oregon "heat smart" program 1st state to require removal of uncertified stoves
- Thread starter stoveguy2esw
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
You should see my cottage area in May. Every property has three or four smodges going around the house to ward off the black flyes.
Any one with any ideas of outlawing them would simply be invited to stand outside for ten minutes.
Any one with any ideas of outlawing them would simply be invited to stand outside for ten minutes.
My stove was passed to me and I hoped to pass it to my Daughter should she want this house.
She might be the 2 stroke of the wood stove world and sometimes I feel liike i'm running a Locomotive but I'm pretty attached. She is meant to run 100 years and deserves the chance.
She might be the 2 stroke of the wood stove world and sometimes I feel liike i'm running a Locomotive but I'm pretty attached. She is meant to run 100 years and deserves the chance.
So you have to remove the nasty old stove, but can keep the lead paint in the home with a disclosure? Cost of replacing with an EPA stove or removing paint seems to be about the same, a few grand. Just food for thought... Next thing they'll be saying you have to sell your guns when you move to a state if they don't meet that states requir... Oh, wait. Never mind, too late.
I love my country, just wish they'd stop baby proofing everything. I'm glad I grew up when I did!
Heck - I'm all for incentives, encouragement, and the government mandating basic safety; but there's gotta be a limit; However, it is a good indication that states rights are still alive. many states this would not even make it into discussion (I happily live in one) without the proponent's being laughed out. Every state has varying degrees of regulation, for which I think we are all grateful. Find where suits you and enjoy it!
This is all about AIR QUALITY. Not safety. Not firearms. Not lead paint. Nothing but air quality. Period. How some folks can extrapolate this simple bit of sensible legislation into some all-encompassing oppressive government plot to take away all of our freedoms is just beyond me. Paranoia, I guess. Dunno. Done talkin' about it, it's gettin' downright absurd. Rick
I respectfully disagree - I think that by bringing this topic to the forum, it engenders a fundamental discussion of a trend in wood burning, which echoes many other topics. But to keep on topic, air quality is a huge issue, especially in OR, WA, and CA. It's an interesting challenge, but from a putely air quality perspective tying removal of a wood stove with the sale of the house is not an "efficient" (pun intended) way to improve it. What is the percentage of (a) homes that have an old stove, (b) those that are using it for heat and (c) those that are sold to buyers intent on using it for heat? A more advantageous program would require all homes be brought to minimal insulation and sealing tolerances on sale. Think, across those states, of the amount of energy demand reduction that would occur. Primarily because the bulk of the energy demand is met through coal power generated in the West and transmitted through NV, ID, etc. to the west coast. Reduction of even 10% of the heating demand (conservative) of EVERY HOUSE SOLD coupled with education and incentives for burning dry wood for those old wood burners would have a much more profound effect on air quality, albeit at a national level rather than a state-specific level. However, the current action is easier to pass, easier to implement, and can be readily quantified for tracking and is therefore a more immediately achievable and politically palatable measure. I intended only to infer that there are other similar measures on separate topics that are related by the political will to pass and enforce them, rather than the true effectiveness are getting to the problem.
I like the West Coast, Oregon, Washington, California, by that I mean the states which are at the western edge of the United States, which happen to lie on the Coast of the Pacific Ocean, thus the West Coast. I've already been to OR and CA. I just think some of the air pollution laws are not thought out enough and hurt regular people, however I'm totally in favor of clean air and ways we can reduce emissions. I'm not in favor of laws telling people old technology must be replaced at our expense. My Jotul 118 is 100X the stove my EPA certified Vermont Castings Century ever was, less smoke, more heat out of less wood, seems to me its a better stove for the environment. Just happens the EPA never tested it when it was made. I simply think that just because a stove is old doesn't mean it is dirty and inefficient, old stove should be tested before they can be banned, people care for them, they aren't just appliances people throw away.
I suspect many of the people responding negatively here haven't seen what an inversion looks like in an area with lots of wood burning.
madrone said:
I'll second that.
About a month ago Clark County, just across the river from me had a "burn ban" in effect due to an inversion and air qualaty issues. You were not allowed to burn your stove unless it was your ONLY source of heat.
I live in a very old town, surrounded by older homes. Almost EVERYONE has a stove going. I think i'm the ony guy in a 4 block radius with an EPA cert stove. Well, two of them actually
Walk outside on a summer morning and the nieghboor 5 houses down is smoking me out. Chimney spewing blue and white nasty smoke down the street. I think we need to educate our wood burners. They way "grandpa did it" isn't the way to do it anymore.
When I moved in to my home, it had an old pre epa smoke dragon. I burnt in it for a few months and off to the scrap yard it went. Now a quad sits in it's place and iv'e never been happier.
I'm glad my state made the move, and it's a smart move at that.
