Number of older stoves vs EPA in U.S.

[bholler]

For me our basement is living space so I have to heat from there. But it is also fully insulated so really no loss

 

[zmender]

Oil boiler and water tank is in the fully insulated basement. That's enough to keep the temperature in the high-40s, low 50s. Enough for it to be our "activity room".

 

[stoveliker]

For me our basement is living space so I have to heat from there. But it is also fully insulated so really no loss

That is incorrect. My basement is also fully insulated. As is my home. And yet I need constant BTUs to keep it up to temperature. Why? Because "fully insulated" does not (ever) mean "zero loss".

Homes loose energy. Increasing the amount heated space (with external envelope) means more energy is lost. That's simple physics, no way around it.

 

[bholler]

That is incorrect. My basement is also fully insulated. As is my home. And yet I need constant BTUs to keep it up to temperature. Why? Because "fully insulated" does not (ever) mean "zero loss".

Homes loose energy. Increasing the amount heated space (with external envelope) means more energy is lost. That's simple physics, no way around it.

Well yes there is some loss but I need the space heated. So I should have said no unnecessary loss.

 

[Ashful]

Burning 3 cords in my "smoke dragon" (not) for a nearly 3000 SF dwelling is something I can live with quite nicely.

Of course you can, no one is arguing that.

This is where you went wrong:

You can have the latest and greatest EPA certified stove but they fall way short of extracting the heat readily available from your hard earned wood splits.

My flue runs around 250F, when burning 1.3M BTU of oak per day, in two 12-hour loads. You may be achieving similar results with the addition of heat extractors to the exhaust of your pre-EPA rig. The point is that, with less heat up the chimney, there's only one place for it to go, into your room. If the EPA stove is failing to extract the heat from the wood, to where do you propose it is going?

If, on the other hand, you're arguing for running even lower flue temperatures, then you get into the issues of condensation in the flue, and everything that comes with that. Of course, you can extract heat right down to the point of stalling draft, but it isn't typically recommended.

 

[Max W]

“Are there any estimates of how many newer clean burning stoves there are in the U.S. compared to the number of older stoves? Much of my curiosity comes from different discussions on the difficulty of buying wood seasoned to 20%. and wondering who firewood dealers are seeing as their main customers?”

This is my post beginning this thread. I found another estimated answer, along with a number for stoves overall in the U.S. to my question to add to those such as regional, economic and other factors posted. It is from the Alliance for Green Heat wood stove page, updated a year ago:

- The EPA began certifying stoves in 1988 so any stove made before that is uncertified and likely to burn dirtier and less efficiently than stoves made since then. (Oregon briefly ran its own certification program in the mid-1980s). Of the 10 – 12 million installed stoves in the United States, a majority of them are still estimated to be uncertified ones made before 1988.

 

[Mt Bob]

“Are there any estimates of how many newer clean burning stoves there are in the U.S. compared to the number of older stoves? Much of my curiosity comes from different discussions on the difficulty of buying wood seasoned to 20%. and wondering who firewood dealers are seeing as their main customers?”

This is my post beginning this thread. I found another estimated answer, along with a number for stoves overall in the U.S. to my question to add to those such as regional, economic and other factors posted. It is from the Alliance for Green Heat wood, stove page page, updated a year ago:

- The EPA began certifying stoves in 1988 so any stove made before that is uncertified and likely to burn dirtier and less efficiently than stoves made since then. (Oregon briefly ran its own certification program in the mid-1980s). Of the 10 – 12 million installed stoves in the United States, a majority of them are still estimated to be uncertified ones made before 1988.

Then add in the number of people that remove cats and baffles, run them as smoke dragons, because they "know better". See this quite a bit, and amazes me. It's kinda like removing fuel injection and putting on a carburetor.

 

[snobuilder]

The basement gets heat either way ...wood or nat gas. I wonder if that 30% loss figure considers the heat storage you get back out of the walls and floors. The heat differential between the earth and basement is only 15 degrees.

 

[begreen]

The basement gets heat either way ...wood or nat gas. I wonder if that 30% loss figure considers the heat storage you get back out of the walls and floors. The heat differential between the earth and basement is only 15 degrees.

During an extended 0 degree period the ground down to about a foot will be frozen. The heat will migrate to the cold, even if only 15º difference. This is not conjecture.

 

[bholler]

“Are there any estimates of how many newer clean burning stoves there are in the U.S. compared to the number of older stoves? Much of my curiosity comes from different discussions on the difficulty of buying wood seasoned to 20%. and wondering who firewood dealers are seeing as their main customers?”

This is my post beginning this thread. I found another estimated answer, along with a number for stoves overall in the U.S. to my question to add to those such as regional, economic and other factors posted. It is from the Alliance for Green Heat wood stove page, updated a year ago:

- The EPA began certifying stoves in 1988 so any stove made before that is uncertified and likely to burn dirtier and less efficiently than stoves made since then. (Oregon briefly ran its own certification program in the mid-1980s). Of the 10 – 12 million installed stoves in the United States, a majority of them are still estimated to be uncertified ones made before 1988.

