood, operator, chimney and a lot of other factors. That means they were cleaned up by at least 400% (1/4 the old amount)....and possibly better. That is substantial. A person should not have to mislead in order to make a point - for instance, it is false to tell the alderman that stoves are now 70x cleaner.....for obvious reasons:
1. The old stoves were never tested using EPA methods
2. The new stoves don't burn anything like their EPA tests in the field.

So, the EPA is not forcing ANYTHING with OWB. Unfortunately, partially because the current administration in DC has made it clear that NO NEW REGULATIONS in terms of environmental clean-up are likely, the OWB industry WON their case.....a voluntary standard is no standard at all. Basically, they set a standard and told the companies they don't have to measure up to it - but if they want to, they can.

So, yes, ban the things.....and put an exception in that "when said boiler is tested to the new voluntary EPA standard for OWB's", it can then be installed (after permitting and proving)

BTW, a definitive article on the EPA testing of stoves says the following:
"actual in-use emissions from certified stoves are on average 3.3 times the certification value and averaged 11.1 g/hr."
"A leading woodstove manufacturer confirmed to EPA that many stoves are designed to pass the test and have higher emissions in actual in-home use."

Those figures are quite close to my "guesses" and facts from others in the industry.

 

[elkimmeg]

Web I'm searching foe answers and debate here nothing is personal. I need help I have been asked to present my observations. I need to leverage the info I have at hand.

WE do field smoke complaints And eventually it falls on my lap as the inspector. In Ma each town can make their own regulations concerning bylaws or Board of health rules.

I feel that if we give in and ban OWB's the next step down the line is wood stove smoke. At one time this was a working class community All that has changed the working class is the minority
we have open space zoning where homes are positioned close together and then open space is granted to the town for the higher density of homes. Usually the smallest zone was an acre

Open space exemption homes can be 15 feet from lot lines or 30' apart. Wood stove smoke is becoming an issue in Mac mansionvile

Maybe I went about this the wrong way but this is a valid situation developing

 

[KeithO]

If OWB's had adequate hot water storage (even better it could be in the house) and proper class A`chimneys (to keep the stack temperatures high enough) and were fire more akin to masonry heaters (running flat out on each charge), emissions from these devices would be reduced dramatically.

But, that is exactly the problem: The manufacturers violate every basic rule that one should follow in order to get a clean burning stove

1) the firebox is "cold", thereby resulting in a lot of unburnt volatiles
2) The fire is smothered most of the time, bcause many of the boilers are grossly oversized compared to the actual heat loads. They then idle with cyclic "bursts" where the stove has to ramp up and crank heat out because the thermostat says deliver heat now. These are the times of heavy smoke when the damper opens and that smokey fire has to try to get going again.
3) Because of the short crappy stacks on many of these stoves and the low combustion temperatures, the smoke is not all that hot compared to ambient by the time it comes out the flue, so instead of going straight up in the sky, it tends to spread out horizontally and get into the neighbors eyes and HVAC air intake.

The gassifier boilers have a different operating principle and to make full use of it would be more likely to be supplied with adequate heat storage in the first place.

The OWB situation will ultimately take care of itself if the manufacturers do not clean up their act. Either the loophole will have to be removed, or the manufacturers will really have to improve the design or they WILL ultimately be banned in most locations other than possibly very remote locations where nobody see or cares.

 

[elkimmeg]

MRgriz Put it in a way maybe we should look at GPH can anyone dispell that the cleanest lab tested stoves are not the cleanest burners in real world conditions

Maybe not shopping actual numbers but comparing lab test to cleaner real world results

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

They SHOULD ban OWB's!
Of course, I assume you agree. The standard for OWB's is voluntary, and about 0.1% of units out there now and being sold are to that voluntary standard.

But you make a good point as to what to put into any "law". They should allow OWB's which meet the voluntary standard and are tested to such by a lab or by the manufacturer and witnessed by the lab. The standard is actually as strict or stricter (on a BTU for BTU basis) than the wood stove tests.

By us, the EPA doesn't have to ban them.
They became so saturated in our rural setting, and puke-out soooo
much stinky smoke (even from a distance), people are complaining to
Town officials, ordinances are being put in place, and even existing OWB's
are not necessarily immune.
OWB's (well, at least the bad ones - whick there seems to be plenty of) are
pretty much self-destructive....

Rob

 

[BrotherBart]

For purposes of addressing local issues concerning OWBs the simple fact is that they don't meet the MINIMUM EPA standards for solid fuel appliances. Nothing to do with where they are on the scale or shopping by comparative numbers. The whole thing is just like cars and trucks were. For many years here cars had to meet a minimum requirement of emissions. Trucks didn't. Never any need to worry about where the cars were on the scale, just that they didn't exceed the maximum. Now trucks are in the same boat.

