Investing in a new furnace(s) - Advice and input needed

[lampmfg]

Those are quite impressive numbers. Any particular reason they are not EPA certified?[/quote]

Here is where many people are very confused. Right now the EPA does not even have a test for hot air furnaces, and from talking to a few insiders with knowledge in the area EPA certification probably won't be required until 2014. Also it probably won't be an efficiency testing but rather an emissions test, because if your emissions are low your efficiency will be good. We hear it will probably require less than 5 grams of emissions per hour because if it goes any lower than that the majority of companies won't have the means, time, or ability to adhere and be forced to quit manufacturing their furnaces and in turn put them out of business. The Vapor Fire furnace line has been my career project for the past 30 years which includes thousands upon thousands of test burns and many design changes. With endless and I do mean endless work hours we were able to achieve less than 1 gram of emissions per hour which is unheard of.

Here is how we began our certification/testing process. In 2009 the opportunity evolved to offer the tax credit with efficiency certification so we decided to take use Intertek (Who runs 3 of the 5 approved efficiency testing sites in the country) and it's testing facility in Madison, WI. Once we received the great efficiency results we were asked if we would also like to have the emissions tested so we would have the information ahead of time for any changes that we would need to make or potential advertising we would like to do. Being a smaller company with limited means this was not an easy decision to make, because the cost is substantial. However we new that in order to survive and reach our goal of manufacturing the most efficient indoor wood furnace in the world and a truly green product we needed documented proof. This documented proof is located on our website where a PDF of the test results can be found.

Rest assured that when the opportunity becomes available for EPA certification we will be first in line. On a side note we have received recent calls from some of our competitors many of which, will have a lot of work to do by 2014, inquiring about the emissions testing process that we underwent.

 

[FyreBug]

Those are quite impressive numbers. Any particular reason they are not EPA certified?

Here is where many people are very confused. Right now the EPA does not even have a test for hot air furnaces, and from talking to a few insiders with knowledge in the area EPA certification probably won't be required until 2014. Also it probably won't be an efficiency testing but rather an emissions test, because if your emissions are low your efficiency will be good.

[/quote]

Actually, Wood, Pellet, Biomass furnace & boiler MFG can voluntarily certify their furnace with EPA under the NSPS phase I (7.6g/hr). PSG Caddy is an example of that.

EPA delayed their Phase II announcement until January 2012, in which they have announced their intention of removing EPA exempt status from most categories including Biomass Central Heating. Once they announce their intention, they will provide 1 to 2 years for MFG to comply. It is very unlikely, EPA will require the same standards as wood stove for Central Heating (likely 4.5g/hr) but rather they stated they might follow the Canadian Standard (CSA B415.1) which it itself borrowed from some European & other Standards. This Standards will not be grams per hour but rather grams per megajoule (MBTU). So rather than imposing a time limit for emission it will rather take into consideration Energy released vs pollution released. This is a much better standard for large firebox. However, it will very much take into consideration a minimum efficiency and minimum burn rate.

This new standard will directly affect all MFG of Biomass Central Heaters. Therefore if you want to have a voice, make sure to join HPBA and participate in government regulatory affairs workshops.

On a side note, you mention less than 1 gr per hour. EPA requires stating the emission as a weighted average over 4 burn cycles. Is your stated similarly or just the lowest reading on a particular burn cycle?

 

[smokinj]

If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the Kuuma VaporFire 100. The VaporFire has been independently tested by Intertek yielding a 99% combustion efficiency. I've owned mine for 28 years and haven't cleaned out the chimney once as a matter of fact I don't even own a chimney brush. "No smoke means no dangerous creosote!!"

Wood that is 99 percent? Wow that beats a gas fire place with no vent......I call BS!

Everybody stop! We've been doing it the hard way.

Forget about the new furnace. Not worth it for another 9%, plus you're only going to get the advantage of the modulation during the shoulder seasons which is when a wood stove is doing its job.

lol yea my 10 cords a year is an @ss kicker....If there was any wood that gives 99 percent would be awesome! Just got to vent it in the house I guess....Burns that clean it should be fine...lol


If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the Kuuma VaporFire 100. The VaporFire has been independently tested by Intertek yielding a 99% combustion efficiency


Thats pretty miss leading statement!

 

[lampmfg]

Those are quite impressive numbers. Any particular reason they are not EPA certified?

