OWB's...Whats the first 'problem' that should be addressed?

[keyman512us]

Thanks in advance to all who participate in the discussion.

Please vote...your opinion counts!

One thing that has me curious...and I would like to get other members of the forum to 'chime in' on the subject. Some background:

True OWB's for the most part are "smudge pot's"...Are OWB owner/operators "their own worst enemy"??? The bigger the boiler, the more wood it holds/burns, the more smoke it produces?
At a recent town meeting while talking to an owner of one he said; "I only wish I would have bought a bigger boiler so I wouldn't have to load it so often...". After hearing that I was thinking...is this the biggest part of the problem? The "Bigger is better mentality"???

I have read all throughout the discussions in the forum...the idea of setbacks? Do you think (without getting into EPA jargon yet) the setbacks should be based on the "firing rate" of OWB's?? One that burns at the same rate as a woodstove be held to woodstove standards? The 'middle of the road' have a middle standard? The "big monsters" that hold a half a truckload of wood should have the most set back requirements? Does this make more sense or am I out in left field?
If a "good sized stove" would do the job...why get the biggest OWB possible?

Do you think "the lazy factor" applies to "all the fuss"???

Do you think "oversizing" OWB's is a problem???

I hope we can get a good discussion going on "this point".

 

[Sandor]

Well, the smoke output should be addressed! Thats what all the fuss is over.

I know one thing, living in West Virginia showed me that just one of these units could smoke out a valley for as far as the eye could see. You could see the unit in the distance, and it looked like a 1800s freight train.

 

[elkimmeg]

They are too big require too much wood 12 to 16 cords would be the average for 4 or 5 people with woodstoves. they are unregulated and were originally found of large acreage farms
but now they are being intriduced into more populated areas No one had a problem till they started smoking out neighborhoods There are 6 in my town but for all practical
applications our local board of health has passed setbacks that basically ban them Their lack of effort to address the smoke issue has led to thier being banned The technology has been there but they ignored it. They are giving wood burning smoke a black eye They have done more harm the last couple of years. I feel the main reason there is so much anti smoke.

they are hurting the rest of us in the amount of wood they use and the image that all wood burning stoves are that dirty burning I fear that they have brought and rallied support to ban any wood burning.

 

[Rob From Wisconsin]

They are too big require too much wood 12 to 16 cords would be the average for 4 or 5 people with woodstoves. they are unregulated and were originally found of large acreage farms

YES!!
A neighbor of our has 40+ acres and still doesn't have enough wood to feed
his beast. He has become a slave to it, going to other people's woods.
"Only 12-16 cords" is a shame, when I only need approx. 2 cords for
my std. stove.....

Rob

 

[stoveomatic]

No...Doesn’t make a difference!

I had a 500 acre milk farm in southern Va. we had an old OWB in the house, it was relativly "small". At the time I thought 'man if this thing were only bigger', a few years later I went to new techknowledgy and realized the waste I was contributing to. Granted the house is a 2500sf old farm house but I can heat the same area with a third the wood, It is a shame now looking back at the time and landscape I could have saved.

 

[babalu87]

You should have to own a certain amount of land to even own one and it shouldnt be just for a home, outbuildings should be a requirement.

I cant have a fully automatic M-16.

 

[begreen]

I don't know. Perhaps they are not oversized, just really inefficient. At 25% efficiency, they need almost 3 times as much wood as an efficient stove installed in the house. If you add burning green wood and then add the heat loss in the system (as compared to a freestanding stove already in the house), lack of radiant heat, etc. Then I wouldn't be surprised if the net efficiency dropped to 15%. If that's the case, then it's not their size, it's that they are delivering so little of the potential btu's where it's needed. I one took an efficient, gasifier wood boiler and put it out in a shed with well insulated pipe, add a good stack and maybe a catalytic converter, then wood consumption (and emissions) to do the same job could easily be halved or quartered.

 

[Corie]

Central Boiler has a new outdoor wood boiler coming out in the fall.



I chatting with one of their rep's and one of their engineers but I couldn't get even the slightest detail about the furnace.


It was there and running, but they had a lock on the door and would not answer any questions I had about the functionality of the thing. However I sat and watched it cycle between loaded and unloaded and never saw even a whisp of smoke leave the stack.

 

[babalu87]

^ Probably burning pallets

 

[Corie]

I know, I was skeptical. I wish they would have answered one of my friggin questions. I couldn't get a peep out of them.

 

[babalu87]

Because after talking with you as soon as they opened their mouths they knew you would have figured out they were lying. What could be so secret about their "technology" to make it burn cleaner?
Havent we ( well not me but) been burning fire-tube boilers in the neighborhood of 75+% efficiency for about 100 years?

 

[TMonter]

OWBs are fine but they have to be designed right. Garn has been making smoke free wood boilers for years, the difference is they use hot water as a storage medium and are more expensive up front.

It sounds like Central is trying to do what others have been doing for years already.

 

[Harley]

I guess I'd have to agree with BG... The size is probably due to the overall inefficiency. So.... the question becomes "what has to come first - the chicken or the egg?"

