Outright Ban On Anything Wood In Utah! Pellets/Cord Wood/Fireplaces

[Poindexter]

John,

I am going to respond to the above, again, this time making a real effort to be conciliatory.

Your website "for green heat" has as a carbon hero a couple that burnt 10 cords of carbon neutral cordwood every year for 50 some years. Yet under "forest preservation" you have a picture of a rotting log off gassing methane, and above here you are advocating the use of carbon liberating natural gas. I don't understand what exactly "green heat" means to you.

I am very curious to know how much of what is actually emitted by a certified stove in the real world; I mean instrumented, not estimated. You are cordially invited to come instrument my stack. I really want to know from having measured. Bring your own moisture meter so we both know what I am putting in my stove...

I am in favor of regulated stack output, I live in a non-attainment area myself. However, cordwood costs me, BTU for BTU about 1/3 the price of oil and I got three kids in college. If the EPA comes up here with a precedent that they can force my local government to ban all wood burning devices it's going to be ugly.

Banning wood burning devices is opposed by the environmentally conscious who prefer carbon neutral solutions, opposed by fiscal conservatives in favor of cutting expenses, and opposed by libertarians in favor of free markets. Yet all of these groups are also in favor of having clean air to breathe. Buring dry cord wood in certified stoves is a really good idea.

Best wishes.

 

[John Ackerly]

Your statement that certified stoves in the real world "put out far more than" 3 grams per hour is unsubstantiated.

There are too many people in the SLC basin driving too many cars too many miles. Their wintertime air quality sucks. As referenced in post #116 above, according to Utah's own data, all wood burning devices _and_ all area and point solvents COMBINED are less deleterious to wintertime air quality than motor vehicle exhaust. Those people need to start carpooling. Not only will that reduce vehicle miles driven, there will also be less point solvent emissions from pumping less gas at all the gas stations.

I doubt regular folks are any more likely to clean their pellet stoves than they are to season their cordwood. Actual enforcement of reasonable stack exhaust parameters should solve both problems quickly.

Banning wood stoves is a really really bad idea. Running dry cord wood in certified stoves is a good idea.

Best wishes.

Poindexter,

Hi, will respond to a few of your key points, quoted above. Most experts believe that cord wood will have higher emissions than crib wood, so I don't see how anyone thinks the average wood stove in the real world emits what it did on a certification test in the lab. Also, a lot of certification tests probably represent the best that the stove is capable of, using crib wood. Many stove designs are dialed in to nail the EPA test method and are not even designed to perform optimally with cord wood in the hands of the average consumer.

As for your points about too many cars driving too much in SLC, I couldn't agree with you more. If SLC were to crack down on stoves without cracking down on other sources, it would be a farce. But from what I've read (which isn't a whole lot) they are addressing all sources.

And as for regular folks being no more likely to clean their pellet stove than to burn seasoned wood; I completely agree there too. But the big difference, is that a pellet stove tested at 2 grams can easily produce 4 when its not cleaned. But a wood stove that produces 2 grams in the lab can produce 10 - 15 with wet wood. And an outdoor boiler has a huge potential for putting out far more emissions in the real world than in the lab.

Lastly, I made no hints of supporting a ban on wood heating products. My suggestions were 1. sunset clause for uncertified devices, 2. a wood to pellet stove change out, 3. banning install of 2d hand uncertified stoves and 4. more enforcement. But longer "no burn" days are probably also in the future and using opacity to measure individual offenders, etc. All this is being done in the NW and could also work in Utah.

OK, I am still supposed to be on vacation and need to play with my son and nephew!