Here is where many people are very confused. Right now the EPA does not even have a test for hot air furnaces, and from talking to a few insiders with knowledge in the area EPA certification probably won't be required until 2014. Also it probably won't be an efficiency testing but rather an emissions test, because if your emissions are low your efficiency will be good.

I think that I remember reading somewhere where the Caddy that you are talking about is something like 7g/hr, which won't cut it when the new phase II testing takes place. We had some testing done in the early 90's and were around 4 g/hr already then. For us it doesn't really make any sense to EPA certify our furnace until Phase II standards are actually decided upon because pretty much everyone qualifies under Phase I.

It is less than a gram under multiple burn cycles and our grams per megajoule is already measured so take a look on the following links under test results:

I'm actually having problems with the links but go to the website and under each respective furnaces web page click the test results link which will take you to the signed PDF with all of the details.

I should have said that under Phase I the EPA doesn't have a good standard for hot air furnaces yet so thanks for clearing that up.

The cleaner the better...

 

[FyreBug]

Those are quite impressive numbers. Any particular reason they are not EPA certified?

Here is where many people are very confused. Right now the EPA does not even have a test for hot air furnaces, and from talking to a few insiders with knowledge in the area EPA certification probably won't be required until 2014. Also it probably won't be an efficiency testing but rather an emissions test, because if your emissions are low your efficiency will be good.

I think that I remember reading somewhere where the Caddy that you are talking about is something like 7g/hr, which won't cut it when the new phase II testing takes place. We had some testing done in the early 90's and were around 4 g/hr already then. For us it doesn't really make any sense to EPA certify our furnace until Phase II standards are actually decided upon because pretty much everyone qualifies under Phase I.

It is less than a gram under multiple burn cycles and our grams per megajoule is already measured so take a look on the following links under test results:
(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)

I should have said that under Phase I the EPA doesn't have a good standard for hot air furnaces yet so thanks for clearing that up.

The cleaner the better...

That's the point... If it was that easy everyone would pass it including Kuuma. Only the Caddy has passed EPA phase 1 precisely because it is so difficult. Phase 1 is actually harder since the larger the fire box the more difficult since you are asked to meet the same standards whether your firebox is 1 cu ft or 6 cu ft. It's like asking a dump truck to have the same gas mileage as a 'smart' car. If you can pass Phase 1 it is more likely you will pass Phase II since the requirement is no longer grams per hours but grams per energy released.

If you already pass phase 1 requirement it gives you a marketing leg up if you can put the EPA stamp on your units- we dont mind the competition... it makes us better.

 

[lampmfg]

I just got off the phone with our contact at Intertek and he told me it is impossible to get our Forced Air Indoor Wood Furnace (Not a boiler) EPA certified in the US (different than Canada where a standard is already in place) because there is not even a standard set yet and like I said earlier it probably won't be required until 2014 (after it is first decided upon) at the earliest.

I see you were tested by Intertek also so why don't you post your entire test results for the PGS Caddy E.P.A. wood add-on forced air indoor wood furnace so we can do a little comparison of apples to apples? I was able to find Average emissions rate: 6.56 g/hr Average and a heating efficiency: 71.43%, compared to our 4 burn average on the Vapor Fire 200 of .76 g/hr and overall efficiency of 83.8%.

The next testing we are planning on having done is for Canada certification, because we are getting requests almost daily.

Rest assured when Phase II first becomes decided and then implemented in the US we will have no problem passing.

I agree competition is good for everyone...

 

[lampmfg]

If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the Kuuma VaporFire 100. The VaporFire has been independently tested by Intertek yielding a 99% combustion efficiency. I've owned mine for 28 years and haven't cleaned out the chimney once as a matter of fact I don't even own a chimney brush. "No smoke means no dangerous creosote!!"

Wood that is 99 percent? Wow that beats a gas fire place with no vent......I call BS!

Everybody stop! We've been doing it the hard way.

Forget about the new furnace. Not worth it for another 9%, plus you're only going to get the advantage of the modulation during the shoulder seasons which is when a wood stove is doing its job.

lol yea my 10 cords a year is an @ss kicker....If there was any wood that gives 99 percent would be awesome! Just got to vent it in the house I guess....Burns that clean it should be fine...lol


If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the Kuuma VaporFire 100. The VaporFire has been independently tested by Intertek yielding a 99% combustion efficiency


Thats pretty miss leading statement!

