Proposed EPA new regs - It is not the end of the world.

[webbie]

PS: I got a chance to finish reading the article and appreciate the ending page conclusions. It's interesting to note how the premise of declining number of home heating with wood has reversed since it's publication according to the 2010 census data.

Yes, things change much quicker than our ancient studies can keep up with....

Whether a 1/2 or 2/3 reduction, it does not compare with the original advertising and marketing.

The same guy (houck) wrote an article in 2006 which (my paraphrase here) had a chart which shows that a customer should consider the Encore Everburn, the Dutchwest and one Quadrafire model (and maybe a couple others) as the best stoves to buy for emissions and efficiency. Taking one example - the Evenburn, we can see how such conclusion can lead to decisions which may not be the best ones.

Consider this - VC and Quad and other had almost unlimited resources (compared to most makers) in terms of their own test labs, fab facilities, engineering staff, foundries, etc. - and VC created EPA stoves in 1986-88 which were cat and non-cat. They took all their knowledge and distilled it - 10-12 years later - into the Everburn. Also note that many VC cats were "hybrid" technology, because the downdraft system passed EPA (Acclaim) without a cat.

The result? According to EPA and Houck the "best stove". According to consumers here, well less than that. Note - I assume many changes have been made since so I am speaking of the 2004-2005 vintage everburn models only)...

The more I think about it, the more it frustrates me. I can tell you this from the perspective of my store...where we sold literally thousands of stoves. We sold Encores. We sold many other brands and models. However, the customer satisfaction was the very highest with our Avalon (early) models, because they were goof-proof and worked well over many years in many setups.

We'll never be able to flush out all the variables. But if we wanted to, it might look like this....
1. Find stoves in the field of various types which have already been used for at least ten cords of wood.
2. Do not upgrade them or check them any differently than the existing customers do.
3. Install the test equipment and have the customers run them as they always did over a month or two.

It will never happen. Would take too much money. And that is why I support looser standards....to give companies room to improve their designs more, not to "test to the test".

 

[webbie]

Let's add the opinions of one of the few independent voices....who also has qualifications and experiences.
While Hearth.com is independent, we are also slightly more "out of control" (large community talking) than John's site.

http://woodheat.org/qa-wood-stoves.html

John says to ignore numbers......who am I to debate him?

http://woodheat.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=59
"you can assume that there is no real difference in the average smoke emissions of cats or non-cats."

 

[HotCoals]

For the many who posted that the new APA regulations will be the end of the world as we know it.
Here is a link: http://blog.woodstove.com/2014/03/please-sign-our-petition-for-clean.html

If a wood stove manufacture is actually pushing for these regulations it is very hard for me to believe that the new regulations will be the end to wood burning. Instead it will mean a cleaner burning more efficient stove.

One thing I really would like to see added to a woodstove is a similar setup to what BK uses, a thermostat regulated to keep the wood burning at peak efficiency. That is one of the main drawbacks of my TL-300, if things are not aligned properly the stove can and will stall creating a very unclean burn. It would be nice if a thermostat was mounted so that if it detected the stove temps stating to fall below 500, it opens the air to maintain a clean burn.

Trust me the idea of the bi-metal t-stat is a good one to open and close the air to keep you in the sweet spot. Also trust me when I say it don't work that great. It is real slow to move either way.
I would go as far to say it needs a redesign. I think the problem is where it's at ..not enough heat swing there to make it effective.
Thing is you would not want it to stay open to long so I think Bk plays it safe because you could change the coil some so that it would react faster.

 

[webbie]

Makes sense that maybe electronic controls and oxygen sensors will be part of the eventual solution. Both exist already in wood burning products.

As with other technologies, they need perfected for this particular use. But it's not hard to imagine Bosch or another company producing a sub-assembly of the sensors and circuit board with a simple programming interface that could be changed for each model.

Of course, many will still want the least complicated stove they can buy. So the companies who pursue that goal will probably get a lot of traction in the USA (Europe may be different).

 

[HotCoals]

Makes sense that maybe electronic controls and oxygen sensors will be part of the eventual solution. Both exist already in wood burning products.