In addressing the Alderman use the fact that OWBs can't meet the minimum requirement. Their ordnances should not ban OWBs, they should ban OWBs that don't meet the minimum spec applied to wood stoves. That way boiler manufacturers have a target to hit and wood stoves aren't dragged down with them. The wood stoves already meet the spec.

Keep your eye on the ball. You don't want to do away with wood boilers. You want to clean them up.

 

[webbie]

MRgriz Put it in a way maybe we should look at GPH can anyone dispell that the cleanest lab tested stoves are not the cleanest burners in real world conditions

Maybe not shopping actual numbers but comparing lab test to cleaner real world results

I can dispel that no problem - the Omni study does it!

Also, the stove company ADMITS it - one of the "largest" ones with the cleanest stove (we can guess who that is - one of three or four).

But back to the subject at hand - Elk, your council members need KISS - simple information. The worse thing you can do with uneducated people is to throw numbers around. You can tell them that most EPA stoves burn in a "smokeless" manner - no visible smoke and very little smell. Therefore, an EPA approved OWB should be fine! Simple enough?

Your town should still retain the right to warn polluters in a "non-legal" fashion, because even EPA stoves can spew out chit if they are run with green wood or not operated properly. The same white paper I mentioned before shows that clearly - OWB's tested with green wood did much worse (of course).

Just to illustrate how critical the lab or the technician is, the paper says that failure to do a particular action (which only the experienced technicians might know about a stove model), caused emissions of a clean burning stove to go up by 5x. In other words, failure to stir the embers in a certain way and open the air control fully for five minutes when reloading (on normal cycle) caused a big failure. That by itself should show the folly of EPA numbers.....

 

[webbie]

Here is another interesting tidbit. When the EPA tested OWB using a similar method that they use for EPA stove - guess what? The OWB burned almost as clean as the "engineered" stoves! This is the "old" OWBs. So if we used EPA relative standards, most OWB would be close to them "as-is". A lot of the OWB problem, according to experts, is that the users do not burn them correctly in the "real world".

http://tinyurl.com/27oe96

Interesting reading for the technical minded.....

"1) current OWB PM emissions are in the same range as certified woodstove emissions on a g/kg basis "

What that means is that per pound of wood burned - and BTU input - OWB's are as clean as modern woodstoves.....I know it is hard to believe, but this data is the result of 56 test runs on 8 different OWBs.

If nothing else, this shows the importance of proper fuel and operator (which we have all claimed since day one!).

 

[elkimmeg]

I have read the studies Craig is referring to. One blaring point caught my eye, 50% of wood smoke occurs during initial start up and kindling.

Using lee that dry prolongs the startup and spews our environment with unnecessary pollutants

Part of the proposed regulation has language about burning garbage and moisture con taint of wood being 20% or less.

It is hoped by me, for this post to become educational and meaning full Keep it civil

 

[keyman512us]

They SHOULD ban OWB's!
Of course, I assume you agree. The standard for OWB's is voluntary, and about 0.1% of units out there now and being sold are to that voluntary standard.

(Spitting Coffee out my nose)...ERR UMMM...'SHHADD-UP'...Bite your tonuge and 'hold the phone right there web'... You're giving ammo to the BI folks. I should slap you for that one.

"Remove the word BAN from the discussion...PERIOD! Insert and replace and herein utilize REGULATE!"

"Any new or proposed OWB to be installed SHALL be regulated and comply with EPA standards and utilize cureent acceptable burn practices as they so become recognized. All pre-existing, non conforming 'OWB's shall be allowed to operate so long as they are not deemed to be emitting excessive smoke and have been operated in accordance with acceptable burn practices. Furthermore if they have been and are operated to a degree similiar to a solid fuel space heater then they should be deemed as 'conforming'..."

In other words...if it's a clean burning wood appliance...leave it alone!

But you make a good point as to what to put into any "law". They should allow OWB's which meet the voluntary standard and are tested to such by a lab or by the manufacturer and witnessed by the lab. The standard is actually as strict or stricter (on a BTU for BTU basis) than the wood stove tests.

When it comes to regular stoves, it comes down to this - wood stoves used to put out from 30-60+ grams per hours (measured in the current fashion) - now they probably average 5-15 grams per hour, depending on the wood, operator, chimney and a lot of other factors. That means they were cleaned up by at least 400% (1/4 the old amount)....and possibly better. That is substantial. A person should not have to mislead in order to make a point - for instance, it is false to tell the alderman that stoves are now 70x cleaner.....for obvious reasons:
1. The old stoves were never tested using EPA methods
2. The new stoves don't burn anything like their EPA tests in the field.

