One step closer to permanent wood heat ban in California?

[Country Geek]

An example, the current proposal for average gas mileage for cars AND light trucks is 56.2 MPG in 2025. Does anyone seriously think we're going to get there? And yet all the automakers have to work toward it or lobby against it. Good business for politicians and lobbyists I guess.

There have been a couple of posts on this thread that include references to MPG numbers so it's worth remembering:

1. The window-sticker MPG method was changed a few years ago with the result that most window-sticker MPG ratings were lowered, so when you say a new car doesn't get the mileage of an older car, make sure you are comparing apples to apples. A 1990 rating of 30 mpg is not the same as a 2015 rating of 30 mpg.

2. The CAFE numbers that are used to compute fleet economy for fuel economy regulations are yet again different and much higher than EPA numbers. So no, the government is not requiring new cars to get 56.2 MPG in 2020 according to the EPA window sticker. The value of the rating that we are familiar with will be much lower and not nearly as unreasonable as the 56.2 number seems to be.

 

[dave1949]

It's been a very mild winter (don't think we've even seen any frost!) and so far I've only made it through a cord and a half, Dave. Usually one fire in the morning warms up the house, and if it's sunny it'll stay comfortable all day and through the evening. If it's cloudy, I'll light another smaller fire at dinner time, and there'll be enough embers the next morning to start another fire easily.

We had lots of cold and rainy weather (and even snow once!) the winter of '12-'13, but even if I used twice what I did this year, what I cut last summer will still end up lasting several more years. It's nice to be that far ahead on processing wood! Still have several huge piles of brush/downed trees to clean up, but it looks like wildfire season will be starting very early this year and I'll have no way to get rid of the slash. I already have a huge mound of it just from cleaning up the winter blow down, and it'll be a year before that stuff is ready for burning. So it looks like I'll have the rest of the year off from firewood duty.

We don't have the burning and wildfire worries here that you have. Still need a permit though and they don't issue them when the fire danger is high due to dry conditions.

I have found my 6" PTO chipper to be very useful to avoid living surrounded by brush piles. My cutting is always on the border/edge of our cleared areas. I chip everything under ~2" and any junk wood that will fit in the chipper too.

Your oak should last for years if you keep it dry and it gets air circulation. It sounds like your supply exceeds your needs like mine does. There are worse problems.

 

[Country Geek]

Looks like a nice stove. I was looking at the original regs which pushed the reg down to 1.3 g/hr, which the NC30 and most other stoves of reasonable size don't meet. Thanks to Dave's links, I find that last month they moved the limit up to 2 g/hr for 2020. That points out the concern about EPA regulations. They propose a standard and cause lots of confusion and cost - then change it again arbitrarily.

Or maybe they made a proposal, then as a result of feedback from stakeholders, modified it to be less strict. I'm not sure that's the bad thing you're portraying it as.

 

[thirdroc17]

All I know is, most of the people around here burn wood, and unless there is a gale force wind, the smoke and stench outside is unbearable at times. But why do we need laws, the steel towns of days gone by that were dark with smoke in the middle of the day didn't hurt anyone, right?

 

[KennyG]

There have been a couple of posts on this thread that include references to MPG numbers so it's worth remembering:

1. The window-sticker MPG method was changed a few years ago with the result that most window-sticker MPG ratings were lowered, so when you say a new car doesn't get the mileage of an older car, make sure you are comparing apples to apples. A 1990 rating of 30 mpg is not the same as a 2015 rating of 30 mpg.

2. The CAFE numbers that are used to compute fleet economy for fuel economy regulations are yet again different and much higher than EPA numbers. So no, the government is not requiring new cars to get 56.2 MPG in 2020 according to the EPA window sticker. The value of the rating that we are familiar with will be much lower and not nearly as unreasonable as the 56.2 number seems to be.

The CAFE averages are incredibly complex and do get revised from time to time. But the current CAFE average is not much over 30 mpg so we are talking about almost doubling gas mileage in 10 years. As nearly as I can tell from what I've read, 56.2 CAFE average would require that the average car/light truck have a window sticker average well over 40 mpg 10 years from now. Unreasonable enough.

 

[bigtiller]

I don't know how many people have breathing difficulties such as bronchitis, COPD, asthma, emphysema and so on but I imagine they all would all enjoy living in a smoke free neighborhood.

Have you considered that they may be living is TOO smoke-free of an environment?

I really doubt that because smoking cigarettes and work place environment is what is most responsible for the damage to the respiratory system.

