Efficiency testing

[begreen]

Sounds messed up and complicated. Maybe too many unelected bureaucrats involved. Remember the good old days where they had every stove listed at a generic efficiency? What was it 63% for non cat 72% for cat stove?

That's just an arbitrary number not reflecting real world design. Good for marketing cat stoves and not realistic. Besides, the EPA testing is not about efficiency, it's about emissions.

 

[BKVP]

Sounds messed up and complicated. Maybe too many unelected bureaucrats involved. Remember the good old days where they had every stove listed at a generic efficiency? What was it 63% for non cat 72% for cat stove?

Yes, I don't know about those old Hang Tags. They too caused great confusion. Listen, a race car driver way back in early NASCAR named (yes this is correct) Smokie Yunick, helped write the rules for NASCAR. It's late here in Germany, but I can assure you if you read his book, "The Best Damn Garage in Town", you'll have a better appreciation for the difficulty we face in designing a new method (or least helping to.)

But is it VERY clear some, as the states call it "cheating" took place. I can't say anyone cheated, but since the method did not say you could not do it, those liberties were taken. It made all the industry look bad to regulators. That single test report is what has resulted in the calamity that we face today. 100% of all wood and pellet heater test reports are under a microscope.

BKVP

 

[BKVP]

That's just an arbitrary number not reflecting real world design. Good for marketing cat stoves and not realistic. Besides, the EPA testing is not about efficiency, it's about emissions.

Correct because...not all cat stoves and not all non catalytic stoves are alike even within their respective technologies. That is why AD138 was removed from the 2015 NSPS. I think EPA was correct in eliminating AD138 because of this very reason.

BKVP

 

[NHWS]

The problem is similar to automobile emissions testing. The test works ok for a standard design, but falls apart when new or alternative technology is introduced. Chevy Volt owners ran into this because the engine is a generator, not the motive powerplant. You can't rev the engine up to X rpm for the test. And it will likely fail if the vehicle arrives on electric power because the motor is stone cold.

Similar issue: Test procedures designed for then-conventional engines contributed to the abandonment of rotary ICE.

 

[BKVP]

The problem is similar to automobile emissions testing. The test works ok for a standard design, but falls apart when new or alternative technology is introduced. Chevy Volt owners ran into this because the engine is a generator, not the motive powerplant. You can't rev the engine up to X rpm for the test. And it will likely fail if the vehicle arrives on electric power because the motor is stone cold.

Great point except EPA offers a cafeteria plan for the automotive industry. Chevy (as an example) can make 10,000 Suburban's that get 8 miles per gallon so long as they make and sell 200,00 Chevy Volts. (again only an example).

But reading the study, we need to remember that the fuel and the MC in the fuel was the greatest contributor to PM2.5. EPA and other are in Portola CA trying to now studying actual in-situ installations due to two of the greatest variabilities:

1) User interface
2) Speciation and MC

What's next, regulating the fuel we burn? (Just like the automotive industry)

BKVP

 

[begreen]

A problem for emissions is that the testing is only done on new equipment. Going back to the Klamath study, it's lack of maintenance that really spikes emissions. One has to wonder how many cat stoves are running on the original and now dead cat. I suspect with the new generation of hybrids this will only increase. That's why cars are tested on a repeated basis.

 

[BKVP]

A problem for emissions is that the testing is only done on new equipment. Going back to the Klamath study, it's lack of maintenance that really spikes emissions. One has to wonder how many cat stoves are running on the original and now dead cat. I suspect with the new generation of hybrids this will only increase. That's why cars are tested on a repeated basis.

And how many secondary combustion stoves have baffles or tubes damaged or removed due to expense of replacement. Warranty doesn't always cover these.

 

[begreen]

And how many secondary combustion stoves have baffles or tubes damaged or removed due to expense of replacement. Warranty doesn't always cover these.

Baffle neglect is possible for sure. It's why I'm not a big fan of fiberboard baffles unless they are protected. Tube replacement is uncommon. This hasn't been an issue since the mid-90s when manufactures switch from steel to stainless steel tubes. These days if a tube fails, it's most likely in a legacy stove or due to continued overfiring of the stove in which case there will be other damage as well.

 

[weee123]

A problem for emissions is that the testing is only done on new equipment. Going back to the Klamath study, it's lack of maintenance that really spikes emissions. One has to wonder how many cat stoves are running on the original and now dead cat. I suspect with the new generation of hybrids this will only increase. That's why cars are tested on a repeated basis.

Are you suggesting that the EPA send people to individuals homes to test their stoves?

 

[BKVP]

Baffle neglect is possible for sure. It's why I'm not a big fan of fiberboard baffles. Tube replacement is uncommon. This hasn't been an issue since the mid-90s when manufactures switch from steel to stainless steel tubes. These days if a tube fails, it's most likely due to continued overfiring of the stove and there will be other damage as well.

Thank you for this. It's important to acknowledge the possibility of failure in any design and not default to just "catalyst" related in our comments.

BKVP

 

[begreen]

Are you suggesting that the EPA send people to individuals homes to test their stoves?