As with other technologies, they need perfected for this particular use. But it's not hard to imagine Bosch or another company producing a sub-assembly of the sensors and circuit board with a simple programming interface that could be changed for each model.

Of course, many will still want the least complicated stove they can buy. So the companies who pursue that goal will probably get a lot of traction in the USA (Europe may be different).

I concur.

As you know the wood stove with all those controls is already here..it's called a pellet stove.

I'm not so sure that a "wood stove' relying on electricity is a good thing to control the air intake.
You would need some type of safety device to close the air in event of no power.

 

[BKVP]

If I am not mistaken, Dr. Jim Houck's analysis was done in 1998.

Unfortunately, the data and conclusions drawn are 100% based upon non cat and cat alike combustion designs from 30 years ago.

Industry left those designs a long, long time ago. As mentioned earlier, new field studies need to be done.

We as an industry need to stop slogging around information that is no longer pertinent.

The CHC study of aged combustor's is the most recent study done of current designed products. Read Dr. Houck's white paper that was also part of the study. It's very insightful.

New studies based upon current designs are what are needed.

 

[Bobbin]

Very interesting read (and I didn't pore over the links).

1.) I don't view the EPA as a "pencil pushin' bunch of know-nuthins" whose main aim is to protect their jobs and be a pain in everyone else's ass. It's my opinion that environmental regulation is necessary and in oftentimes has been long overdue and not nearly as strenuous as it ought to have been.
2.) We have 2 cat. stoves. We've "followed the directions" and they've performed wonderfully. Do I have data to back that up? nope. Do I replace the catalytic combustors routinely? yup (on average every 4-5 yrs.). I know instantly when my neighbor is firing up his insert/stove... it smells and if we're in the midst of low pressure system his smoke hangs low and lingers.
3.) I would particularly like to see closer scrutiny of outdoor wood boilers go hand in hand with greater outreach about how to get people with "marginal" stoves burning to the best efficiency they can.

Interesting discussion!

 

[webbie]

I concur.

As you know the wood stove with all those controls is already here..it's called a pellet stove.

I'm not so sure that a "wood stove' relying on electricity is a good thing to control the air intake.
You would need some type of safety device to close the air in event of no power.

Ah, but stove would be powered by the heat........so unless the thing broke (they could fix that too), you'd be in business....
http://gearjunkie.com/wood-burning-stove-with-electricity-generator

Thelin had a pellet stoves that powered it's own electronics many years ago. I suspect more is possible today.

 

[HotCoals]

Ah, but stove would be powered by the heat........so unless the thing broke (they could fix that too), you'd be in business....
http://gearjunkie.com/wood-burning-stove-with-electricity-generator

Thelin had a pellet stoves that powered it's own electronics many years ago. I suspect more is possible today.

All very interesting and gimmicky ..I'm not sure "gimmicky" is actually a word though. Cheers!

 

[webbie]

New studies based upon current designs are what are needed.

I agree.

Until new information is gleamed, old info is all we have. Some of it not very old, such as Phase II designs which were finalized in the period of 1995 to 2005. We could say these are only 10 years old - and stoves in the field and pipeline of distribution and sales are always going to lag many years behind.

Without that new info, it would be foolish to make assumptions based on marketing, manufacturers claims (even yours!) or anything else. As I showed, Houcks conclusions in a 2006 article aren't really up to snuff (IMHO) - that is, he claimed the Defiant N/C was truly the cleanest stove you could buy and the article would lead folks to believe it was (or close - he left a bit of wiggle room - .5 grams). In other articles (recent?), though, I think he and others shows differences of 100-200% or more when stoves were tested more than once. One can only imagine what the differences would be if the stoves were sent from one makers lab to the others for a "reciprocal" test, let alone if they were all tested in the field.

Also, if we take the cat models on the market today, I'd wager that most are the same as those (10-20 years old) designs. Same for non-cats.

Chris, do you have any suggestions on to how new data could be gained? I'm asking in terms of reality here - that is, who is going to fund and do these studies and decide the protocols, etc.? Is there any chance of this happening?

My take is no. If that's the case, throwing out ALL existing data for something which does not and will not exist seems over-kill.

I'd love to see an online continuing debate between you and some others and John Gulland......over this. If John is wrong he's the type of guy who will readily admit it when presented with new evidence.