What's so misleading? I'm just taking the information straight out of our test results from Intertek. You can view a signed PDF on our website if needed.

High Burn

1.0 Grams/Hr of Emissions

99.4% Combustion Efficiency

82.4% Overall Efficiency

Medium Burn

.45 Grams/Hr of Emissions

98.1% Combustion Efficiency

84.4% Overall Efficiency

Low Burn

.65 Grams/Hr of Emissions

98.9% Combustion Efficiency

86.3% Overall Efficiency

 

[smokinj]

If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the ss="spellchecked_word">Kuuma</SPAN> ss="spellchecked_word">VaporFire</SPAN> 100. The ss="spellchecked_word">VaporFire</SPAN> has been independently tested by ss="spellchecked_word">Intertek</SPAN> yielding a 99% combustion efficiency. I've owned mine for 28 years and haven't cleaned out the chimney once as a matter of fact I don't even own a chimney brush. "No smoke means no dangerous creosote!!"

Wood that is 99 percent? Wow that beats a gas fire place with no vent......I call BS!

Everybody stop! We've been doing it the hard way.

Forget about the new furnace. Not worth it for another 9%, plus you're only going to get the advantage of the modulation during the shoulder seasons which is when a wood stove is doing its job.

ss="spellchecked_word">lol</SPAN> yea my 10 cords a year is an @ss kicker....If there was any wood that gives 99 percent would be awesome! Just got to vent it in the house I guess....Burns that clean it should be fine...ss="spellchecked_word">lol</SPAN>


If your interested in efficiency, safety, and a greener tomorrow do some research on the ss="spellchecked_word">Kuuma</SPAN> ss="spellchecked_word">VaporFire</SPAN> 100. The ss="spellchecked_word">VaporFire</SPAN> has been independently tested by ss="spellchecked_word">Intertek</SPAN> yielding a 99% combustion efficiency


Thats pretty miss leading statement!

What's so misleading? I'm just taking the information straight out of our test results from ss="spellchecked_word">Intertek</SPAN>. You can view a signed PDF on our website if needed.

High Burn

1.0 Grams/Hr of Emissions

99.4% Combustion Efficiency

82.4% Overall Efficiency

Medium Burn

.45 Grams/Hr of Emissions

98.1% Combustion Efficiency

84.4% Overall Efficiency

Low Burn

.65 Grams/Hr of Emissions

98.9% Combustion Efficiency

86.3% Overall Efficiency

This I understand and think most could figure it out. Post 13 on the other hand had me thinking something completely different! Hop you can understand that from a consumer point of view.... :cheese: Overall Efficiency The only number that means something me me, or most laymen...86.6 is very impressive!

 

[lampmfg]

Oh, now I understand what you are saying.

Sorry and thanks.

 

[FyreBug]

I just got off the phone with our contact at Intertek and he told me it is impossible to get our Forced Air Indoor Wood Furnace (Not a boiler) EPA certified in the US (different than Canada where a standard is already in place) because there is not even a standard set yet and like I said earlier it probably won't be required until 2014 (after it is first decided upon) at the earliest.

I see you were tested by Intertek also so why don't you post your entire test results for the PGS Caddy E.P.A. wood add-on forced air indoor wood furnace so we can do a little comparison of apples to apples? I was able to find Average emissions rate: 6.56 g/hr Average and a heating efficiency: 71.43%, compared to our 4 burn average on the Vapor Fire 200 of .76 g/hr and overall efficiency of 83.8%.

The next testing we are planning on having done is for Canada certification, because we are getting requests almost daily.

Rest assured when Phase II first becomes decided and then implemented in the US we will have no problem passing.

I agree competition is good for everyone...

I looked at the test results and they look good (high burn). If they are similar for all cycles you should be good for CSA and upcoming EPA phase II. Good work!

 

[samuel]

Those are quite impressive numbers. Any particular reason they are not EPA certified?