So, the EPA is not forcing ANYTHING with OWB. Unfortunately, partially because the current administration in DC has made it clear that NO NEW REGULATIONS in terms of environmental clean-up are likely, the OWB industry WON their case.....a voluntary standard is no standard at all. Basically, they set a standard and told the companies they don't have to measure up to it - but if they want to, they can.

So, yes, ban the things.....and put an exception in that "when said boiler is tested to the new voluntary EPA standard for OWB's", it can then be installed (after permitting and proving)

So having said that Web... If your thoughts are that vocal??? Should pre-EPA (AKA 'Smoke Dragons') Be banned as well then???

BTW, a definitive article on the EPA testing of stoves says the following:
"actual in-use emissions from certified stoves are on average 3.3 times the certification value and averaged 11.1 g/hr."
"A leading woodstove manufacturer confirmed to EPA that many stoves are designed to pass the test and have higher emissions in actual in-home use."

Those figures are quite close to my "guesses" and facts from others in the industry.

Forget the notion of BANNING, set aside Regualtions for a second...and take the "legal mumbo-jumbo" out of the debate and keep it simple.

Hold it to the "litmus test" for the moment.

Ask the basic question "Can and does the individual OWB meet the basic "standard" of a similiar properly operating wood stove???"

If the answer is "yes" hold it to the woodstove concept...If the answer is "no"...Then dis-allow it's use.

If someone runs a stove as a smoke cloud the owner is put in the spotlight and effective actions are taken...but it's done on a CASE BY CASE BASIS...

Why is it everyone is so quick to let the OWB fall as 'cannon fodder' collectively??? Would you be so quick to let it happen if it was about 'stoves'???

'Dime to a doughnut bet is' I would say not!

Numbers??? Forget numbers! "The powers that be" want everything all in one lump sum...a broad categorization. They can't fathom numbers and standards.

Case in point:

Here in my locale when the regs were being proposed I made the suggestion "Base it by the firing rate". Anything over 500,000btu's per/hour is prohibited. 250,000-500k have this standard...100,000btus/hr to 250K use as a standard and hold it to these requirements...100,000btu's/hr treat it like you would a wood stove and place an emphassis on clean burning. Regardless of size of the unit itself...put in place that it be sized accordingly to the intended heat load".

The reply??? "Too complicated we could never write it that way...wouldn't work."

YGTBSM You want to hold a guy burning 4 splits at a time to the same standard as the guy that has half a cord packed into for all intents and purposes...a big 'smudge pot'??????

COME ON!

 

[keyman512us]

Web I'm searching foe answers and debate here nothing is personal. I need help I have been asked to present my observations. I need to leverage the info I have at hand.

WE do field smoke complaints And eventually it falls on my lap as the inspector. In Ma each town can make their own regulations concerning bylaws or Board of health rules.

I feel that if we give in and ban OWB's the next step down the line is wood stove smoke. At one time this was a working class community All that has changed the working class is the minority
we have open space zoning where homes are positioned close together and then open space is granted to the town for the higher density of homes. Usually the smallest zone was an acre

Open space exemption homes can be 15 feet from lot lines or 30' apart. Wood stove smoke is becoming an issue in Mac mansionvile

Maybe I went about this the wrong way but this is a valid situation developing

Elk...
I would suggest a "collective effort" between your office (Building Dept.) and the Board of health. While you don't want to be deemed the "smoke police"... You want to be able to have some authority to steer folks in the right direction.

I don't have the links (right now)and can't quote "Chapter and Verse" but Massachusetts does have regs through the DEP that somewhat "Give a definition of 'clean burn practice'..." DEP regs state something to the effect of "Visable Smoke emissions shall not exceed 10% opacity for more than five minutes out of any hour" etc etc....

So if it's a problem...recomend to the town that all new installs "have to have an operating permit yearly". Older 'Grandfathered' installs will be treated as "new" if complaints are lodged.

Then watch how fast everyone cleans up their act.

It s^cks...it's might not be the best idea...but it's a stop-gap that might prevent an all out ban...

 

[keyman512us]

If OWB's had adequate hot water storage (even better it could be in the house) and proper class A`chimneys (to keep the stack temperatures high enough) and were fire more akin to masonry heaters (running flat out on each charge), emissions from these devices would be reduced dramatically.

But, that is exactly the problem: The manufacturers violate every basic rule that one should follow in order to get a clean burning stove

1) the firebox is "cold", thereby resulting in a lot of unburnt volatiles
2) The fire is smothered most of the time, bcause many of the boilers are grossly oversized compared to the actual heat loads. They then idle with cyclic "bursts" where the stove has to ramp up and crank heat out because the thermostat says deliver heat now. These are the times of heavy smoke when the damper opens and that smokey fire has to try to get going again.
3) Because of the short crappy stacks on many of these stoves and the low combustion temperatures, the smoke is not all that hot compared to ambient by the time it comes out the flue, so instead of going straight up in the sky, it tends to spread out horizontally and get into the neighbors eyes and HVAC air intake.

