oregon "heat smart" program 1st state to require removal of uncertified stoves

[branchburner]

How about a "cash for smoke-dragons program?"

Oh, that was just done by another name.

The money for exactly that program is in the Cap and Trade bill that everybody is raising hell about.

The EPA does these programs with the HPBA on occasion - they call it a "wood stove changeout."

(broken link removed to http://www.woodstovechangeout.org/index.php?id=7)

 

[thechimneysweep]

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.

Jotul118Michigan, it is obvious you love your 118, and there is no doubt it is a fine stove, but you might consider the following:

The 118 was indeed a good performer for its day, but Jotul withdrew it from the US marketplace because it couldn't meet the 1988 Phase I EPA emissions standard of 8.5 grams/hr.

The various Century models are certainly no efficiency or emissions superstars, but their emissions ratings are between 4.4 and 4.9 grams/hr.

It is generally accepted that wood smoke becomes visible at an emissions rate of around 15 grams/hr.

This means your 118 could be issuing three times the emissions of even the smokiest Century model and you still couldn't see the exhaust.

I didn't break in here to pick on you, it's just that I fear that unchallenged statements like yours might engender the belief that pre-EPA stoves can be operated to burn as clean as EPA approved models, and I don't think that is true.

 

[BucksCoBernie]

Article about wood stoves in the White House.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ifsrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2sgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1412,3100544

Wonder if it was a direct connect or a slammer? haha. Pretty interesting read, thanks for the link.

 

[cleithau]

What I'm saying is under normal operating conditions the Jotul 118 makes less visible smoke than the Century, the Century has to have the flue closed off a lot to make any real heat, I'm sure they don't test it with the flue closed off to meet EPA regulations because it is pouring out smoke then. But the everyday user will be burning it like this because otherwise it doesn't hold in enough heat. The Jotul 118 is a better stove and with the flue mostly open it still produces a lot of heat, and since I can keep my chimney and stove temps up higher there is less visible smoke under normal operation. There is nothing miss leading about it. I have owned both stoves, the Century also make a lot more creosote build up in the chimney. I think the reason they can certify it to 4.4 grams is the damper is basically choked, you have to open the door to get the fire going. And in use it doesn't maintain chimney temps. I'm sure there are some great EPA cert stove, some also suck, and I don't think in real world applications a stove like the Century is doing the environment any favors. And after using that one it makes me wonder how they are certified, and what percentage are really making any difference. I'm sure the good ones are great, but the bad ones seem horrible.

People should be thought how to use their stoves. While a non EPA stove might never be as clean as an EPA stove fired under ideal conditions, improper use, wet wood, or poor design can make an EPA stove as dirty as a non EPA stove.

I owned both stoves, my sister now uses the Century, a few hundred yards away. In identical weather, almost the same chimney height, identical chimney construction, both homes about 1200 square feet, and the same wood supplier, the Century produces much more visible smoke, indicating that somehow it is emitting much more than the 4.4 g/hr than it tested at. Its also only 63% efficient vs 76% for the Jotul, so it will burn more wood to heat an equal area, using more resources than its older counterpart. Also you have to figure in shipping new stoves creates emissions, also the creation of new stoves uses resources as well, so does heating the store where stoves are bought, employees drive their cars there so people can buy new stoves and what comes from the smoke stacks from the factory the stoves are made. There are a ton of resources put into a stove before it even gets to a house. So maybe some of the older efficient stoves really aren't bad for the planet at all.

 

[branchburner]

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.

Jotul118Michigan, it is obvious you love your 118, and there is no doubt it is a fine stove, but you might consider the following:

The 118 was indeed a good performer for its day, but Jotul withdrew it from the US marketplace because it couldn't meet the 1988 Phase I EPA emissions standard of 8.5 grams/hr.

The various Century models are certainly no efficiency or emissions superstars, but their emissions ratings are between 4.4 and 4.9 grams/hr.

It is generally accepted that wood smoke becomes visible at an emissions rate of around 15 grams/hr.