John

 

[stoveguy2esw]

As I read through this string of comments, I was surprised how many people were citing emission levels from stoves in labs. Those aren't the emissions that stoves give off on the Wasatch front or anywhere else. So, yes, we need to start using statistics on the average amount of PM that the average wood burner emits. And, what we will find is that the average guy burning an EPA certified stove is a lot better than the average guy burning on old stove. But the average amount of PM from a certified stove is a lot of PM to be putting out in a densely populated area with bad inversions. If the average stove put out 3 grams an hour in the real world, it wouldn't be so bad, but its far more than that, partly because so many people aren't even using dry wood. Some folks think that only about 50% of the country is using wood under 20% moisture. That matches with my experience in my town too. I think pellet stoves are far, far better for densely populated areas with inversions, because you can't use unseasoned pellets and ratchet down the air too far. They do burn dirtier in the real world than the lab, especially if you don't clean them - and you can easily lose 15 - 30% efficiency too if you don't regularly clean a pellet stove. In California, a big air district is offering rebates to change out any stove - certified or uncertified - if the homeowner will switch to pellets or gas.

just going to interject my opinion into this, most of you guys know what i do and my friend John above and i have met and i have a lot of respect for him.

its obvious that the PM readings in real world use are not going to be the same as the "test loads" provide, however the cleaner burning technology employed today is a big advance over old PRE-EPA units. (just as new cars have far less emmissions than an old car burning leaded fuel back in the day), now that doesnt mean its the "ultimate cure" but it was a massive step in the right direction, just as more efficient cars was in cutting down on pollution.

now, this doesnt mean that everyone is going to operate the stove and maintain the stove as they should (how many folks own cars and dont maintain them properly resulting in poorer performance and higher emissions.) doesnt mean we should ban the automobile.

the issues with woodburning need to be addressed in a wide variety of ways, the biggest is education on good burning habits, with wood processing being near the top of the list. getting people to understand the advantages of modern wood burning is another. many folks look no further than "if it aint brooke dont fix it" the old stove they have been burning is doing what they expect it to do so they see no reason to upgrade. what they may not realize is that they can get even better performance out of a modern appliance

 

[Poindexter]

I am willing to believe wood stove ratings are analogous to mpg ratings for new cars. My last new car was "rated" 28 mpg highway, I usually see 22-24. I did get 28 mpg highway with that car one time, driving downhill out of the Rockies with a tail wind.

And we can add the fuel variable to the wood stove equation that is less problematic with motor vehicles.

Still and all I think it unlikely that my new catalytic stove that comes in under 1 gr/hr in the lab is producing more than 3gr/hr from my living room.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

yeah, im using the car example to emphasize the fact that not everyone does the scheduled maintainance on their carts and as a result they do not operate as efficiently, replacing air filters and changing oil on a regular basis allows the engine to run at its cleanest.

as for a cat stove, you could expect a reasonably clean operation with cordwood (not as good as crib wood i imagine which is simply used to provide a "control" for testing purposes)

what people do not seem to wrap their head around is that the EPA rating is not the expected PM average that should be found running cordwood at home, in order to provide a standard the fuel has to be at a measurable standard which the PM range is "tied to" . testing with "cordwood" and expecting to get the same emissions as with the cribwood simply aint gonna happen. that said however the non-epa stoves would probably do better with crib wood as well, but would be far and away dirtier in emissions than a modern unit would be.

 

[Hoozie]

A couple years ago I was able to burn the exact same wood in both the old smoke monster and the 30NC. WOW was there a difference in smoke output!

Back on topic, this is the type of burn ban I can really get behind.

(broken link removed to http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/32609619-75/lrapa-temporarily-bans-woodstove-burning-in-eugene-springfield.html.csp#) (just banned through the weekend until the inversion breaks)

He also noted that technically, the ban is on visible smoke emissions from a chimney. LRAPA tests for homeowner compliance by looking at whether a chimney is emitting visible smoke. If it is, LRAPA may cite the homeowner. However, homeowners with modern, efficient woodstoves burning well-dried wood may be able to burn without any visible emissions.