 

[MH8675309]

There aint no way people burning wood for heat has anywhere near the effect on smog as factories and utility companies. Another idiot idea from the west coast. Perhaps they should separate from the union,,

 

[ultrarunner]

My beef is the one size fits all guilty as charged approach.

Even before unleaded fuels... people that drove smoker cars were cited for public nuisance... it's the same for smoking out a neighborhood from burning to keep your home warm and trash burning has long been regulated.

One interesting current exemption is wood fired cooking... my old porcelain and chrome Wedgwood stove with wood on one side and gas on another could become sought after.

I grew up around people with those same stoves... even had coils for hot water and they worked really well and never bothered anybody... small dry kindling makes for a hot and fast fire.

 

[3930dave]

Controlled studies of air borne particulate's impacts on a population are difficult to achieve. There have been such studies however that indicate higher mortality rates associated with particulate matter. It is a lot to wade through and above my medical paygrade but there are multiple scientific studies and results here: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/A3110011.pdf

There is medical science that tells us fine particulates have a deleterious effect on human lung function. I don't think it is a stretch to say limiting those particulates limits those unhealthy effects. The Harvard Six study covered in the above link found that follow-ups that occurred after two of the six cities in the study had reduced their particulates also showed declines in related mortality.

Women in developing countries who routinely cook over wood or dung fires are known to suffer from that exposure, which would be extreme by comparison to typical North American exposures. As such, they serve as unfortunate medical study guinea pigs.

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves

Daily exposure to toxic smoke from traditional cooking practices is one of the world痴 biggest but least well-known killers. Penetrating deep into the lungs of its victims, this acrid smoke causes a range of deadly chronic and acute health effects such as child pneumonia, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and heart disease, as well as low birth-weights in children born to mothers whose pregnancies are spent breathing toxic fumes from traditional cookstoves. The evidence is robust and compelling: exposure to household air pollution (HAP) is responsible for a staggering number of preventable illnesses and deaths each year. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that exposure to smoke from the simple act of cooking constitutes the fourth leading risk factor for disease in developing countries, and causes 4.3 million premature deaths per year exceeding deaths attributable to malaria or tuberculosis. In addition, tens of millions more fall sick with illnesses that could readily be prevented with improved adoption of clean and efficient cookstoves and fuels.

Thanks for that article Dave, I am interested in seeing any research. At the end of the report, the authors are reluctant to draw any firm conclusions (being responsible scientists), citing various dissenting opinions.

Something else to keep in mind about with that report - they are talking about Combustion Related Particulate Matter, in general. I'd call that painting with a pretty broad brush.

It is pretty widely recognized today that firefighters have higher cancer rates than the general population. I've seen it suggested that despite much better protective gear, today's firefighters have even higher cancer rates than those of pre-WWII firefighters - the likely culprit being the combustion byproducts of plastics burning in modern fires.

Long way of saying...... it stands to reason that not all Particulate Matter is equally evil. Banning private burning of wood may not accomplish much, if the biggest problems are caused by commercial incineration of plastic.

Unfortunately, the first priority of legislators is to make their life easy, so they much prefer to take a One Size Fits All approach. Doesn't sit well with ur, nor me either.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating...... given the higher concentration of wood burning activity in European areas like ur mentions, we should be seeing epidemiological data indicating problems IF woodsmoke is a significant issue. Many Euro nations have a big incentive to deal with these problems (given they actually exist) early, as they typically have state-funded public medical systems. Not an issue on that side of the pond, AFAIK - I'm still receptive to being informed otherwise, aka keeping an open mind.

A lot of important progress has been made by programs that supply small efficient cookstoves to people in developing countries - that one item can make a big difference in people's lives.

So no, I'm not a big advocate of dung-fired cookstoves ( ) , and I don't imagine there's much of that going on in Cali. (ur - perhaps up in Marin County ? :laughing: ).

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

All I know is, most of the people around here burn wood, and unless there is a gale force wind, the smoke and stench outside is unbearable at times. But why do we need laws, the steel towns of days gone by that were dark with smoke in the middle of the day didn't hurt anyone, right?

Being a border state, I know something of the troubled Michigan economy. A lot of people are using wood, because they can't afford to do otherwise.

That said, whether someone is using a new $5,000 stove, or something 60 years old, there is no good reason to have a fire that is always smoking badly.

I don't consider ignorance or laziness to be good reasons.

Rgds, D.