This means your 118 could be issuing three times the emissions of even the smokiest Century model and you still couldn't see the exhaust.

I didn't break in here to pick on you, it's just that I fear that unchallenged statements like yours might engender the belief that pre-EPA stoves can be operated to burn as clean as EPA approved models, and I don't think that is true.

But an EPA stove only meets its emissions ratings if it is used correctly, correct? I think the point is that if you take something like my downdraft stove and load it with wet wood and shut the bypass damper (which no doubt some people do), you could create a pretty nasty smoke dragon. You may not get pre-EPA stoves to burn as clean as EPA models at their best, but you can easily get a poorly-run EPA model to burn dirtier than a well-run pre-EPA stove.

Edit - I see Jotul118 just made the point!

 

[tickbitty]

Article about wood stoves in the White House.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ifsrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2sgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1412,3100544

Wow, TY for posting that. Very interesting. Poor Carter, he really seemed like such a good and well intended man.
And the following comment, ouch. I had just commented to my husband that those Solar panels would only be 1/2 the way to paying for themselves at the rate quoted on there (cost 64000 and would save 1000 a year) but I guess they didn't get nearly there if Reagan took them out! I have thought about solar power, but it would still cost upwards of 50,000 or something to do my house.

 

[DavidV]

So if I lived in Oregon would my 1989 Appalachian 32BWXL be acceptable? it is certified as an EPA stove but I believe that was phase 1 EPA cert.

 

[thechimneysweep]

But an EPA stove only meets its emissions ratings if it is used correctly, correct? I think the point is that if you take something like my downdraft stove and load it with wet wood and shut the bypass damper (which no doubt some people do), you could create a pretty nasty smoke dragon. You may not get pre-EPA stoves to burn as clean as EPA models at their best, but you can easily get a poorly-run EPA model to burn dirtier than a well-run pre-EPA stove.

Edit - I see Jotul118 just made the point!

The point is, JT118 operated both stoves in the same location, presumably with the same burning habits, with the same quality firewood. Emissions-wise, a properly operated stove that passed EPA testing will outperform a properly operated stove that couldn't pass EPA testing.

One thing I've learned in 30+ years in this business is, people tend to love the stove they have. I tried to stress that the old 118 was a pretty good performer in its day so as to make my reality byte as palatable as possible, but the fact remains: if the 118 had been able to meet the emissions level achieved by the Century models, Jotul wouldn't have been forced to go through the expensive redesign process that resulted in the new, EPA approved F118 that replaced it.

I’m sure they don’t test it with the flue closed off to meet EPA regulations because it is pouring out smoke then.

Sorry, JT118, emissions testing includes burns at the lowest possible draft setting. As documented countless times on this forum and elsewhere, there is a learning curve involved with switching to the new technology. I'm sorry your experience with EPA technology happened to be with a Century, but I still don't believe your stove can be made to burn clean enough to meet today's standards.

Let me ask you this; do you think your 118 can burn as clean as the new, EPA approved F118 that replaced it?

 

[cleithau]

The new 118 would be cleaner, my sister just bought a new Jotul 602 EPA cert and its a great stove, it heats well and is clean.

I'm not saying that my old 118 can be as clean as a good EPA stove like the EPA 118, or EPA 602. But a poorly designed EPA stove such as the Century doesn't build much heat until you close the flue off almost all the way, then it start pouring smoke. It was the only way to get it hot. I don't know how many other stove that are EPA certified are like this but I am sure there are some others.

Basically what I was saying is that since the Century was so poorly designed you have to "improperly" use it to get any heat, but the old Jotul can be properly used and get heat. So under normal use the older stove was emitting less smoke, and however the Century is tested is not an accurate test of its emissions because there was almost always visible smoke from the chimney, sure if she opened the flue the stove would burn cleaner, but her house would not be warm. And if people buy a stove and the only way it makes heat is when it also makes a lot of smoke that is how people will use it since everyone wants a warm house.