 

[NWfuel]

Education efforts need to be visible in real time media. If governments (Utah) see forms of wood burning clean education every day, every minute and make it common as a latte then we have a better chance of success with our efforts to keep wood burning well. We need to quit playing defense and start our offense. So much info could be at the click of the mouse. I will donate www.burnban.com domain for this educational purpose. Burnbans could be common and healthier for all of us.
Happy New Year
Thomas

 

[John Ackerly]

Still and all I think it unlikely that my new catalytic stove that comes in under 1 gr/hr in the lab is producing more than 3gr/hr from my living room.

I think cat stoves are more likely to perform in the real world similar to how they performed in a lab compared to non-cat stoves. And, some testing has shown that they can handle cordwood as well as they can handle crib wood. And, I suspect they will prove to be able to handle unseasoned wood better than non-cats. But much more testing on more models needed to confirm this.

One thing to keep in mind is that visible smoke can disappear around 2 - 3 grams an hour. So if your chimney is smokeless, you may be under 3 grams an hour, according to Ben Myren.

In any case, I think the wood burning community is far more impressed than the fossil fuel community when we talk about reducing emissions by 90% and consistently getting under 4.5 grams an hour, or even under 2. Remember, we are competing with technology that is consistently getting under 0.1, and operator error is not really an issue.

 

[BKVP]

New FaceBook web site. Post your videos and comments in support of clean burning EPA stoves!!

https://www.facebook.com/ResponsibleUtahns

 

[John Ackerly]

New FaceBook web site. Post your videos and comments in support of clean burning EPA stoves!!

https://www.facebook.com/ResponsibleUtahns

Is this an industry supported facebook page? It doesn't really say who is behind it or have any contact info, which gives it less credibility than it should have.

 

[BKVP]

Is this an industry supported facebook page? It doesn't really say who is behind it or have any contact info, which gives it less credibility than it should have.

Post away Sir. There is no lack of access for anyone to comment, that lends to credibility.

 

[John Ackerly]

Post away Sir. There is no lack of access for anyone to comment, that lends to credibility.

Well, by that measure I don't have much credibility, as I have hidden or deleted a handful of comments on the Alliance for Green Heat Facebook page lately, posted by anti-wood burning folks. For some reason, they are focusing on my site these days and are far more active posting comments than pro wood burners. And whenever I hide or delete a comment that I feel is impolite or just way too self--righteous, they get bent out of shape. That may happen to this Utah FB site too. They seem to be much more active than a few years ago. Some of them come to this honestly, and live downwind of an outdoor boiler, or a nuisance stove burner. Its hard to argue with those folks. And others have decent points, but they can't see any value in wood heating because for them, the PM cancels out any benefit of using a renewable and avoiding fossil fuels.

 

[BKVP]

Perhaps you can offer the old thumbs up or thumbs down...but more importantly..let's get the Hearth.com members to visit and post to the Alliance For Green Heat Face Book page...

Come on Guys and Gals, let's support our advocates!

 

[Hoozie]

Someone post a picture of a chimney not blowing smoke, with the caption:

"I'm burning right now. Or maybe I'm not? Modern stoves 'burn the smoke', providing more heat and dramatically less pollution. In fact, many can't tell during a burn if you're burning at all. Why should I not be able to burn when the conditions allow?"

I wood would but I don't have any good pictures at the moment

 

[GoldFather]

This is crazy, but I understand where the lawmakers are coming from. I lived in Utah for 10 years, and we were right on the cusp of this sort of thing nearly that whole time.

