SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Key term "older model". Sounds like EPA stuff is unaffected.
Registration of wood stoves.
- Thread starter Riddlefiddle
- 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. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
True enough technically, but keep in mind that the quote you are responding to also dates back to May 2019, and is conditional speculation that I've found no evidence has become law. Another quote from that same dated AP release:
"Air pollution enforcement will focus on voluntary compliance, said conservation commissioner Jason Brune"
Fairbanks-area residents face new controls on pollution from heat sources
The draft rules made public by the state are expected to result in additional bans on burning wood and coal in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, as well as higher fuel oil and electric bills.
Alaska borough residents face new heating pollution controls
Residents of an Alaska borough who burn wood, coal and oil for heat are facing new air pollution control measures.
apnews.com
This is all I can find, I don't know whether the Governor signed it into law or not, and I have not read the actual wording of the legislation. The article is vague as to what older stoves are, I'm assuming that it would mean anything older that does not meet the new 2020 emission standards.
OK. You were quoting taking points on an eight month old draft bill -- which is apparently now dead --as if it were law, and using it to argue a point about governmental coercion, when in fact what seems to be the case is that folks in that borough are being offered funding for cost saving, environmentally beneficial, and public health improving upgrades to their home heating system of choice.
Whether intended or not, that is very misleading, and even worse some people are happy to be mislead if it feeds into their preconceptions about how the world works. Glad we're more clear about things now.
Whether intended or not, that is very misleading, and even worse some people are happy to be mislead if it feeds into their preconceptions about how the world works. Glad we're more clear about things now.
It was not my intention to be misleading, only that the legislation was there or had been there for the Governor to sign. All it takes is a new administration, and it could be right back on the table. I guess my take away from this whole thing, should be concerning to all of us who burn wood for heat. Things can start small and locally and can expand over time. I wasn't trying to be an alarmist.
In my area we have occasional "air quality advisories" due to temperature inversions. If wood burners were registered the health dept. could send out emails such as---If you have an alternative heating source please discontinue wood burning until the advisory has expired--- The way it is now I light my insert, turn on the news and then find out it wasn't the best idea. This can happen 2 or 3 times in a winter or some years not at all . In areas with more frequent inversions this could be a possible use for registration.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
They already taxed it when you bought it. There's tax on the fuel, the splitter, the saw, and many other parts in this process. If you buy the wood, then that is taxed too. The man is already getting paid, don't worry. They have much more to worry about than wood stoves, which are a tiny minority of this country.
Bad LP
Minister of Fire
Not when I buy it in NH or stove shop took my cash. My spliter is electric so the tax man only gets a few shillings for the gas in the saw. LOL.
However he did get his blood on my wages.
Bingo!!
Bought my saw through the farm, no tax, bought my splitter used, no tax, and when was the last time you paid tax to a private individual selling firewood, it's called CASH. Don't think they won't look at wood stoves in the future, like a gas guzzler tax on big trucks. If they want to discourage an activity, they tax it, I don't smoke and never have, but look at cigarettes. I was behind a guy the other day that dropped $150 on a cartons of ciggys.
CaptSpiff
Minister of Fire
You missed the "potential biggie" here in the land of big Govt: property tax.
A central air system install, where there was none, will cost about $10-12K to the contractor. The town requires a permit for that and happily adds that to the home's assessed valuation. Here on LI,NY that's good for about $100-150 per year on your home tax bill, forever.
Install a new swimming pool with concrete sitting area? That adds between $800-1000 per year to your annual Property Tax bill, forever.
So it is not beyond reason to assume the "registration" will finally catch those dastardly homeowners who install a wood-stove for cash and try to avoid the Town Tax
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
There's not a lot to be gained in a home value from wood burning appliances. In some cases they could devalue the house.
Around here they use any excuse to raise your property taxes. Just because a house has a wood burning appliance doesn't mean you have to use it.
I dont think burning wood for heat will survive the Green new deal should it ever get implemented. I am sure it is in the crosshairs like everything else. There are just way too many people on this planet for things staying the same. It's the monster that just keeps growing. No government ever stops coming up with ideas to control your life.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
CaptSpiff
Minister of Fire
That is absolutely the stated goal: zero emissions.
