EPA issue ban on wood stoves

   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #61  
I see.

I was picturing a typical pellet stove that burns only a little bit of fuel at any given moment, but has a fan forcing air into the fire pot. Pellet stoves are pretty clean burning. It would be difficult to scale that design concept to regular firewood dimensions.

Pellet stoves are listed on the 'Certified Woodstoves' list on the EPA site. Unfortunately it is PDF and not an easily sortable format but if you look through there quite a few of the pellet stoves will not make the 1.5 gram/hour threshold. Those that do tend to be low BTU output stoves. Which begs the question of how the measurements are calculated. I am assuming it is a straight measurement which means the easiest way to meet it is to make the stove smaller and burn less wood/pellets. So instead of installing 1 wood stove to heat your house you install 2 or 3.... you pollute just as much but it's OK because they are certified ;)
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #62  
Pellet stoves are listed on the 'Certified Woodstoves' list on the EPA site. Unfortunately it is PDF and not an easily sortable format but if you look through there quite a few of the pellet stoves will not make the 1.5 gram/hour threshold. Those that do tend to be low BTU output stoves. Which begs the question of how the measurements are calculated. I am assuming it is a straight measurement which means the easiest way to meet it is to make the stove smaller and burn less wood/pellets. So instead of installing 1 wood stove to heat your house you install 2 or 3.... you pollute just as much but it's OK because they are certified ;)

If you google hard enough :laughing:, the wood stove test protocol is described. They are making some changes to the test procedure and test fuel standards IIRC.

There was a Portland (Maine) Press interview a month or two ago with one of the managers of Jotul's Portland location. I believe they assemble Jotul stoves there but the castings are shipped in. Long story short, he made the comment that it would be cheaper to buy everyone a wood shed and teach them how to properly season and burn wood, than to chase technical solutions.

Unfortunately, there is too much truth to that. There are enough people out there producing excessive wood smoke that can't stand to be told anything, and we all pay for their ignorance and stubbornness with polluted air and higher stove costs. Short of some type of enforcement, they aren't going to change their ways. Personally, I lean more toward fixing the broken people than overly messing with stove designs. :) There are some stove designs that do need to be abandoned though.
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #63  
I could see forced air combustion as an easy way to meet the standard. For in the room stoves, I wouldn't like that if it were designed such that it won't burn as well as a normal stove does now without a fan--and it probably wouldn't. For burners installed outside of the living space, it wouldn't be much of an issue or new. Most people probably aren't familiar with the background of the eight New England states suing the EPA to force them to enforce clean air standards in a way that matters to New England. This article is a reasonable overview. Connecticut, 7 other states seek EPA crackdown on Midwest pollution | The CT Mirror Maine was a part of that group before our Tea Party Gov. came along. This battle concerning "tailpipe" states has been going on for a long time now in one way or another. This is the crux of the problem: "Gov. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire said her state could take every car off the road and still see ozone levels drop by just 3 percent." The same is true in Maine both for tailpipe and tourism reasons. You could take Maine cars off the road and still fail the pollution standards. Making all Maine vehicles super clean will not fix the problem. We have no control over the vehicles visiting, upwind, or the power plants in other states. Back in the late 90's we tried emission testing for autos in the southern counties. It was a disaster. The company the state contracted with to do the annual testing was incompetent. People could take their cars to three test stations and get three very different results--all on the same day. It was such an embarrassment that the state canceled the whole program. The bottom line for New England air quality and all that goes with that (water quality, forest and human health) is, it is not in our power to fix it well enough by making local changes. The air is already well polluted before it gets to us. That is not an excuse for us to do nothing here, but it is a hurdle we cannot jump without federal actions.
Did you know that the auto industry investigated cleaning the air with on board filters on cars. It was discovered that those systems could remove pollutants at far greater rates than all the expense to control combustion. In short the car could be used as a scrubber of pollutants and could scrub far more from the air then the car created at far less expense. Well the EPA wasn't interested in that all! Got to wonder about the motives, build machines that remove more pollutants than expelled or just slowly crush the auto industry in this country. Don't want CO2 in the air!, build machines to remove it, that's way more efficient than messing with car engines, or your fireplace. HS
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #64  
A few days ago I tossed some wood into the wood stove and went outside....