Do you force a smaller firebox, at which point the manufacturers have to figure out a way to increase efficiency (thereby reducing emmissions) or?

Do you force emmission standards, at which poit the manufactures have a more efficient unit, and a smaller firebox size will follow.

 

[elkimmeg]

Another point is the location to the home all energy /heat ghenerated passes in trenches in the ground. Unless the trenches are below frost line 5" in my area these pipes pass through frost.

Think about the heat loss in transmission Do you relaize that loss if the OWB is 100 ft away? 200" away In our toewn they have to Be 500' away according to the new regulations and 1500' from a lot line so the watter enter the m home where in side it has to overcome more transmission heat loss... think about this who has 16 cords of seasoned wood to feed it. The presise was the ability to burn green wood. Our town regulations also states what wood can be burnt and its moisture conetent. Like I said they are not banned just impossible to locate on your property and to fuel. A finished setup central boilers s cost $15k without fuel. You would be better off going solar

 

[keyman512us]

Thanks to all that have participated so far...
"One DAY STATS:"
152 views, 13 replies, 11 votes cast: 3,3,2,3

Everyone so far has brought up very good points. OWB's are a very important issue to anyone that burns wood...some more than others. I'm glad to hear Corie was "all-over" central on their so-called new technology...good "sleauth work" Corie! OWB's do have a voracious apetite for fuel...and the efficiency rate coupled with green wood...good points.
Gassifier and firetube boilers are good points also. In the past couple of years this debate has really "exploded". Unfortunately...OWB's are providing amunition for the anti-smoke crew. And causing problems for those of us that have "installations" that could be considered an OWB. I have a "small" firetube boiler that can heat the entire house "evenly". While not as efficient as gassifier technology...its' a far cry from the true "smudge pots" giving us all a black eye.
The on-going debate is important to me....because I like wood heat. Firewood is a "product of my business" and makes sense. Placing the boiler "within the house" is not terribly feasible...yet. It doesn't bother me to have to "go out into the cold" to feed a fire. Long range...I think I have to revert to my original plan and "build a shed" for the boiler set-up. But i'm going to look into a stove for inside the house as well.
If anyone knows about/hears about an old Cons. Dutchwest large model coal/wood please let me know.

 

[laynes69]

Before I even considered spending 15K on an OWB, I would go with a geothermal system for my home. Alot less work. I have nothing wrong with an owb, other than they can be wood hogs, and require way too much work for me. I do believe that ones landscape can dwindle before their eyes. If it works for them, great. But technology needs to be updated. I would bet that the smoke that comes from some of those OWBs, could alone heat a home. Imagine the BTUS with an advanced combustion system on a full load. I think they need to engineer them with a higher efficiency, and alot smaller firebox. Also require that fairly seasoned wood should be burned and not green wood. They wouldn't have to be so far away if they burned cleanly. Some do with the right operator, but alot don't. I seen one on ebay where the owner says it will even burn your junk tires. Thats why people are cracking down on them. I don't blame them.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

All the talk about the wood hogs has me wondering. Here in Michigan it is hard to believe just how many has been installed in the past 5 years. Simply amazing. Now we do live in a rural area with farms. I have several friends who have put them in and none have said that it takes more wood to heat their home. Just about everyone I've talked to say it takes about the same amount but they also are heating their water so consider it a bargain. Personally, even though friends have tried to talk me into one, I will be installing a soapstone stove this summer and expect to be burning less wood, not more.

There is one company that has had problems with welds and I know one party who is on his third OWB! I also know of several that are on their second.

As for the underground pipes, the heat loss is perhaps not quite as much as most think as long as everything is insulated.

And the cost...$15k Not around here it does not cost nearly that much. Perhaps it is different in different areas or are some perhaps inflating the figures to make them look even worse than they are.

 

[MrGriz]

They sure do stick out (or should I say smoke out) in a crowd. I think a big part of the problem is the way they are marketed. People are encouraged to burn green wood and just about anything else that will fit into the fire box on one of those things. The smoke created is never an issue until it's brought up by the neighborhood, certainly not the manufacturer or dealer.

When I talk to people that own them, they almost wear the fact that they can burn anything as a badge of honor. For the most part, the only emission they are concerned about is the amount of heat that finally makes it to their house; certainly not the smoke they send up the pipe.

Most OWB owners seem to be a different crowd than the burners we have here. I don't know why that is.?.? Hopefully as manufacturers are forced to develop cleaner, more efficient burning technology for OWB's, they will also begin marketing that way. This will hopefully lead to different customer expectations and priorities.

 

[keyman512us]

STATS: 238views, 17 replies, 15votes:4,4,4,3

MrGriz: (I keep quoting you because you keep posting good observations)

They sure do stick out (or should I say smoke out) in a crowd. I think a big part of the problem is the way they are marketed. People are encouraged to burn green wood and just about anything else that will fit into the fire box on one of those things. The smoke created is never an issue until it’s brought up by the neighborhood, certainly not the manufacturer or dealer.

