Smoke Dragon is beating my EPA stove

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Todd said:
I don't know if the EPA really needed to get involved in this whole wood stove thing? Local and State Governments were coming out with their own ordinances and pretty much forcing manufactures to produce cleaner burning stoves before the EPA got involved. Let the private sector, State and locals decide what's best for them not the Feds.

Mont. city breathes easier after phasing out old wood stoves --report

Gayathri Vaidyanathan, E&E reporter

Published: Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Phasing out old wood stoves in Libby, Mont., since 2005 has helped improved air quality and may have improved children's health, the nonprofit Health Effects Institute said in a report released today.

Smoke from wood stoves is associated with respiratory illness in children and adults, including increased rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits. About 10 million stoves are used in the United States, U.S. EPA says.

"This is a study in one city, but with 9 and 10 million wood stoves in operation across the U.S., it's nice to know that moving to less polluting wood stoves can result in an improvement in air quality," said Bob O'Keefe, vice president of the Boston-based institute.

Libby has frequently failed to meet national air standards for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5) in diameter. Particles that small can penetrate the nose and throat, and reach the lungs and heart.

But the city now meets the PM 2.5 standards due to the phaseout, which replaced 95 percent of high-polluting stoves with more efficient models or with stoves that burn alternate fuels, O'Keefe said.

The replacement of 1,200 older wood stoves with newer, more efficient models was coordinated by researchers at the University of Montana, Missoula, and began in 2005. The mountainous region has always suffered from particulate matter pollution during wintertime as people light stoves to keep out the cold.

As researchers replaced stoves, they measured levels of PM 2.5 in the atmosphere. Measurements were made outdoors, in schools and within 20 homes where stoves were swapped.

Outdoor air quality improved dramatically, with PM 2.5 concentration in winter falling by 30 percent after the phaseout program was completed. The quality of indoor air depended on the way the stoves were used.

"Generally, air quality inside homes also improved, but stoves remain relatively high emitters compared with oil or gas furnaces, and proper stove operation is an important determinant of emissions," the study says.

The researchers also did a rough survey of illnesses and the numbers of days children were absent from school. In the years following the swaps, parents reported fewer cases of wheezing in children. The most striking reductions were for other symptoms including itchy or watery eyes, sore throat, bronchitis, influenza and throat infection.

Further research needs to be done to show that there is a strong correlation between hospital admission rates and illness and wood stove replacement, the report says.
 
This report gives support to my theory that the future of home heat will involve super insulation of homes. Mild winter days would require no central heating whatsoever and only very cold days would require the additional heat of a small wood stove or other heating appliance.
 
Anyone else see the irony w/ Libby Montana being so concerned about air quality and to meeting the standards for particulate matter in air? :shut:

Glad to read that, but I wish they had worried about fine particulate matter in air a bit sooner for the sake of many homes in the US.

pen
 
Stump_Branch said:
BrotherBart said:
sebring said:
I think having air come up through the fire is something the EPA stoves have abandoned too quickly. They can still have the air preheated and secondary burn tubes and all the good stuff.

Which of the old wood stoves had the air fed through a grate from the bottom?

Dutchwest 207 cl not sure about other models.
They had coal/wood option, brass spins dials for over fire air, under fire air and a dial at the top for the cat.

However they state in the manual that the underfire air coming from the ash pan shakers was for coal only. Over fire air knob is stated as wood fire, along with cat knob, for that primative system.

Doesnt stop the older gentelman who has it, when he burns wood from using the underair. No use in explaning, win some lose some.
Hence, so many Dutchwest users had watped parts, etc. They were not supposed to use the ash pan air knob!.
Another pre EPA stove with air intake bellow the fire was the Surdiac, they had several similar models, the Gotha 513 and 713, later the 515 and 715, that I know of. Great systems IMO, thermostatically controlled air intake door was located behind the stove and directly behind the ash pan feeding the fire from below.
 
pen said:
Anyone else see the irony w/ Libby Montana being so concerned about air quality and to meeting the standards for particulate matter in air? :shut:

Glad to read that, but I wish they had worried about fine particulate matter in air a bit sooner for the sake of many homes in the US.

pen

Great point! For 15 years I worked for the same company in Missoula that operated the mill in Libby. The logging company along with others have totally contaminated that place. Clean air from wood stoves was the least of their worries. Hate to bite the hand that fed me but we did a lot of crap that wasn't right and now we sleep in the bed we made. Things have gotten better and the industry is starting to realize that a lot of their actions is what led to tighter government regulation.