There were also allot of "EPA exempt stoves sold" up until this last set of regulations came into effect. And allot of what used to be sold as wood/coal stoves being sold as just coal stoves but used primarily for wood. So there were lots of stoves sold after 88 that are not EPA certified

 

[Todd]

I drank the koolaide a bit when it came to people with older stoves like fishers & all nighters claiming that they get more heat out of the old stock vs the newer cleaner stoves of today. In the back of my mind there was that small part of me that wanted to believe they were right, and indeed somehow the epa regs w/ todays stove design (circa 2012 and newer) somehow concentrated emissions over usable heat.
Fast forward to this heating season, made good friends with a new guy on our fire dept, been over to his house a bunch of times, he has a all nighter big moe, the stove is a beast compared to my BK princess pound of pound, and we def had a cold winter here, I've only burnt about 2 1/4 cords of wood so far, my buddy on the other hand is at least 4 cords in and ran out of wood, his house was warm, but man did he have to fill the beast, I'm sure if I ran my stove on its highest setting 24/7, I still couldnt keep up with his wood consumption, and thats possibly the difference here, we are maxed or capped on our top end due to how the air intakes are worked, were as his intakes are simple draft caps w/ a tiny door seal that doesnt really do much for air tightness in my opinion, so his top end would be much higher then mine, hence the thicker steel his stove is made out of to handle the higher temps.

I think many of the old stoves were strong radiant heat producers compared to todays mostly convective heavily shielded stoves so I can see where people think they get more heat from their old stoves. I remember sitting in front of a pot belly stove or old Fisher type and the radiant heat could be overwhelming at times. Nowadays I can sit in my recliner 6’ away from my jacketed F45 for hours. The old radiant stoves probably were throwing more heat but it was for shorter spurts with more heating peaks and valleys along with more feedings.

Not many true radiant steel stoves out there anymore, wonder why that is? The soapstone stoves are mostly radiant but they seem tame compared to an old searing hot steel stove. I think my little 602 puts out a good amount of radiant heat for such a small stove. I’d like to see larger box type stoves out there or more radiant options.

 

[bholler]

I think many of the old stoves were strong radiant heat producers compared to todays mostly convective heavily shielded stoves so I can see where people think they get more heat from their old stoves. I remember sitting in front of a pot belly stove or old Fisher type and the radiant heat could be overwhelming at times. Nowadays I can sit in my recliner 6’ away from my jacketed F45 for hours. The old radiant stoves probably were throwing more heat but it was for shorter spurts with more heating peaks and valleys along with more feedings.

Not many true radiant steel stoves out there anymore, wonder why that is? The soapstone stoves are mostly radiant but they seem tame compared to an old searing hot steel stove. I think my little 602 puts out a good amount of radiant heat for such a small stove. I’d like to see larger box type stoves out there or more radiant options.

There are a couple reasons you don't see pure radiant stoves now. The main one being clearances. Without those shields you would be at or close to the 36" clearance requirements of those old stoves. Another is efficency. The fireboxes themselves are insulated and sheilded to get the temps up inside for more complete combustion. Heat it then extracted from the top instead of all around

 

[Todd]

There are a couple reasons you don't see pure radiant stoves now. The main one being clearances. Without those shields you would be at or close to the 36" clearance requirements of those old stoves. Another is efficency. The fireboxes themselves are insulated and sheilded to get the temps up inside for more complete combustion. Heat it then extracted from the top instead of all around

Understood but you’d think with a rear heat shield and the sides left bare and the EPA firebox you should be able to get closer to a back wall than 36”? Maybe something like 12” wouldn’t be too difficult to design and release more of that radiant heat many people desire? Just seems the industry is competing on how close clearances they can achieve and relying on more convective stoves.

 

[Mt Bob]

There are a couple reasons you don't see pure radiant stoves now. The main one being clearances. Without those shields you would be at or close to the 36" clearance requirements of those old stoves. Another is efficency. The fireboxes themselves are insulated and sheilded to get the temps up inside for more complete combustion. Heat it then extracted from the top instead of all around

Yep. Years ago I used/had one of these, and you did not put it near anythng.

 

[bholler]

Understood but you’d think with a rear heat shield and the sides left bare and the EPA firebox you should be able to get closer to a back wall than 36”? Maybe something like 12” wouldn’t be too difficult to design and release more of that radiant heat many people desire? Just seems the industry is competing on how close clearances they can achieve and relying on more convective stoves.

Yes the industry is certainly focused on lower clearances because im general that is what people want. You still get allot of radiant heat off the glass.

 

[begreen]

Yep. Years ago I used/had one of these, and you did not put it near anythng.
View attachment 293223

LOL, I had an Ashley Colombian as my first wood stove in an uninsulated cabin in New England. Around 3am I would wake up. If the sides were glowing a dull red then I knew I could go back to sleep. If not, it was time to feed the beast. You definitely did not put anything close to that stove.

 

[stoveliker]

The famous "if I can see indoors, it's warm" approach