This is a good point...leading towards 'public perceptions'...Would you say the manufacturers and owners have an equal amount of blame? Do you think the OWB has done so much damage (image wise) it cannot recover from?

When I talk to people that own them, they almost wear the fact that they can burn anything as a badge of honor. For the most part, the only emission they are concerned about is the amount of heat that finally makes it to their house; certainly not the smoke they send up the pipe.

Another good point...Would you perhaps go so far as to say they are "in denial"???

Most OWB owners seem to be a different crowd than the burners we have here. I don’t know why that is.?.? Hopefully as manufacturers are forced to develop cleaner, more efficient burning technology for OWB’s, they will also begin marketing that way. This will hopefully lead to different customer expectations and priorities.

I think this is the most overlooked fact. At a recent town meeting on proposed regs... all 4 OWB owners were present (myself being one of them). What amazed me was we were all in the same boat...yet nobody wanted to discuss or agree to anything. All four of us had "different situations". Myself and another were at 'both ends of the spectrum'...the other two "somewhere in the middle". My setup is the oldest and has the closest neighbors...the other guy has four acres in a 'remote part of town'. Both of the two others are also in "tight neighborhoods"...one has a two-family rental property...the other a single family ranch.
I can't say one way or the other if the fact they aren't "regulated" at the federal level and are considered "exempt"...if that makes owners feel "bullet-proof" but with all the debate lately...I think that attitude is slowly changing...but will not repair "the damage done".
I think owners of OWB's are just naturally 'defensive' by nature...but I have yet to meet any that will openly discuss ANY aspect of the debate...let alone acknowledge potential problemswith their installations...OWB owners tend to "lay the blame on the other guy"

 

[keyman512us]

Savage:

There is one company that has had problems with welds and I know one party who is on his third OWB! I also know of several that are on their second.

Out of curiousity? Do you know if they have ever 'tested' their boiler water to check PH etc..???

Something I have wondered about these "failed OWB's"...What do they do with them??? Does the manufacturer take it back for credit on a new one? Do they get sent to the scrapyard? Get pushed to the side? Get sold as oversized gun/ammo vaults???

...In case someone hears of a failed/junk/un-wanted OWB...(preferably fairly local) I'd like to find one to autopsy/experiment with (I'm fairly "handy with torches and welders")...long term I'm looking to build a "small chip fired boiler"...if any info...please let me know.

 

[MrGriz]

Keyman,

Quote away, I don't mind at all.

I would say that the manufacturers and owners do share in the blame, but not equally. I would place a higher percentage of blame on the manufacturer for delivering that message in the first place. Many that are attracted by the promise of easy, cheap heat rely only on the information provided by the manufacturer for their education to burning. Of course, the manufacturers do not bring up the emissions or down sides to burning green, treated or painted wood, so the consumer doesn't question it.

I don't think it's 'denial' so much as it is a lack of understanding of the unintended consequences of their actions.

I do think that OWBs have dug themselves a big hole regarding their image, but I don't think it's one that can't be climbed out of. The problem is that those who rally against the OWBs are not necessarily wood burners. For the most part, I think they are neighbors who don't really understand the ins and outs of burning wood and are only reacting to the smoke. That makes them harder to reach when real changes and improvements are made to OWB technology, since they are not looking for that information.

 

[begreen]

What astounds me is that these OWB units are anything but cheap. A little research would have me thinking why would I buy an unproven inefficient boiler design when there there are several good indoor units that could easily be adapted to outdoor use? There seems to be a degree of gullibility and hope of getting something for nothing that OWB marketing takes advantage of here.

 

[elkimmeg]

Central Boiler brand are not cheap. By the time on pays for the installation digs the trench back fill it and has to hire a plumber inside to make connections 15K can dissapear quickly.

BTW a plumber is required for any connection to domestic water within the home Also an electrician is also required for the electrical hook up. IT can be done cheaper.
you know DYI installing a barrell stove like unit.

Btw Central Boilers are one of the cleaner one and the manufacturer that cooperated with the EPA to institute the upcomming regulations sometime in 2008.

I know why they would not talk to Corie They want to cornor the market when the regulations are mandated. It's protecting trade scerets.

 

[DiscoInferno]

Right here is the sort of thing that gives OWB's a bad name. At least I assume this jacka$$ is using an OWB, I suppose he could be burning treated lumber indoors. :gulp:
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/wan/297902351.html

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Keyman: I've talked with perhaps a dozen who have the OWB and every one tells me they check the Ph weekly.

On the fellow who is on his third OWB because of leaks: When he put his third one in this past summer along with two others who were replacing their's for the second time, I suggested to use distilled water. Because that would be a big expense, they checked around and finally hauled water from one source that is supposed to have the best water around this area. So far, so good with their new ones.

As for what they do with the units they take back, I've been told that the factory tears them apart and re-welds the seams, then replaces insulation and such and they go out as new units. I'm betting that is what they use for replacements but do not know this for a fact.