EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE

[Seasoned Oak]

The bright side is if they did clamp down on the old smoke dragons and beefed up the requirements for new stove s we may get some really good hi efficiency stoves out of the deal. I think the current lineup has a lot of room for improvement. Not all bad.

 

[Highbeam]

The bright side is if they did clamp down on the old smoke dragons and beefed up the requirements for new stove s we may get some really good hi efficiency stoves out of the deal. I think the current lineup has a lot of room for improvement. Not all bad.

The government still allows new masonry fireplaces to be built. You can't, buy, sell, install, or give away a pre-epa stove but you can pollute our air like mad with a brick fireplace.

I hope the laws encourage more epa stoves too. Visible emissions are no longer an effective means of determining a clean burner. It's much easier and more conclusive to identify the epa label.

 

[jatoxico]

The unpleasant truth is burning wood does produce a lot of those harmful 2.5 um particles. For kicks (yeah my idea of kicks is strange) I dug up some numbers on different heat sources and their output of 2.5 particles. It's not that straight forward since most stove numbers are reported in some weight per time (e.g g/hr) while other sources like oil and NG are given in weight per energy released like mg/MJ. I checked the numbers on EPA stoves w/ some assumptions, namely a 30 lb load of wood and a 6 hr burn cycle which gives 3.96 g/hr. This meets EPA stage 2 I believe so I don't think they're way off. So...

NG 0.014 mg/MJ
Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
Pellet 25 mg/MJ
EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ

Real quick it's apparent that a conventional wood stove under test conditions puts out as much 2.5 as almost 1000 oil fired boilers per MJ of energy. Even our EPA stoves put out as much particles as >250 oil fired furnaces.

Unlike wood burning, NG and oil fired furnaces probably put out pretty near their stated emissions no matter who the operator is,. Not so with wood as we know.

This is the reason that wood burning can only be part of the solution to any areas heating needs and why one knucklehead burning badly likely can exceed the stated numbers and consequently can do a lot to damage air quality in areas prone to air quality problems.

These were the numbers I was able to come up with. Anyone who can fact check/debunk these please do. I'm all about accurate info here but I think any way you slice it air quality is affected by wood burning and the EPA is not off base to monitor and make recommendations. Thankfully I don't live in an area that is subject to significant inversions or has a high density of other burners.

 

[Highbeam]

The unpleasant truth is burning wood does produce a lot of those harmful 2.5 um particles. For kicks (yeah my idea of kicks is strange) I dug up some numbers on different heat sources and their output of 2.5 particles. It's not that straight forward since most stove numbers are reported in some weight per time (e.g g/hr) while other sources like oil and NG are given in weight per energy released like mg/MJ. I checked the numbers on EPA stoves w/ some assumptions, namely a 30 lb load of wood and a 6 hr burn cycle which gives 3.96 g/hr. This meets EPA stage 2 I believe so I don't think they're way off. So...

NG 0.014 mg/MJ
Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
Pellet 25 mg/MJ
EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ

Real quick it's apparent that a conventional wood stove under test conditions puts out as much 2.5 as almost 1000 oil fired boilers per MJ of energy. Even our EPA stoves put out as much particles as >250 oil fired furnaces.

Unlike wood burning, NG and oil fired furnaces probably put out pretty near their stated emissions no matter who the operator is,. Not so with wood as we know.

This is the reason that wood burning can only be part of the solution to any areas heating needs and why one knucklehead burning badly likely can exceed the stated numbers and consequently can do a lot to damage air quality in areas prone to air quality problems.

These were the numbers I was able to come up with. Anyone who can fact check/debunk these please do. I'm all about accurate info here but I think any way you slice it air quality is affected by wood burning and the EPA is not off base to monitor and make recommendations. Thankfully I don't live in an area that is subject to significant inversions or has a high density of other burners.

Is the gph rating of a stove specifically grams of 2.5 particles? Of course, there are plenty of sub 1 gph stoves on the market but 4 gph isn't out of line.

Setting a stove next to a furnace isn't telling the whole story though. Since wood burners are extremely rare one must look at context. So of the total pollutants in the air, how much is from transportation, dust, pollen, woodsmoke, etc. This would attempt to capture the actual value of harassing wood burners.

 

[jatoxico]

Is the gph rating of a stove specifically grams of 2.5 particles? Of course, there are plenty of sub 1 gph stoves on the market but 4 gph isn't out of line.

Setting a stove next to a furnace isn't telling the whole story though. Since wood burners are extremely rare one must look at context. So of the total pollutants in the air, how much is from transportation, dust, pollen, woodsmoke, etc. This would attempt to capture the actual value of harassing wood burners.

Yes only data for 2.5 um particles. The picture gets much more complicated when you start trying to calculate the impact of transportation or using chainsaws. Too complicated for my simple mind but from the point of use standpoint you can see the potential problem. One bad burner putting out as much or more particulate as 1000 homes.