 

[BKVP]

This is part of the press release that we received today:
The Salt Lake County Board of Health has passed Health Regulation #35, Solid Fuel Burning, which prohibits burning coal, wood or pellets in fireplaces or wood burning stoves, and bans outdoor fires—including bonfires, patio pit and charcoal grill fires—on days that the State of Utah designates as either mandatory or voluntary air action (no burn) days.
The regulation gives the health department the authority to issue notices of violation after investigating a complaint of wood burning on air action days. State law allows for penalties up to $299 per day, but the department will likely assign the highest fines only to repeat offenders.
“During this first year [2015], the health department will focus on educating residents about the regulation and the health issues associated with solid fuel burning,” explained Gary Edwards, Salt Lake County Health Department (SLCoHD) executive director. “We will not assess violation fines related to this regulation until January 2016.” The department may, however, still assess fines for not complying with statewide mandatory air action days, as it has for several inversion seasons.
The new regulation exempts households that use a wood-burning stove or fireplace as their sole source of heat, and it allows wood burning in emergency situations such as power outages.
Health officials say that solid fuel burning is a significant contributor to the Salt Lake Valley’s air pollution. One fireplace emits as much particle pollution as 90 sport-utility vehicles, and the pollution from one traditional wood-burning stove is equivalent to the amount emitted by 3,000 gas furnaces producing the same amount of heat per unit. Even EPA-certified stoves still emit as much pollution as 60 gas furnaces.

 

[Highbeam]

At least the fine is reasonable unlike our clean air retards and their 1000$ fine.

It allows "only source of heat" burning which is less strict than our regs that require you apply, pay, and renew annualy your "only source of heat waiver".

It is not an outright ban. Seems like a compromise. THe devil is in the details. How and when are these "action days" established? Is it a statewide action day or county by county, city by city? Would be silly if they just declared no burning from September to May on day one.

 

[tarzan]

Well, at least they can still burn coal as long as it is in a coal stove I suppose

 

[rblackmoore]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/

1/29/2014 @ 8:00AM 233,905 views
EPA's Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.

 

[begreen]

This is silly and the kind of crappy "reporting" that Forbes is getting to be known for. The EPA hasn't banned anything. Rural people are not "threatened". The new regs haven't been finalized have they? The phase 3 regs are not even in effect yet. and when they are they will be phased in. One will not have to stop using their current stove and replace it. The whole article is inflamatory anti-EPA rhetoric designed to inflame the uniformed. The author is an anti-govt. shill and the article is a year old. It has almost nothing to do with the Utah issue.

 

[webfish]

Op-ed: Clean-burning stoves minimize health risks

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2036253-155/op-ed-clean-burning-stoves-minimize-heisksalth-r

 

[BKVP]

One factor that is not brought to the fore front often enough is not that EPA stoves are cleaner burning, but the fact that they are 10-20% more efficient that pre EPA stoves translates to less wood being burnt and therefore less particulate being put into the environment.

 

[BKVP]

Good morning all from Salt Lake. Just an update. I attended a meeting in Tooele (pronounced two will lah). There were more than 200 people in attendance. In two hours of public comments and many of them very emotional, not one person spoke in favor of the ban. Most called into question the logic of such a ban given the amount of pm contributed by industry, which is massive here. Other comments focused on excessive idling taking place by cars at intersections and diesel trucks, trains etc. There are actually ordinances against excessive idling, but rarely enforced.

The most common theme by more than 37 persons against the ban was an exemption for EPA certified wood stoves, pellet stoves and masonry fireplaces.

Last nigh the community meeting was projected to be a landslide in favor of the ban as the meeting was held near down town Salt Lake. With hundreds of people, standing room only, many people wishing to comment had to stand in the hall way as local Fox affiliate broadcast the hearing. One very clever person commented that while the local new media was pushing for the ban, their TV broadcast vehicles were sitting the parking lot idling!!

In the end, the meeting went well over 2.5 hours. My count was 5 people commented in favor of the ban while 40+ commented against the ban. There are more public comment sessions next week.

Unfortunately I cannot attend these but I hope some folks from the counties affected will attend.

Chris

 

[begreen]

One thing I have not heard of is the state's position on fireplaces and open burning. Have these pollution sources been included in these discussions? They certainly should be.

 

[BKVP]

Everything that burns wood! Outdoor pits, grills, fireplaces, pellet stoves, inserts, boilers, furnaces....etc.