Here is where many people are very confused. Right now the EPA does not even have a test for hot air furnaces, and from talking to a few insiders with knowledge in the area EPA certification probably won't be required until 2014. Also it probably won't be an efficiency testing but rather an emissions test, because if your emissions are low your efficiency will be good. We hear it will probably require less than 5 grams of emissions per hour because if it goes any lower than that the majority of companies won't have the means, time, or ability to adhere and be forced to quit manufacturing their furnaces and in turn put them out of business. The Vapor Fire furnace line has been my career project for the past 30 years which includes thousands upon thousands of test burns and many design changes. With endless and I do mean endless work hours we were able to achieve less than 1 gram of emissions per hour which is unheard of.

Here is how we began our certification/testing process. In 2009 the opportunity evolved to offer the tax credit with efficiency certification so we decided to take use Intertek (Who runs 3 of the 5 approved efficiency testing sites in the country) and it's testing facility in Madison, WI. Once we received the great efficiency results we were asked if we would also like to have the emissions tested so we would have the information ahead of time for any changes that we would need to make or potential advertising we would like to do. Being a smaller company with limited means this was not an easy decision to make, because the cost is substantial. However we new that in order to survive and reach our goal of manufacturing the most efficient indoor wood furnace in the world and a truly green product we needed documented proof. This documented proof is located on our website where a PDF of the test results can be found.

Rest assured that when the opportunity becomes available for EPA certification we will be first in line. On a side note we have received recent calls from some of our competitors many of which, will have a lot of work to do by 2014, inquiring about the emissions testing process that we underwent.[/quote]

I agree with Fyrebug's post:
Here is where I get confused by the message you are trying to deliver here: It is confusing and misleading because it appears to me that you are just mixing up requirements for two (maybe 3) completely different categories of wood heating appliances - warm air furnaces vs. hydronic heaters. There are NO testing standards for warm air furnaces in the U.S. at this time and it is confusing when you mention EPA Phase 1 or Phase 2 because it simply does not exist for warm air furnaces.

There is a voluntary emission reduction program for hydronic heaters that had a Phase 1 and Phase 2 particulate emission limit. That program is currently in Phase 2 with the particulate emission limit (0.32 lbs/million Btu heat output). Efficiency is built into an output based emission limit.

There is a voluntary emission reduction program for fireplaces that have a Phase 1 and Phase 2 particulate emissions limit. The Phase 2 Program has a particulate emission limit of 5.1 g/kg. There are no efficiency requirements in g/kg (the amount of emissions per the amount of wood burned).

The Federal Limit for indoor woodstoves (non-catalytic) and pellet stoves is 7.5 g/hr (Phase II since 1990). The State of Washington limits for the same two types of appliances is 4.5 g/hr - the number that EPA is shooting for Federally.

Warm Air Furnaces do not have any EPA limits or Programs and it is confusing when you are talking Phase 1(I) or Phase 2(II).

CSA B415.1-10 has a grams per megajoule (g/mj) limit yet you are still talking grams per hour (g/hr).

Now if you were to review the EPA PowerPoint Presentation from March 2011 given at HPBExpo (google search it) the EPA does plan to regulate warm air furnaces.
**EPA already converts the g/mj from CSA B415.1-10 to lbs/million Btu heat output.
EPA PP Draft:
Exempt from 1988 NSPS
Canadian B415.1-10 level
• 0.93 lb / mmBTU heat output
Draft NSPS limit for PM
• 0.93 lb / mmBTU heat output in 2014
Ask for comments on whether limit should be same as for hydronicheaters to avoid competitive imbalance
Therefore, EPA's Draft does not indicate a 5 g/hr limit for hot air furnaces, they have an output limit.

Also, lower g/hr numbers do not necessarily reflect higher efficiency. A g/hr limit does NOT care if 90% of your heat goes out the chimney - regulators just want particulate emission lower in g/hr. Output based emission limits are inherent with efficiency. Many manufacturers of wood heating applinaces are concerned about EPA because with the proposed lower g/hr numbers for some category appliances EPA is also considering a set efficiency mark as well and it concerns many manufacturers.

I would suggest you join HPBA and their gov't affairs program so you can get up to speed.

 

[FyreBug]

Not sure if I understand all your points, but I'll re-iterate the points that I know are factual (not that yours arent')

1) You are correct, currently Biomass Central Heating is EPA exempt. However... manufacturers can submit their appliance under the current NSPS voluntarily. Some like PSG Caddy meet these requirements. For a manufacturer it provides some advantages to go that route. One and not a small one is bragging rights. Also it baselines their specs as per EPA standards so it is easier for consumer to understand ie. Efficiencies are listed as an average of multiple burn cycles rather than quote the best one which is typically on high-burn. It is very difficult to pass current EPA rules with a large fire chamber.