Another point that hasn't been brought up. I'm sure this will make things a little safer. If you move into a house with an old "slammer" install, or an unsafe wood stove install and you know NOTHING about it you might just burn your house down. Now, the law requires those stoves to go, and the new home owner buys a new stove and has it installed by a professional...
A win win in my book!
BTW, electric central heat is very rare out here, and I s'pect in OR as well. NEW electric central heat is VERY rare. If there was a CONsipiracy by a UTility co., it would be nat. gas / propane, as those are the dominant central heating fuels.
Peace,
- Sequoia
Peace,
- Sequoia
Ok, I have to jump in here. I live in Portland and have a Lopi Answer insert. I believe it meets the criteria, but does NOT have any certification sticker on the back. There are remnants of something but it is unreadable.
My two thoughts are these: Where is the burden of proof? If the inspector sees my stove and says I must remove it, I would be inclined to show him the website and efficiency ratings and tell him to prove to a court that it is not epa certified. Innocent until proven guilty right? Besides, Its darn hard to move, he is going to have to take it out of there and put it back to even check. Not a one man job and I have never seen an inspector show up with more than themselves. I may be ignorant of the law here, but I think its hard to enforce.
Next is the really sad thing. So lets pretend I have to remove it. Well, I am not going to be buying the next guy a new stove so if they complain, Out it goes and off to the scrap yard. Then the new owner is left with an open masonry fireplace. AN OPEN MASONRY FIREPLACE IS FINE TO HAVE AND USE
BUT NOT A WOODSTOVE WITH SECONDARY COMBUSTION TUBES!!
No matter how badly you burn a woodstove, it will be cleaner and safer than an open fireplace.
just my $.02
todd
My two thoughts are these: Where is the burden of proof? If the inspector sees my stove and says I must remove it, I would be inclined to show him the website and efficiency ratings and tell him to prove to a court that it is not epa certified. Innocent until proven guilty right? Besides, Its darn hard to move, he is going to have to take it out of there and put it back to even check. Not a one man job and I have never seen an inspector show up with more than themselves. I may be ignorant of the law here, but I think its hard to enforce.
Next is the really sad thing. So lets pretend I have to remove it. Well, I am not going to be buying the next guy a new stove so if they complain, Out it goes and off to the scrap yard. Then the new owner is left with an open masonry fireplace. AN OPEN MASONRY FIREPLACE IS FINE TO HAVE AND USE
BUT NOT A WOODSTOVE WITH SECONDARY COMBUSTION TUBES!!No matter how badly you burn a woodstove, it will be cleaner and safer than an open fireplace.
just my $.02
todd
TreePapa said:
But wouldn't lower demand be beneficial all around? Not sure it needs to be a conspiracy. And that was not at all what I am implying in any posts - a trend is much different from a CONspiracy. If the demand for propane and NG dropped significantly, couldn't a portion of that be used by the power plants to generate electricity in lieu of coal? Considering that a lot of the NG comes from the same parts of the country as the coal, it would be a lot less transmisison for the gas and help convert the coal requirement to cleaner-burning NG.
Actually most fireplaces burn pretty clean because they feed on so much air. I know my fireplace burns nice and clean once it gets going and all I see are heat waves out the chimney. An old air tight wood stove can be turned down to just a smouldering smoke machine and even an EPA stove can be turned down too soon and create mass amounts of smoke. I think the answer here is educating the public on proper burning techniques not just throwing away a perfectly good stove.
Seasoned wood swap out program, the state brings a cord of seasoned and takes your unseasoned wood for next year!
moosetrek said:
It sounds like a great business opportunity. Customer contacts the "WoodXchange." The wood is
exchanged and a fee is charged. The removed wood is sold to another customer wanting fuel
for next year.
The typical customer could have ordered at least one year earlier, then prevented this entire costly situation.
A little planning goes a long way.
Valhalla said:
The money for exactly that program is in the Cap and Trade bill that everybody is raising hell about.
Why is it so hard for people to believe that a government agency can actually do something sensible, and in a sensible way?
You can't be serious. That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum!
You can't be serious. That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read on this forum!
TriTodd said:
If the stove is listed on the EPA's list of certified stoves, it shouldn't matter if the sticker's gone. It should be easily identifiable, and it'll have the right parts inside. I'd bet it would be pretty easy to get an identification on an EPA stove.
The fireplace thing is definitely a loophole, but on the other hand, not too many people are using a fireplace for their primary heat source. Or at least, they shouldn't.
Most retarded idea I can think of because even an old wood stove works pretty good. Stupid. Period.
Like mentioned-Education would probably be one of the best things. I've learned so much here and burn much cleaner now. Well at least my smoke dragon smokes a whole lot less.
- Status
Similar threads