The gassifier boilers have a different operating principle and to make full use of it would be more likely to be supplied with adequate heat storage in the first place.

(Clapping and cheering) Finally someone else has said what I've been saying all along.

But yes...Half the time "Those OWB owners are their own worst enemy".

The guy with a 300,000btu/hr OWB to heat his 1800sq/ft ranch??? Yeah what was he thinking???

Nobody ever makes mention that the worst offenders are the "lazy woodburners". They want the biggest firebox and longest burn time so they (in theory) only have to load it every two days...and then they wonder why the neighbors are complaining when the whole neighborhood is a "smoke bowl".

The OWB situation will ultimately take care of itself if the manufacturers do not clean up their act. Either the loophole will have to be removed, or the manufacturers will really have to improve the design or they WILL ultimately be banned in most locations other than possibly very remote locations where nobody see or cares.

The manufacturers' are a large part of the problem....But not so much as the folks that buy their products.

A good majority of OWB owners shouldn't even be firing a decorative insert.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I think we all basically agree that all new wood-burning appliances sold should comply to some standard, most logically the EPA regs.

I don't think it would be fair or practical to try to go after installed units, at least not en masse. Particularly offensive existing installations should probably be dealt with on a local level on an individual basis.

But let's face it: Most OWBs are not going to last all that long, so they'll all be just another bad memory in a decade or two.

If you force the manufacturers to build clean-burning outdoor wood burners, they'll do it so fast it'll make you head spin. The technology is certainly available, even if the dry wood needed to make it work right, may not be. But that's a separate issue.

I agree with the notion that if we start banning smoke-producing appliances, we may not stop with the biggest offenders. And none of us wants to see that happen. If, on the other hand, we take a more proactive approach, it leaves a positive public impression and in the end, everybody's happy.

 

[webbie]

You forgot about the dealers (local sellers) - who I think get a "wink-wink" from the manufacturers. I think I have heard:
"he burns his tires, trash and stumps in there"
"I use mine year-round to provide domestic hot water (with trash also)"

More times than once......

Hey, Key, you gotta hit the blog - when the 6000 character limit bites you it's time to write the novel......I can see the future - someday you will make your living writing (I just know it).

But, yes, a rose by any other name - "regulate" is fine - and it might go down easier.

We have to be careful when talking about EPA regs - the existing regs for stoves are just for room heaters. It is unrealistic to expect a central heater to conform, although according to the testing they do match EPA indoor stoves in "actual tested cord wood emissions" (pound of wood/emissions).

So when Elk presents it, he should make no reference to wood stove existing EPA standards, etc. - but to the NEW EPA voluntary standard for OWB's, which is quite different. To use the car analogy, one cannot expect a dumptruck to put out the same emissions as a Civic.

An important point in the debate is that Ma is the 3rd most densely populated state in the USA - and eastern ma even more so. This gives a valid reason why it is important to regulate before things get out of hand.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I guess in my fantasy world, EPA would develop some standards that applied specifically to central heating appliances.

And what's to stop anyone from burning old tires or garbage in their new woodstove?

The mfgs could be forced to announce that burning anything other than dry firewood voids the warranty. See how fast that stops.

Something along the lines of: "Brand X OWB was designed to burn dry firewood with a moisture content no greater than 35 percent. Using any other fuel can cause unpredictable results and will void the warranty." End of debate.

 

[carpniels]

Hi Eric,

I believe that such text already exists. In my Quadrafire and my Jotul manual, it states that this woodstove is designed for burning firewood only. No painted wood, trash, etc is allowed. Or something to that extent.

Carpniels

 

[webbie]

I guess in my fantasy world, EPA would develop some standards that applied specifically to central heating appliances.

And what's to stop anyone from burning old tires or garbage in their new woodstove?
.

One word answer: Women
Longer answer "they don't fit".

The EPA regs for outdoor boilers could probably also be applied to indoor ones - as the actual results of these regs is a stove that burns cleaner than current wood stoves (again, per pound of wood). I'll have to read the standard again and see if there is anything that would not pertain to an "inside" boiler.

 

[Eric Johnson]

When there's no women around, you'd be surprised what will fit into a wood stove. Can you say Christmas Tree? When I bought my last boiler (used), I cleaned it out before firing it up, and recovered a wheel cylinder from a drum brake. So I guess they were burning trash in their indoor wood boiler.

I know the woodstoves manuals are all full of cautions, Niels. But it would be nice if the outdoor wood burner guys would do the same.

Got me thinking, though. I wonder if I can burn tires in my EKO?

Seriously, Craig, what's the story on burning paper in a gasifier? Seems like they'll burn just about any other dry, organic material.