EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban

[blazincajun]

Very interesting that some of those redwoods exhibit characteristics of younger redwoods. Maybe those redwoods are still adolescents. Some of the large loblolly pine in the Congaree National Park, SC are upwards 160+ feet; however, their growth is pretty much stagnent and many have been lost the last 25 years since Hurricane Hugo's impacts.

 

[mstoelton]

I don't think anyone will take our stoves either; however, I find this quote in the proposed regs interesting "The current emission limits would remain in effect for the heaters and model lines manufactured before the effective date of this rule until their current EPA certification expires (maximum of 5 years) or is revoked. After the certification expires or is revoked, these heaters and other new heaters would have to meet updated emission standards." Okay - so run that by me again and how's this going to happen?

While it is not specifically stated here, the way EPA makes sure that the heaters meet updted emission standards is that the heaters are no longer approved to be sold if they do not meet the updated emission standard.

It is just like someone installing an old smoke dragon today. If you can find one used, nobody is going to stop you from installing. You can't buy a new one now. All newly manufactured woodstove have to be approved inder the current EPA standard.

 

[Jags]

All newly manufactured woodstove have to be approved inder the current EPA standard.

Not true. There are plenty of examples of EPA exempt stoves currently on the market.

 

[begreen]

Very interesting that some of those redwoods exhibit characteristics of younger redwoods. Maybe those redwoods are still adolescents. Some of the large loblolly pine in the Congaree National Park, SC are upwards 160+ feet; however, their growth is pretty much stagnent and many have been lost the last 25 years since Hurricane Hugo's impacts.

Here is the source article for others interested in reading it:
http://www.nature.com/news/tree-growth-never-slows-1.14536

 

[Wood Duck]

I think the problem with EPA trying to regulate the design of stoves is that they are regulating the wrong thing. If you want to control air pollution from wood stoves you need to regulate wood fuel, or maybe to regulate the behavior of the people who use wood stoves. I bet most of us, if we tried, could use an older stove and not create a lot of smoke, and I bet there are plenty of people, including my neighbor, who could use the cleanest stove ever built and still produce tons of smoke. The wood we burn and the way we burn have more to do with smoke and air pollution than the stove.

I am not arguing that new stove designs aren't better. I think the new stove technologies are great - less air pollution and more heat from the same wood is a win-win. I am just saying that fuel and operator are bigger factors than stove design in determining the amount of pollution produced from burning wood.

 

[John Ackerly]

I

I am not arguing that new stove designs aren't better. I think the new stove technologies are great - less air pollution and more heat from the same wood is a win-win. I am just saying that fuel and operator are bigger factors than stove design in determining the amount of pollution produced from burning wood.

True, but there is simply no way to regulate behavior. If we had a strong firewood association like they have in some European countries, that could go a long way to ensuring delivery of dry wood. We think EPA is on the right track in their stove regulations, and I expect they will ultimately come up with a emission number above 1.3 and below 1.5, which should be workable. One of biggest problems is that industry has put forward so few strategies about how to make these regulations really work well. They are expert at opposing ideas. One reason this NSPS came out the way it did is because there is so little constructive ideas about how to do it better. For example, does it make sense to test all types of stoves at their dirtiest burn rate? Why not use a weighted average that give high burn rate the most weight for the emissions of pellet stoves, because that is where they burn dirtiest? Conversely, why test cat and non-cat stoves on a high burn rate, if that is their dirtiest rate? If you do a one size fits all, manufacturers will figure out how to game the system, and keep producing stoves that are not optimized for real world use.

 

[Dakotas Dad]

While it is not specifically stated here, the way EPA makes sure that the heaters meet updted emission standards is that the heaters are no longer approved to be sold if they do not meet the updated emission standard.

It is just like someone installing an old smoke dragon today. If you can find one used, nobody is going to stop you from installing. You can't buy a new one now. All newly manufactured woodstove have to be approved inder the current EPA standard.

Maybe in MI.. best not try that in say.. Oregon. Absolutely illegal to instal a smoke dragon anywhere in that state. In fact in that state, a smoke dragon instal MUST be removed and destroyed when a house sells. So a new buyer of the house can't use it either. Only existing stove/owner combinations where grandfathered in the law. And even that grandfathering only applies to the stove in-place. If they need a new stove, for any reason, it HAS to be EPA approved.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Not true. There are plenty of examples of EPA exempt stoves currently on the market.

true (for now) but the locales they can be installed in are becoming smaller and smaller in number. for instance washington state has for many years had a ban on epa exempt stoves. more and more state and local governments will be enacting these bans and while any already installed unit should not be affected by newer legislation due to "ex post facto" laws (grandfather clause) the installation of an exempt or non-certified unit after the effective date of the law would not be permitted.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

I think the problem with EPA trying to regulate the design of stoves is that they are regulating the wrong thing. If you want to control air pollution from wood stoves you need to regulate wood fuel, or maybe to regulate the behavior of the people who use wood stoves. I bet most of us, if we tried, could use an older stove and not create a lot of smoke, and I bet there are plenty of people, including my neighbor, who could use the cleanest stove ever built and still produce tons of smoke. The wood we burn and the way we burn have more to do with smoke and air pollution than the stove.