It would be nice if "they" would go after the worst offenders but no gov't entity is likely to want to try to take that on. Who's gonna stake the place out and gather the real data needed to be successful once the homeowner lawyers up and claims harassment? Unfortunately only real option is to just to treat everyone the same. I think the EPA has been fairly reasonable. Trying to push EPA stoves while monitoring overall air quality, continuing to collect data and making recommendations.

Of the things you mentioned (dust/pollen/transportation etc) the one with the realistic alternative is the wood burner. Seems they typically make exceptions for those burners who have no other source of heat.

 

[jetsam]

NG 0.014 mg/MJ
Oil 1.7 mg/MJ
Pellet 25 mg/MJ
EPA Stove 450 mg/MJ
Convent Stove 1680 mg/MJ
Fireplace 8600 mg/MJ

It's probably worse than that, because in addition to burning practices and fuel sources varying, oil and ng burners have one speed, and woodstoves and pellet stoves have variable burn rates, and I would be willing to bet that emissions per megajoule vary with burn rate.

 

[jatoxico]

It's probably worse than that, because in addition to burning practices and fuel sources varying, oil and ng burners have one speed, and woodstoves and pellet stoves have variable burn rates, and I would be willing to bet that emissions per megajoule vary with burn rate.

Yes. The data reported was collected under some test condition. Was not looking to get too deep in the weeds but I've read some info on test conditions used and for sure I could see some real world practices doing much worse. To your point I read that easily 50% if not more of emissions occur during the kindling stage when the stove is not to temp.

If that's the case then for an EPA stove and from an emissions standpoint, it would be better to get the stove to operating temp and keep it there. Again I could see it getting complicated when you start talking cat vs. non-cat as so forth so just generalizations. Perhaps next generation stoves will have to employ some type of pre-heater that uses electric made from coal fired plants, that gets mined and shipped by truck from...oh forget it!

 

[Highbeam]

Yes only data for 2.5 um particles. The picture gets much more complicated when you start trying to calculate the impact of transportation or using chainsaws. Too complicated for my simple mind but from the point of use standpoint you can see the potential problem. One bad burner putting out as much or more particulate as 1000 homes.

It would be nice if "they" would go after the worst offenders but no gov't entity is likely to want to try to take that on. Who's gonna stake the place out and gather the real data needed to be successful once the homeowner lawyers up and claims harassment? Unfortunately only real option is to just to treat everyone the same. I think the EPA has been fairly reasonable. Trying to push EPA stoves while monitoring overall air quality, continuing to collect data and making recommendations.

Of the things you mentioned (dust/pollen/transportation etc) the one with the realistic alternative is the wood burner. Seems they typically make exceptions for those burners who have no other source of heat.

The "no other form of heat exemption" is no longer an option. You now must apply annually, be granted this exemption annually before burning, and money is no excuse. They made an extensive effort to squash that loophole.

The epa has been fine. The problem is with the power hungry, politically biased, agenda driven local clean air agencies that do the actual smoke patrols and burn bans. They take it too far.

 

[jetsam]

Yes. The data reported was collected under some test condition. Was not looking to get too deep in the weeds but I've read some info on test conditions used and for sure I could see some real world practices doing much worse. To your point I read that easily 50% if not more of emissions occur during the kindling stage when the stove is not to temp.

If that's the case then for an EPA stove and from an emissions standpoint, it would be better to get the stove to operating temp and keep it there. Again I could see it getting complicated when you start talking cat vs. non-cat as so forth so just generalizations. Perhaps next generation stoves will have to employ some type of pre-heater that uses electric made from coal fired plants, that gets mined and shipped by truck from...oh forget it!

Don't forget that oil and NG come from extraction operations, get shipped to giant refineries, which, though I don't know much about them, always seem to feature large smokestacks, and then shipped SE more.....

The one constant in any issue that people argue about is that whatever they're arguing about is more complex than either side will admit.

Both sides usually have someone who wants another gold-plated Learjet for their collection, so they both turn whatever the issue is into an Us Vs Them emotional argument, and the actual facts of the matter are gone forever.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

What about waste oil burning ? I'm a tech/ dealer and I see some nasty black smoke billowing all the time. And think about the sheet in that stuff.

 

[jetsam]

What about waste oil burning ? I'm a tech/ dealer and I see some nasty black smoke billowing all the time. And think about the sheet in that stuff.

It's a common misperception that tiny airborne metallic particles and oil goo might be bad for you- fuelled by propaganda by those other guys that we hate!

Speaking as a totally sympathetic representative of the United Waste Oil Burning Equipment Manufacturers LLC, I can assure you that studies show that doctors agree that nothing is better for your lungs than a nice strong protective coating of tiny steel particles. At least, there is a lot of doubt around the issue, and the science isn't clear.

I'd like to close by pointing out that those guys we hate are out to get you. Stay strong, and protect YOUR childrens' lungs with a new waste oil burner today.

 

[Lloyd the redneck]

Haha. I'm going to be exiled now. It has its place because the disposal idiots like to do bad things and free heat and on site disposal can't be beat! The ash I have to clean out regularly has eaten the enamel off my fiberglass tub/shower. But it's safe. Right

 

[begreen]

It seems like man is the only animal that messes in his own bed.