 

[HotCoals]

Well black carbon is a problem .More people switching to wood is only going to add to it no matter how much you clean it up...or how much you think that you're cleaning it up.
There is only so much that can reasonably be done.

 

[HotCoals]

You know in this day and age it is ridiculous to use wood as your primary heat source when there are so many other better(healthier)options.
Especially here in the great U.S. of A.
We are not a third world country .
But yet here we are..and most of us won't give it up easy.

 

[fire_man]

You know in this day and age it is ridiculous to use wood as your primary heat source when there are so many other better(healthier)options.
Especially here in the great U.S. of A.
We are not a third world country .
But yet here we are..and most of us won't give it up easy.

Very true - when oil is nearly $4.00/gallon and NG is not an option, wood looks pretty good.
I never thought of the third world analogy, but it's kind of a sad truth.

 

[webbie]

Very true - when oil is nearly $4.00/gallon and NG is not an option, wood looks pretty good.
I never thought of the third world analogy, but it's kind of a sad truth.

The USA is so large and spread out that it becomes more difficult to present the range of options. In Denmark, for instance, they designated many zones as being right for "district heating", which is hot water heat fed from a single boiler which could be a mile away. Other zones are set up for choices (wood heat, etc.)....depending on the population density, access to fuels, etc.

But here it's tough because we have so much land. Plus, the spirit of independence (in terms of these types of things) is stronger here, so many people like the joy that comes with "growing their own".

I don't think even we wood and pellet junkies are pushing for biomass to be an extremely large % percentage when looked at in the aggregate - rather we want it not to be shunned for being dirty and those who use it to be educated. This takes some pressure off the fuel oil and LP markets as well as has other benefits like getting people into better physical shape and connecting them to how important energy really is.

 

[fire_man]

The problem is that the more popular it becomes to heat with wood, the more government gets involved for better or for worse.

 

[BKVP]

I agree.

Until new information is gleamed, old info is all we have. Some of it not very old, such as Phase II designs which were finalized in the period of 1995 to 2005. We could say these are only 10 years old - and stoves in the field and pipeline of distribution and sales are always going to lag many years behind.

Without that new info, it would be foolish to make assumptions based on marketing, manufacturers claims (even yours!) or anything else. As I showed, Houcks conclusions in a 2006 article aren't really up to snuff (IMHO) - that is, he claimed the Defiant N/C was truly the cleanest stove you could buy and the article would lead folks to believe it was (or close - he left a bit of wiggle room - .5 grams). In other articles (recent?), though, I think he and others shows differences of 100-200% or more when stoves were tested more than once. One can only imagine what the differences would be if the stoves were sent from one makers lab to the others for a "reciprocal" test, let alone if they were all tested in the field.

Also, if we take the cat models on the market today, I'd wager that most are the same as those (10-20 years old) designs. Same for non-cats.

Chris, do you have any suggestions on to how new data could be gained? I'm asking in terms of reality here - that is, who is going to fund and do these studies and decide the protocols, etc.? Is there any chance of this happening?

My take is no. If that's the case, throwing out ALL existing data for something which does not and will not exist seems over-kill.

I'd love to see an online continuing debate between you and some others and John Gulland......over this. If John is wrong he's the type of guy who will readily admit it when presented with new evidence.

The 100-200% was not due to technology. It was due to a large spread of tolerances in test method protocols.

Dr. Houck worked with Paul Tiegs of OMNI Test labs. Paul narrowed all the spreads and was able to get vastly better (less than 10%) variances in his tests.

As for different labs testing same stoves, that too was done 20+ years ago in what are called Round Robin tests. Yes, great test results were the result. Different guys, load times, and so much more contributed greatly to the great margins of difference.

The white paper I was referring to was not the one you cited. There is another written by Dr. Houck that painted a much different picture than perhaps some folks would like to read.

Sorry, your assumption is incorrect. Most cat stoves are vastly different. Cat orientation, substrate materials, wash coat techniques, precious metals applications, secondary air introduction, flame shields, ease of inspection, ease of cleaning are all part of what has changed.