Back to the wood stove issue (cat stoves excluded because I have never had one) My EPA stove will produce the same heat as my previous non-EPA stoves but with less fuel and cleaner air. How can that not be a good thing no matter who takes credit for it?
 
Lynch said:
the old stoves are still good if you ask me and work just fine.
the epa stoves are another product of goverment telling us what we need and use.
dont get me wrong the new epa's are great but there was nothing wrong with the ol smoker's either.

I don't like anyone mandating any unnecessary rules to anyone else. In that way, I'm about as libertarian as can be. I do appreciate the fact that my Hearthstone doesn't smoke much though. The neighbors like it too.
 
pen said:
Anyone else see the irony w/ Libby Montana being so concerned about air quality and to meeting the standards for particulate matter in air? :shut:

Glad to read that, but I wish they had worried about fine particulate matter in air a bit sooner for the sake of many homes in the US.

pen

Haha! The Vermiculite that insulates my house came from there! Zonolite!
 
No one mentions a nice benefit of not "having" to clean the chimney as much / worry about a chimney fire in the same way.

Lots of evidence if less depositing in the flue for an epa stove.

Even though i can say id rather people just come up with a better idea rather than a government forcing it on them. Id say the topic isnt about the politics of the epa regulations but rather in the difference in design, function and feel of the comparison between the technology of the stoves.

Id fear the epa has been branded as the name for this stage in wood heat technologies history, unfairly. From open pit to present day, changes or "improvements" were going to come.
 
Im still trying to talk my brother into getting back into wood heat.He did a lot of it in the 80s before EPA stoves became common. I guess it was the weekly chimney fires that soured him on it.
 
Stump_Branch said:
No one mentions a nice benefit of not "having" to clean the chimney as much / worry about it the same.

Lots of evidence if less depositing in the flue for an epa stove.

Even though i can say id rather people just come up with a better idea rather than a government forcing it on them. Id say the topic isnt about the politics of the epa regulations but rather in the difference in design, function and feel of the comparison between the technology of the stoves.

Id fear the epa has been branded as the name for this stage in wood heat technologies history, unfairly. From open pit to present day, changes or "improvements" were going to come.
Oh boy, I burnt a non EPA stove for over 30 years and the chimney never had any creosote in it, its the way you burn your stove for crying out loud. Some of the bad info on here is sad.
 
sebring said:
I think having air come up through the fire is something the EPA stoves have abandoned too quickly. They can still have the air preheated and secondary burn tubes and all the good stuff.

In my experience, for burning wood, under-fire air is good for 2 things: startup, and burning down coals that have built up. It's hard to control the burn rate with underfire air.
 
oldspark said:
Stump_Branch said:
No one mentions a nice benefit of not "having" to clean the chimney as much / worry about it the same.

Lots of evidence if less depositing in the flue for an epa stove.

Even though i can say id rather people just come up with a better idea rather than a government forcing it on them. Id say the topic isnt about the politics of the epa regulations but rather in the difference in design, function and feel of the comparison between the technology of the stoves.

Id fear the epa has been branded as the name for this stage in wood heat technologies history, unfairly. From open pit to present day, changes or "improvements" were going to come.
Oh boy, I burnt a non EPA stove for over 30 years and the chimney never had any creosote in it, its the way you burn your stove for crying out loud. Some of the bad info on here is sad.


Agreed. People wont change their tactics so they change the device.

I wasnt saying all pre epas made billowing clouds of smoke or had a weekly chimney fire. Just the amount and threads or comments to a noticed difference in swept amounts and consistency of the sweepings. Just that a change was coming sometime anyhow, epa is just nomenclature. Could just as well have been american lung society phase 3.

I personally am too young to have owner a pre epa, but i have run a few older units with success.
 
oldspark said:
Stump_Branch said:
No one mentions a nice benefit of not "having" to clean the chimney as much / worry about it the same.

Lots of evidence if less depositing in the flue for an epa stove.