No, never said that. I'm just pointing out that the industry and EPA have known for a long time that individual misuse of the stove is a primary source of emissions that negate the benefit of EPA testing.

 

[BKVP]

Are you suggesting that the EPA send people to individuals homes to test their stoves?

Today as I type this, there are and have been in-situ studies done to provide real world data. Not necessarily EPA, but laboratories and state agencies have and continue to do so. And it is voluntary.

BKVP

 

[Todd]

Today as I type this, there are and have been in-situ studies done to provide real world data. Not necessarily EPA, but laboratories and state agencies have and continue to do so. And it is voluntary.

BKVP

Do you have any of these studies to share?

 

[begreen]

Thank you for this. It's important to acknowledge the possibility of failure in any design and not default to just "catalyst" related in our comments.

BKVP

Definitely not just catalytic stoves, though they can be more complex which can lead to other issues like bypass mechanism failure or leakage. I think that was the case with a VC stove but it's been a long time since I read the report and I don't recall if that was a cat model or non-cat. (And then there is refractory assembly degradation to consider ). All stoves can have gasket failures which is a common issue and all stoves can have users burning poorly seasoned wood. I will try to reread it later, got a class now.

 

[Todd]

That's just an arbitrary number not reflecting real world design. Good for marketing cat stoves and not realistic. Besides, the EPA testing is not about efficiency, it's about emissions.

Seems it is about efficiency, it’s in the EPA test report and is used for the Fed tax credit?

 

[moresnow]

Had the pleasure of being around Smokey Yunick a handful of times. Brilliant mind.
He had many colorful sayings. My favorite however.
“There’s two kinds of racers.
Cheaters and losers”🤣

 

[begreen]

Seems it is about efficiency, it’s in the EPA test report and is used for the Fed tax credit?

The Fed tax credit is not EPA driven to my knowledge.

 

[BillBurns]

Too complicated for me.......I just burn wood period, for heat.

 

[BKVP]

Do you have any of these studies to share?

Sure, when I get back to the US. But the old studies proved to have far to many assumptions and are discounted by regulators. I'll dig up ones from the past decade.
Klamath Falls OR, Keene NH, Crested Butte CO, are all too old. There are much more accurate studies. But considering many are 30+ years old, they did the best they could at the time.

BKVP

 

[BKVP]

Seems it is about efficiency, it’s in the EPA test report and is used for the Fed tax credit?

First, they are manufacturers test reports generated at EPA approved laboratories.

EPA either approves or denies requests for certification based upon their review of the reports.

During testing, mfg's select method for emissions testing, but method for calculating efficiency is an ASTM protocol and must be used.

EPA simply posts those results on the website, but CURRENTLY, there a no minimum required efficiencies.

About 3 weeks ago, I was the lone mfg at a conference held by EPA. Not a single residential wood heating presentation focused on 2.5PM. Instead, every single presentation, including the ECCC Study, focused on VOC's. Wake up industry! VOC's and exceedance metrics for PM during and test are about to strike between the eyes! And as Chairman of the Solid Fuel Section, I've been sharing these concerns.

BKVP

 

[begreen]

Sure, when I get back to the US. But the old studies proved to have far to many assumptions and are discounted by regulators. I'll dig up ones from the past decade.

How is the information invalid or no longer important? If a 10 yr old stove has never been maintained and now has leaky gaskets, or broken baffle, or dead cat, or is constantly burning wet wood, etc., so that it's now putting out far greater emissions, that's still valid and telling data about how stoves are operated in the real world. Somethings don't need a lot of studying. If fixing a stove is very costly, it is more likely that the repairs will get deferred. This is human nature. It became apparent with the first VC refractory chamber stoves where a full replacement was a $1000 job.

IMO it's why replacement program stoves should be as simple and stout as possible. These stoves frequently go to lower income homes. If the goal is to maintain the low emissions design, the less frequently and costly that they need maintenance and servicing the better.

 

[BKVP]

I did not state "invalid". I said flawed due to too many assumptions. At the conference I just attended, it was not quite unanimous, but a vast majority suggested the user should be the focus and not the appliance or even the chimney.

Some tremendous money is being dedicated by DOE and others to increase knowledge and data on user interface (burning wet wood as you mentioned) being key. Piece size, loading density etc... The survey hosted on this site in 2020 and other sites, is being published by some groups that are also conducting user interface. The data provided to them from the survey I developed and refined by EPA, has proven to be valuable. Thank you hearth.co and others for hosting that survey!

Additionally, the equipment used back in older studies is now old and outdated. They did what they could, but today's understanding and equipment is much better to guide future designs, test methods and regulations.

BKVP

 

[begreen]

What were the bad assumptions? Some of the stove designs tested are basically the same as what is still in use today.

 

[BKVP]

What were the bad assumptions? Some of the stove designs tested are basically the same as what is still in use today.

I'll follow up with this when I return from Germany...

 

[moresnow]

@BKVP
Sure hope you have someone in the pipeline following/learning the ropes on all this.
Otherwise the next guy/gal will be drinking from a fire hose to get up to speed!