As for marketing claims....most are biased to technology. However, if a mfg can offer a 10 year, 100% combustor warranty, then folks are figuring out how to build the better mousetrap. Old history, misinformation, misunderstanding won't change the future path.

I agree it's unlikely that anyone would pay $250k for an independent study of 10 year old stoves.

We derive a very solid revenue stream from our non catalytic stoves. We do of course derive more from cat models. But, we are as deliberate and honest about both technology based designs. Not many can say the same.

 

[BKVP]

I might add the substrates were NEVER the problem as you stated. It was the mfg's after thought to install a cat without regard long term effects that was the problem.

The coerderiate substrates used in 1983 and failed, are the same used today and they are proven to not have been the issue.

 

[webbie]

BTW, I checked in with John Gulland over at woodheat.org to see if I was out of touch or not. His summary:

"I find myself in total agreement with your take"

Not to quote him out of context - he's not referring to my opinion on any types of stoves, etc etc - but just that where we are is somewhat as I started in this thread ( I asked him to read it and summarized my take.)

I would hope that Chris nor anyone else assumes what my take on the details is. My main point is that one the current proposed regs are not, as a whole, as beneficial as they could be to the industry or the consumers...

Now, nothing is perfect. However, when you have a chance to fix things which are less than...before they occur....you should take it (IMHO).

Anyway, I can't say my views are correct. They are mine only, but are based on 35 years of experience in and around the industry. I also have no dogs in the fight and have made it clear many a time that I love cat (and non-cat) stoves. Heck, not too many people here can claim they were pumping cats in 1982.
https://www.hearth.com/talk/wiki/concorde-catalytic/

What I do not agree with is anything which confuses the potential consumer. That's what we were about when I had a store...and that's what Hearth.com is/was about. Again, not a place where perfection can be reached, but hearth.com along with woodheat.org and perhaps only a very few other places - are "no marketing" zones. Hopefully it will stay that way. I think it benefits everyone.

 

[HotCoals]

I don't think wood burning can get much cleaner then it is without even more input from the consumer which of course leaves more room for error.
More education with the stoves we have now would go a long ways I would think.
I still say too many are burning wood in this country that can afford cleaner options. I'm sure this will go over like a lead balloon,maybe means testing to be able to burn wood? Go ahead and scowl but someday it may happen.
I think first it will come down to a certain number of acres will be needed or maybe only in a certain population density per square mile kinda deal that would come from the feds.

 

[begreen]

The feds may establish the regs, but it's up to the states to adopt (or not) and enforce.

 

[Grisu]

I don't think wood burning can get much cleaner then it is without even more input from the consumer which of course leaves more room for error.
More education with the stoves we have now would go a long ways I would think.
I still say too many are burning wood in this country that can afford cleaner options. I'm sure this will go over like a lead balloon,maybe means testing to be able to burn wood? Go ahead and scowl but someday it may happen.
I think first it will come down to a certain number of acres will be needed or maybe only in a certain population density per square mile kinda deal that would come from the feds.

Since we will be soon running out of alternatives, I doubt that woodburning will be outlawed. Better get those next gen stoves as clean as possible since there will be a lot more of them. And don't forget to plant some trees.

 

[BrotherBart]

Outlaw wood burning? Yeah right. Fireplaces are here to stay.

 

[begreen]

The issue is not so much with improving the stoves, most certified EPA models are already very clean burning. Making a 30NC burn 18% cleaner is not going to solve much when the number of old stoves and fireplaces still burning is magnitudes greater. Compound that with poor wood, poor maintenance and poor operation and we'll be a lot closer to the meat of the problem.

 

[Grisu]

How bad are actually standard fireplaces in terms of particulate emissions? We are all talking about stove regulations but maybe it's about time to do something about people burning green wood in a fireplace.

 

[Bigg_Redd]

If a wood stove manufacture is actually pushing for these regulations it is very hard for me to believe that the new regulations will be the end to wood burning. Instead it will mean a cleaner burning more efficient stove.

For me this is beside the point. Stoves burn plenty clean now so why is anyone pushing for tighter regs? Are people dying from brown/black lung that I am not aware of? At some point regulators regulate for regulation sake and that is harmful and a perversion of good government. Just because new regs aren't worst case scenario doesn't mean they are good.