Even though i can say id rather people just come up with a better idea rather than a government forcing it on them. Id say the topic isnt about the politics of the epa regulations but rather in the difference in design, function and feel of the comparison between the technology of the stoves.

Id fear the epa has been branded as the name for this stage in wood heat technologies history, unfairly. From open pit to present day, changes or "improvements" were going to come.
Oh boy, I burnt a non EPA stove for over 30 years and the chimney never had any creosote in it, its the way you burn your stove for crying out loud. Some of the bad info on here is sad.

I know I did prolly close to as many years.
Wood stoves are not all that much diff these days..a few tubes or a cat...maybe a baffle or two..still it's burning wood in a box.
But yeah..it's cleaner.
 
What is interesting is that cleaner chimneys weren't even in the plan or their thoughts. But after the stoves started getting installed sweeps started noticing the pipes being cleaner.
 
Stephen in SoKY said:
BrotherBart said:
sebring said:
I think having air come up through the fire is something the EPA stoves have abandoned too quickly. They can still have the air preheated and secondary burn tubes and all the good stuff.

Which of the old wood stoves had the air fed through a grate from the bottom?


Every circulator I've ever seen. Wood/coal circulators will have overfire air in the feed door, but primary air is under grate on both wood and wood/coal.

ETA: in my opinion the thing the most EPA stoves abandoned too quickly was bi-metallic thermostat controlled air, regardless of where it enters the firebox.


What about PE Summit's EBT - is it for extending burn times or for increasing efficiency or both?
 
My Kickapoo BBR (non EPA of course) stove that I burned back in the 80's was my favorite of all I have ever used. It was an excellent design, used underfire air, was easy to control, and was a heat monster.
 
Asoul said:
Stephen in SoKY said:
BrotherBart said:
sebring said:
I think having air come up through the fire is something the EPA stoves have abandoned too quickly. They can still have the air preheated and secondary burn tubes and all the good stuff.

Which of the old wood stoves had the air fed through a grate from the bottom?


Every circulator I've ever seen. Wood/coal circulators will have overfire air in the feed door, but primary air is under grate on both wood and wood/coal.

ETA: in my opinion the thing the most EPA stoves abandoned too quickly was bi-metallic thermostat controlled air, regardless of where it enters the firebox.


What about PE Summit's EBT - is it for extending burn times or for increasing efficiency or both?

I believe it's to prevent smouldering dirty fires, to keep the firebox temp up so it can burn cleanly being a large firebox.. I could be wrong but I think that's the reason they added it..

Ray
 
VCBurner said:
Stump_Branch said:
BrotherBart said:
sebring said:
I think having air come up through the fire is something the EPA stoves have abandoned too quickly. They can still have the air preheated and secondary burn tubes and all the good stuff.

Which of the old wood stoves had the air fed through a grate from the bottom?

Dutchwest 207 cl not sure about other models.
They had coal/wood option, brass spins dials for over fire air, under fire air and a dial at the top for the cat.

However they state in the manual that the underfire air coming from the ash pan shakers was for coal only. Over fire air knob is stated as wood fire, along with cat knob, for that primative system.

Doesnt stop the older gentelman who has it, when he burns wood from using the underair. No use in explaning, win some lose some.
Hence, so many Dutchwest users had watped parts, etc. They were not supposed to use the ash pan air knob!.
Another pre EPA stove with air intake bellow the fire was the Surdiac, they had several similar models, the Gotha 513 and 713, later the 515 and 715, that I know of. Great systems IMO, thermostatically controlled air intake door was located behind the stove and directly behind the ash pan feeding the fire from below.

I disagree see the text snapshot from the CDW manual..

Ray
 

Attachments

  • underfire air supply CDW.jpg
    underfire air supply CDW.jpg
    64 KB · Views: 249
OK. I quit burning wood in my Coal stove. And went back to coal. I still believe the coal stove threw more heat but probably did burn more wood.

The clincher for me was the sudden smell of creosote after a couple days burning wood in that stove. I never had that smell with the Englander 30. So for my chimney's sake Im only EPA for now on..
 
Sometimes when I see pictures of those old antique pot belly stoves I wish I could play with one for a couple days just to see how they did it in the old days. I'm sure it would get old feeding it every couple hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.