I am not arguing that new stove designs aren't better. I think the new stove technologies are great - less air pollution and more heat from the same wood is a win-win. I am just saying that fuel and operator are bigger factors than stove design in determining the amount of pollution produced from burning wood.[/quote]


im not totally on board with that. the difference between older tech and newer tech is quite large. granted burning wood with green leaves still on it regardless of the stove is a horrible way to try to heat, a "dragon" burning good wood with reasonable practices is still going to release far more particulates than an average EPA unit will burning the same way. just because you do not see smoke doesnt mean the exhaust is as clean as it can be.

OTOH regulating cordwood while attractive would likely cause the cost of cordwood to rise to the point that it would not be as attractive an alternative. as well as eliminating the ability to process your own fuel, so those who "do it right" and practice good burning habits would be punished by the sheer extra cost of having to purchase "certified" fuel or pay for their wood to be inspected prior to being able to use it.

 

[Highbeam]

Maybe in MI.. best not try that in say.. Oregon. Absolutely illegal to instal a smoke dragon anywhere in that state. In fact in that state, a smoke dragon instal MUST be removed and destroyed when a house sells. So a new buyer of the house can't use it either. Only existing stove/owner combinations where grandfathered in the law. And even that grandfathering only applies to the stove in-place. If they need a new stove, for any reason, it HAS to be EPA approved.

Once removed for any reason, it is then illegal to buy or sell the stove as well.

 

[webbie]

This stuff is not much different than with cars, standard furnaces, other appliances, building codes, etc. etc.....

That is, once a property is updated, sold.....lots of things have to be brought up to current codes.

Considering that some standards (Oregon) have been in place almost 30 years, it's not too surprising that older products cannot be used. Many states don't allow you to use antique cars except on occasion.

This entire thread is very informative. It shows a lot of the reasons no one will ever be satisfied.....that is, those on with some points (strict standards, cat stoves needed, etc.) have absolutely no real-world proof of that making a difference. Can you imagine if we designed cars, spacecraft or jets like this?

Most of the players involved do things for commercial reasons. Not to pooh pooh self-interest, but it often buries the "will of the people" as well as the general welfare and public health.

I'm for cleaner stoves that work great in the real way people use them. I'm for science backing that up unquestionably.

All the other stuff is dogma. Attacking older studies as "dated" means nothing - it's all the data we have. One point which has not been mentioned is that. all in all, the industry stood still for at least 10-15 years and in many cases even longer. Think about it. Could anyone here truly tell me that the average non-cat stove today - burned in the real world - could best the Kent Tile Fire from 1985? I wouldn't place a bet on it.

I was right there with everyone else praising the fact that - finally - in the last 5 years we've started to see some new R&D. This is/was due to a number of factors, including spurts in sales due to Katrina and the 2008 oil price rise, the recession (more people heating with wood) and the big ($1500?) tax credits a few years back...among other things.

So let's not act as if wood burning technology has been advancing year by year. It hasn't. In the time of my career (1978 to present) there were at least 15+ years where it went either nowhere...or even sometimes backwards.

A lot of history there, but I feel it's relevant. Back to the in-field testing for a moment - the good Dr. and other field tests (and EPA) have said that the reason that EPA uses lower numbers for cats...is that after a few years (5?), the cats end up putting out as much pollution as the non-cats....due to numerous factors, some which cannot be mitigated. Using common sense, it won't be until we can put the newer cats through the same 5 years in real houses with real chimneys...and measure them...that we can draw an accurate conclusion.

The same common sense will tell us that, yes, any engineer with a grain of smarts is going to try and design to fix some of the problems of the past. So it's likely the new stoves will test out better after degradation. But that is guesswork!

Add in marketing and the drive for sales and competition...and you have a marketplace which is just as confusing as ever.

I'd welcome suggestions about how we can honestly inform customers about things, as opposed to just buying whatever PR, advertising or lobbying comes our way. As it stands, I'm still with Gulland...

 

[begreen]

Great discussion. New Zealand continues to develop some of the cleaner tested technology. First with the Kent and also with the Pyroclassic which meets NZ's more stringent air quality regulations of less than 1.5g/kg emissions in a non-cat stove and <.7g/kg (~.3g/lb) in certain areas. It's ironic that they've been making this stove for 30 yrs. http://www.pyroclassic.co.nz. Also ironic is that some area of New Zealand still have terrible wood smoke problems in spite of their tougher regs and good stove options. The Otago area is mostly small communities in mountain valleys. They get long winter temperature inversions that trap woodsmoke. It's notable is that this is a region where they did an extensive stove changeout program and the problem persists because a majority still heat with wood, some with open fires in fireplaces. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/289524/otago-air-pollution-measures-fall-short

FWIW, JG is in part why I got the T6. It's simple technology that works well and it easy to maintain. It also helped knowing he owns a Summit.

 

[gerry100]

If they come to take your stove just start a fire.

 

[begreen]

No one is coming to take anyone's stove.