Naturally the details get worked out in negotiations and agreements. Nothing happens immediately, but within 10 years all emissions will be regulated on a point source (ie individual appliances). Our open fireplaces will probably have a "user fee" under the guise of recreational use, addressed by both federal, state and local regulations.
Personally I prefer the details be managed by state or local entities, under umbrella type regulations from the fed. But I'm under no illusion that the "chimney" will join the horse carriage in the history books.
Some refuse to admit it. Seems like they deflect from it for some reason. It may not happen in my lifetime. It will happen.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Wood as an energy source will never be outlawed. It's renewable which offsets the emissions, which in practical terms makes wood heat zero emissions. Wood burning appliances will become more and more efficient, with lower and lower emissions. At some point all of the particulates will remain in the ash and the chimney will only exhaust hot air and water vapor.
Use the hoops that California went through on ZEVs, PZEX, SULEVS and PHEVs (probably missed a few. It depends where the bubble is drawn. Up until Navajo Electric shut down, PZEVs could be cleaner than ZEVs charged with grid power. The devil is always in the details. The Manomet study that Mass paid for came to the conclusion that burning biomass was dirtier than coal. Even the authors came out afterwards and admitted that they were told what conclusions they needed to come to prior to writing the study. One of the big issues of late is the speed where a technology breaks even on sustainable, In order to make climate change "real" to the general population is to accelerate the impact to shorten the time scale, thus there are discussions that a technology is not sustainable enough and should be net positive in environmental impact.
There are lot of fingers pointed at the Drax power generation station in the UK. Its was converted to burn biomass to the tune of 7.5 million tons a year. Its generally regarded that it burns about 10 % of the wood pellets produced in the world. It was a coal plant previously. So this is great progress from the UKs point of view? Now pull back and look at the world climate point of view and it gets bit dicier, the UK doesn't have a lot of trees and they sure dont want to cut them to make pellets so they ship the pellets in from the southeast of the US and Canada. I am unsure for the Canadian supplies but the US pellets are made from plantation grown genetically altered wood. This is not scraps from lumber operations these are trees designed and grown to be ground up into pellets. How do these pellets get to the UK? they go on cargo ships fueled by bunker C fuel oil. There are also issues that the nutrients are getting sucked out of the soil in the US and never being returned, this degrades the soil long term.
Biomass plants are not incredibly efficient, they do not burn as hot as coal so the cycle efficiency is lower than coal. The plants generally need to be base loaded. Compare that to a natural gas combined cycle plant at a considerable higher efficiency which can vary its output.
Now it gets bit murkier on exactly how sustainable Drax is. It all depends on who draws the boundaries. The same thing is going to apply to the Green New Deal.
There are lot of fingers pointed at the Drax power generation station in the UK. Its was converted to burn biomass to the tune of 7.5 million tons a year. Its generally regarded that it burns about 10 % of the wood pellets produced in the world. It was a coal plant previously. So this is great progress from the UKs point of view? Now pull back and look at the world climate point of view and it gets bit dicier, the UK doesn't have a lot of trees and they sure dont want to cut them to make pellets so they ship the pellets in from the southeast of the US and Canada. I am unsure for the Canadian supplies but the US pellets are made from plantation grown genetically altered wood. This is not scraps from lumber operations these are trees designed and grown to be ground up into pellets. How do these pellets get to the UK? they go on cargo ships fueled by bunker C fuel oil. There are also issues that the nutrients are getting sucked out of the soil in the US and never being returned, this degrades the soil long term.
Biomass plants are not incredibly efficient, they do not burn as hot as coal so the cycle efficiency is lower than coal. The plants generally need to be base loaded. Compare that to a natural gas combined cycle plant at a considerable higher efficiency which can vary its output.
Now it gets bit murkier on exactly how sustainable Drax is. It all depends on who draws the boundaries. The same thing is going to apply to the Green New Deal.
Similar threads