 

[Sprinter]

It seems like man is the only animal that messes in his own bed.

How many "likes" are we allowed for one post?

 

[Sprinter]

nothing is better for your lungs than a nice strong protective coating of tiny steel particles.

And the smaller, the better, so they can get even deeper into the alveoli, thus protecting us from all that nasty O2 getting into the the blood.

 

[begreen]

Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america

 

[jetsam]

Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america

You could also ask the Chinese how the industrial revolution works out when you don't have an EPA.

 

[jetsam]

Haha. I'm going to be exiled now.

I wouldn't worry about that- the only people I've ever seen run out of here were advertisers.

Open debate and rational discussion generally sends trolls slinking off to look for easier targets.

 

[begreen]

You could also ask the Chinese how the industrial revolution works out when you don't have an EPA.

Or India, or Mongolia. Ulan Bator pollution can be worse than Beijing and frequently it is.
http://www.dw.com/en/air-pollution-smog-cities/a-18264278

 

[Sprinter]

Many folks are too young to remember how crappy the air was in some areas before the Clean Air Act.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/smog-photos-1970s-america

I remember. And I remember all the moaning and groaning and anger and general bitsing when someone tried to do something about it. I can't even imagine what a place like LA would be like now without those efforts. I've been there recently and you can actually breathe and see more than a block or two now, and that's with more population and cars on the road.

 

[Sprinter]

Oh, and remember when they took R12 away from cars' A/C? So many people were afraid that they would never be able to cool their cars again. My newish SUV could freeze me out if I let it... And it's more reliable to boot. And inflation-adjusted, the car is probably cheaper and so much nicer in spite of the low emissions. Oh, and it gets 22 mpg. My 1970's cars struggled to get 12.

Okay, I'll admit I wish I still had my 69 Camaro Or the 65 Corvette Roadster. Or the...

 

[Poindexter]

One other thing i should mention in case one of yall writes to the nyt.

My 2400 sqft suburban home, 4+ energy stars, consumes ~275 MBTU annually for heat and domestic hot water.

In cold weather i keep the downstairs 100 sqft at +60dF with oil. Upstairs thermostat is set at 62, i keep it a bit warmer than that with the wood stove.

When i get #2 fuel oil for the boiler delivered i calculate what a cord of spruce (18 MBTU) is worth to me btu for btu. I looked at the price of a gym membership v whiskey and motrin, let go of it simpler to just look at btu v btu and be aware of the consequences.

Today btu for btu against #2oil a cord of spruce is 'worth' $338 and costs $250 delivered.

A couple years ago #2 oil was north of 4 bucks a gallon, spruce was 'worth' almost $500 per cord and i was sitting on 12 cords of birch that cost me under $200 per cord including chainsaw fuel but not including accupuncture treatments.

Year in and year out Fairbanks has the second highest cost of living in the usa, second only to honolulu over and over and over. If you love the outdoor wilderness and small government, this is the place to be.

My furnace guy wanted me to sink about $1500 into my furnace last year for a better burner. I asked if it would save me any fuel and he said no. Im still running the old one.

Ive no doubt oil and NG furnaces offer dramatically less emissions per btu delivered, and i am in favor of clean air. Otoh i only have so much money to spend, and i buy a LOT of btus every year.

Fairbanks exists for two reasons. We are the north end of the railroad for both oil pipeline maintenance and supplying gold miners.

Several trillion dollars of known gold deposits up here, all you got to do is look at the price of gold and the price of diesel
to decide if you can make a buck running your mine. Everything else is support for those two economic engines, or strategic defense spending.

 

[ddahlgren]

Yep. Crazy thing is that the Garn when I researched it appears to be below the guidelines on particulate matter, but pretty much a blanket ban. I actually thought about filing a suit using their own data, but I was told that I would be wasting my time. $10,000 fine if you get caught running one. Washington is dominated by the folks on the coast and a pretty rabid environmental lobby so they decided what was best for those of us who live in far less populated areas. Ironic thing is that the same environmentalist are the ones who stop healthy forest practices out here so we suffer massive wildfires almost every year that put far more crap in the air in hours than all the woodstoves do in a year. Go figure.

You can either manage a forest and clear excess fuel on the forest floor or wait for the fire to do it for you. There is nothing much more silly than a room of art history majors making decisions on managing a forest or deciding what is needed for clean combustion.

 

[jatoxico]

The epa has been fine. The problem is with the power hungry, politically biased, agenda driven local clean air agencies that do the actual smoke patrols and burn bans. They take it too far.

Yeah I get it. It's easy to be philosophical about things when it's a theoretical discussion. When you're the one getting regulated it takes on a whole new color. Especially in those instances when the regulator can't see the forest for the trees as it were.

 

[rwhite]

It would be an interesting cost, btu, emmisions discussion if everything was compared on a level playing field. What are the implications if we go from a tree in the forest to smoke out the chimney, and what is the environmental cost of getting a gallon of oil or NG out of the ground and to your door to burn it? Nothing is free. There's a lot of end users that claim that, but never figure the cost to get it to their door.