 

[Bigg_Redd]

Unfortunately there is a strongly political side to this. Think tanks are coming out with more and more big bad govt. opinion pieces that are fear and not fact based. Fact is it's been 25 years since EPA phase 2 regs went into effect and most of us have benefited from them. No one is going to come into your house and take your stove. If the new gen are much more efficient though you just might want to upgrade

That certainly is one way of thinking about it. But there are other ways to think about it, too.

Another possible way to think about it is all the low hanging fruit is picked and further tightening of regulations will yield very little benefit for very great cost: no one breathes cleaner air but wood burners are stuck with the tab. Seems, oh, I dunno. . . punitive?

 

[begreen]

That's one assumption, but not necessarily the only possibility. For example, the clean winner of the wood stove decathlon from Woodstock seems to be pleasing the folks running them and it's going to sell at an affordable price. The Lopi Cape Cod is not exacting a very great cost above it's peers either. That's two new cleaner burning stoves from the opposite ends of the market, one of the smaller and one of the largest stove makers. Maybe stoves will shift out of a development lull and start improving again. Is this punitive?

 

[webbie]

That's one assumption, but not necessarily the only possibility. For example, the clean winner of the wood stove decathlon from Woodstock seems to be pleasing the folks running them and it's going to sell at an affordable price. The Lopi Cape Cod is not exacting a very great cost above it's peers either. That's two new cleaner burning stoves from the opposite ends of the market, one of the smaller and one of the largest stove makers. Maybe stoves will shift out of a development lull and start improving again. Is this punitive?

"pleasing them" would apply to Fisher owners, NC30 owners, PE owners and millions of owners of existing stoves - so the fact that 2 stoves - neither of which has met the new standards (since they don't exist) doesn't tell me much.

Also, both stoves are/will probably be $2400 and above. WS has a special pre-order, but their other new stove went up $800-$1000 based on what it was at the preorder. Not to say $2400 is high these days, but it's not $899 either.

I think Redd has a point. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know that the loopholes for OWB, etc. have to be closed - same with those for indoor furnaces and boilers. Maybe even close 'em eventually for open fireplaces.

We know that the existing standards can be tightened. Washington proved this by doing so and makers had no problem meeting the goals.

However, I still have concerns about a standard which asks for a 2/3 reduction from that stricter Wash. standard....it seems that it will cause "testing to the test" as opposed to true development, which harms both the industry and the consumer.

The sad part here is that we have to speculate. No tests, data or science from in the field is....not will be...available. That makes it tough.

If a cape cod or a BK or a WS (or any of the stoves that are now very low) burns at <2 grams after 5 years in a home with regular users and regular wood, I'll be a convert.

It seems a shame to make companies which are testing at 1.6 and 1.8 grams completely redesign and retest.

But, granted, that is just my lone and single opinion. I have no stake in the outcome financially. I'm on the side of cleaner air, but against the lack of science and testing. These standards are going to cost makers many millions of dollars - yet there are not millions for data to see what is the best way to clean up.

My hope is that they slightly slacken the targets - maybe to under 2 grams for non-cats and 1.5 for cats. Not much, but enough perhaps to make a difference in what the final products are.

That list of currently approved EPA stoves is very long. For the industry and consumer to flourish, the list has to stay long.

 

[HotCoals]

Fun Fact!

Did you know that really dry wood can pollute more then so-so wood?
How so you ask?

The main difference between EPA low-emission certified stoves and conventional stoves is that you can turn down EPA stoves for a long burn without extinguishing the flames. That is, they are better at producing a clean, controlled fire. But they are designed for wood that has a moisture content of twenty percent plus or minus one or two percent. Once you go far outside this band, their emission rate goes up. So even the best wood stove's performance will suffer if the wood is not in the right moisture range.

http://www.woodheat.org/firewood-too-dry.html

 

[bholler]

the proper moisture lever is right around 17%. And I don't agree that the main difference is being able to turn them down. If you properly burn old stoves you can turn them down as well once you get it up to temp. The main difference is the secondary combustion either through a cat or tubes or chamber ect.

 

[HotCoals]

the proper moisture lever is right around 17%. And I don't agree that the main difference is being able to turn them down. If you properly burn old stoves you can turn them down as well once you get it up to temp. The main difference is the secondary combustion either through a cat or tubes or chamber ect.

The whole idea of a epa (secondary burn) stove is to prevent smoldering that did happen it the pre- epa stoves when turned down to far in the early stages of the burn.

 

[bholler]

Yes that is true but if you turn down an epa stove to early you will get the same shouldering smoky fire.

 

[begreen]

True, that is possible and you are likely to get a nasty puff back for doing so.

 

[Highbeam]

But, I have found, that within the hour that the fire will either snuff out or take off and burn hot and quite cleanly. It won't just sit there and smolder for 12 hours. I have had to leave the house NOW after just starting the fire and slamming the damper to zero. That was with the hearthstone.

 

[HotCoals]

But, I have found, that within the hour that the fire will either snuff out or take off and burn hot and quite cleanly. It won't just sit there and smolder for 12 hours. I have had to leave the house NOW after just starting the fire and slamming the damper to zero. That was with the hearthstone.

x2