2) While no one can crystal ball what actually EPA will end up doing. From our full participation in govt affairs, EPA have stated their intention to announce removing the EPA Exempt status from all appliance including Biomass Central Heating. The announcement has been slated for January 2012 with likely compliance by 2014.

3) It is likely (but not guaranteed) EPA will follow some of the same guidelines as CSA B415.1 for this Category. This is not just an 'emission' standard but much more comprehensive than EPA and include minimum burn rate etc...

Not sure why there should be a debate about this. Since EPA phase 1 inception in 1988 it has proven to be a good thing for consumers and manufacturers who spent the energy & effort to comply. Hopefully, Phase 2 will accomplish the same goals.

 

[lampmfg]

If you read the rest of the posts I then said that there isn't even any type of EPA standard for hot air furnaces established so how could it get EPA certified in the US.

All I'm stating is I think that the test results show that the Kuuma Vapor Fire Furnace is the most efficient and cleanest burning indoor forced air wood furnace on the market, until proven different.

 

[FyreBug]

If you read the rest of the posts I then said that there isn't even any type of EPA standard for hot air furnaces established so how could it get EPA certified in the US?

Not sure how to re-phrase this. The point was made on a few occasions: 1) You can get EPA certification for any woodburner including central heating as long as you follow the protocol, pass the tests and get it certified by an accredited lab. You are then legally free to affix the EPA logo to your unit. This is voluntary.

All I'm stating is I think that the test results show that the Kuuma Vapor Fire Furnace is the most efficient and cleanest burning indoor forced air wood furnace on the market, until proven different.

I never argued the point. Although one must careful to use words like "the most" since it implies a comparative study of other products out there (Most will not share their test results). Since many MFG's out there make claim of "the most", consumers are de-sensitized to such words. They will however put more weight behind certifications such as EPA since they realize the MFG must follow strict protocols to adhere to a standard.

 

[lampmfg]

I agree with what you are saying. As a smaller manufacturer we currently don't have a lot of room to spend more money than we already have on testing until it's required. After speaking with some other manufactures they aren't very excited about the prospect of costly testing in the future. I'm sure the process that you went through wasn't cheap.

Some of my posts might not make as much sense as they should because I'm just relaying information, over the phone, from my dad that knows everything about his product (30+ years of tinkering and design). Unfortunately his computer skills aren't as good as the knowledge he possesses, but believe me he verbally could get into the technical stuff with the best of them.

Cheers

 

[FyreBug]

You are absolutely right. Back in 1988 when phase 1 was introduced many Mfg disappeared because they couldn't really move on to this new technology. Very few people will argue however that EPA legislation for wood burning was a bad thing. On the contrary, it was good for the environment, good for the consumers and good for those Mfg who spent energy & efforts to update their product offering.

The fact EPA is moving to phase 2 should come as no surprise especially to those in the industry. EPA was mandated right from the beginning to have a phase 2 within a few years of phase one. Phase 2 was to be implemented in the 90's. By now we should have been at phase 3. Therefore all mfg's had a reprieve and a chance to catch up.

EPA somehow woke up a couple of years ago but the point is if a Mfg belonged to HPBA this would have not been a surprise to any of us. As it is EPA was slated to announce phase 2 this summer but delayed another 6 months. The point is we the Mfg knew since EPA inception the direction this was going. We've had 25 years to see the trend coming. If not, then HPBA gave us a voice to discuss these change ahead of time to minimize the impact on the industry and Mfg in particular. As a heads up, EPA is mandated to review a phase 3 within 5 years of phase 2 implementation.

There is no shame in being a tinkerer. I've known a few of them that through sheer passion & dedication were able to outdo so called accredited engineers. I know one in particular who with limited resources was able to design a complete EPA stove line which has great efficiencies and EPA readings. To this day many MFG's try to replicate the results from those models.

Based on your comments, you should do well with your product line when EPA phase 2 is implemented

All the best!

 

[thehaas]

d.s.machine wood coal hot air furnace 205000btu heats up to 5000sf also make 160000btu unit both weigh around 800lbs total quality and well planned design watch on you tube at bodyshop18336 show in operation heating my shop