What the heck, there was smoke all over the place. :confused3: At first I thought it was from our stove but the smoke was all around the house which did not make sense. We are on the top of a hill and we seldom have smoke from anyone else but this was too much smoke to be from our stove. I even walked 1/4 mile to our gate and there was smoke everywhere. No way was this from our stove...

That night I checked the website that covers goings on in our county and people were complaining about the smoke. Turns out the state was doing a controlled burn of 4-500 acres about 10 miles away and the smoke was from that fire. I happen to drive buy the burned area and it was a small fire to burn off undergrowth that the state does every few years. That one controlled burn produced more smoke than all of the wood burners in our county will produce in a life time.

Later,
Dan
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #65  
Unfortunately, there is too much truth to that. There are enough people out there producing excessive wood smoke that can't stand to be told anything, and we all pay for their ignorance and stubbornness with polluted air and higher stove costs. Short of some type of enforcement, they aren't going to change their ways. Personally, I lean more toward fixing the broken people than overly messing with stove designs. :) There are some stove designs that do need to be abandoned though.

There is a guy down that way that built a house and put in an outside wood boiler. I drive by there every day to go to work. Sometimes he would have it so damped down it was literally just pouring dense smoke. With the stack being so low the smoke would just hug the ground. I couldn't imagine his neighbors were too happy with that and it only lasted maybe the first two heating seasons. Now he has built a shed around the boiler and has an array of solar thermal panels.... apparently enforcement does work on some of the worse offenders. I don't believe he has burned his boiler in several years. We do have inversions here and the air quality people do fine for burning a non-permitted device on 'no burn' days. My pellet stove is permitted by the county by once I get absorbed by the local municipality it will no longer be permitted on 'no burn' days. My stove was not listed on the EPA list but from googling around it appears to be between .7 and .9 grams/hour.
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #66  
Did you know that the auto industry investigated cleaning the air with on board filters on cars. It was discovered that those systems could remove pollutants at far greater rates than all the expense to control combustion. In short the car could be used as a scrubber of pollutants and could scrub far more from the air then the car created at far less expense. Well the EPA wasn't interested in that all! Got to wonder about the motives, build machines that remove more pollutants than expelled or just slowly crush the auto industry in this country. Don't want CO2 in the air!, build machines to remove it, that's way more efficient than messing with car engines, or your fireplace. HS

If we would stop bulldozing good trees and forests, and harvest the dead, dying or weak trees, and quit planting shrubs and calling them trees, and also quit covering over good grass fields with concrete for the next shopping center, nature could filter that CO2 for us, and solve the problem more efficiently yet. As long as we keep putting more concrete down, the problems will get worse.
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #67  
Hot off the press for those interested in wood burning violations issued in the SF Bay Area...

North Bay hotbed for illegal burning - ContraCostaTimes.com

Many areas with violations are AG and very rural with an abundance of wood and no Natural Gas.

There is a drive for more enforcement and staff to carry it out.
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #68  
Hot off the press for those interested in wood burning violations issued in the SF Bay Area...

North Bay hotbed for illegal burning - ContraCostaTimes.com

Many areas with violations are AG and very rural with an abundance of wood and no Natural Gas.

There is a drive for more enforcement and staff to carry it out.

man. im soooo glad i moved out of California.

A state that outlays cheap heat for cleaner air, but lets it busses run belching smoke cause its too expensive to fix them
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #69  
Have to admit I know several scofflaws... these are older retired folks that have lived in their homes for decades... have large stockpiles of seasoned and split hardwood and burn to keep warm and openly defy the ban.
 
   / EPA issue ban on wood stoves #70  
I made a post regarding this when people COULD send letters and emails to the EPA and tell them to stop. no one listened and post was full of green people saying how GOOD it would be and that no one would be effected. see here
http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/friendly-politics/300792-rural-friends-epa-going-after.html
so I warned people no one listened and no one participated I included links to the info and links to contact them to stop it or at least tell them to stop.

Mark
 

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

5-Bottom Plow (A52128)
5-Bottom Plow (A52128)
Case IH 8610 Tub Grinder (A50514)
Case IH 8610 Tub...
2017 Ram 5500 4x4 Utility Truck, VIN # 3C7WRNEL7HG551780 (A48836)
2017 Ram 5500 4x4...
2013 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan (A50324)
2013 Chevrolet...
2015 CAT 573c Fellerbuncher Cutter (A48836)
2015 CAT 573c...
Handlair 555 Grain Vac (A50514)
Handlair 555 Grain...
 
Top