Problems with Burning Old Non-Certified Wood Stoves - Tip of the Iceberg

  • 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.
Martin Strand III

Martin Strand III

New Member
Nov 20, 2005
763
NW MI near nowhere
In a current thread, "cost" ($$) is given as a reason not to upgrade to a modern Phase II EPA certified wood stove.

Well, I'm here to tell you there are more ways to look at things than just admiring yourself in the mirror and seeing things through your smoke grey colored glasses.

COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Wood Stove One (1) Hour Emissions/Overall Efficiency

Old Non-Certified: 30 -50 Grams/40%- 60%

EPA Certified: 2 - 7 Grams/60% - 90%

COST TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT

Unless you burn wood you get for free, heating with wood costs as much, or more, than other heat sources.

$0.09/Hour
Electric heat pump
NG - Hi efficiency, central heat
Oil - Hi efficiency, central heat
NG - central heat
Oil - central heat

$0.16/Hour
Certified wood stove - hard or softwood
Pellet stove
LPG - Hi efficiency, central heat

$0.19/Hr
Electric resistance - central heat
LPG - central heat
Old non- certified wood stove - hard or softwood - this also causes the most pollution

COST TO YOUR HEALTH (Burning cleaner is healthier)

Wood smoke has been shown to be more toxic than cigarette smoke and 12 X the cancer risk for chronic exposure. Diesel exhause is the worst for pollution.

Don't take my word for it. Check out:
www.epa.gov/woodstoves
www.pscleanair.org

Bottom line in my view is that if we don't "fix it" ourselves, someone else later surely will; i.e., the "smoke police", the EPA, Big Brother with a small particle detector and a padlock for your old wood stove or somebody else you won't like, guaranteed.

Aye,
Marty
 
What kind of vehicle do you drive, Marty?
 
Big Brother has already pretty much fixed it other than loopholes. Stoves have been clean for almost 20 years now...sure, there are OWB and Central Heaters which are not clean.

I think when you look at the numbers overall, the older and dirtier stoves are a small part of the actual wood burned.
 
I am attempting to show readers of this thread that burning wood is not as economical as many wood purchasers who burn wood seem to think and that anyone still using an older pre-Phase II stove is not just adversely affecting themselves but the environment and others as well.

I agree that more for the environment can be done than only "burning clean" in a wood stove; however, this is primarily a hearth forum and not a "totally green or be banned" forum.

Aye,
Marty
 
I guess we could all rant and rave about Phase-II vs. old non-EPA stoves. As time goes on, people will either change out their old non-EPA stove due problems, lack of parts, etc. or they will stop using them. I am sure over the yrs. that a decent amount of people have. I think a better argument would be why builders are allowed to still install pre-fab fireplaces or open air type fireplaces. Now some people will make the argument that these are more cosmetic items that aren't used that much. I would venture to say that a decent amount (20 %) of these people use these on a continual basis (ie 3 to 4 times/week). Moreover, they are notorius for leaking room air up the pre-fab chimmney. There was this girl I used to date who had one of these in the townhouse she owned. Fre-fab fireplace used every once in a while. Doors open all the time. She complained that her winter electric bills (heat pump) were sky hign. Checked it out, damper kept wide open. Closed damper, next months bill decreased by 100.00, and that month was even colder. So if you really look at it, 60% of homes built today are bulit with some type of fireplace. Large majority of people know very little about them or how to use them. so when you factor in poorly efficient applicance coupled with poor information on how to properly use the thing. They become more burdeonsome economically and ecologically then the person burning that ole' non EPA stove/insert.
 
some places do regulate it. Only EPA phase 2 or Colorado Phase 3 appliances can be installed in the front range. Other, less populated parts of colorado are under no restrictions, but the population density is like 1 person per 10 square miles LOL.
 
Marty S said:
In a current thread, "cost" ($$) is given as a reason not to upgrade to a modern Phase II EPA certified wood stove.

Well, I'm here to tell you there are more ways to look at things than just admiring yourself in the mirror and seeing things through your smoke grey colored glasses.

COST TO THE ENVIRONMENT

Wood Stove One (1) Hour Emissions/Overall Efficiency

Old Non-Certified: 30 -50 Grams/40%- 60%

EPA Certified: 2 - 7 Grams/60% - 90%

COST TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT

Unless you burn wood you get for free, heating with wood costs as much, or more, than other heat sources.

$0.09/Hour
Electric heat pump
NG - Hi efficiency, central heat
Oil - Hi efficiency, central heat
NG - central heat
Oil - central heat

$0.16/Hour
Certified wood stove - hard or softwood
Pellet stove
LPG - Hi efficiency, central heat

$0.19/Hr
Electric resistance - central heat
LPG - central heat
Old non- certified wood stove - hard or softwood - this also causes the most pollution

COST TO YOUR HEALTH (Burning cleaner is healthier)

Wood smoke has been shown to be more toxic than cigarette smoke and 12 X the cancer risk for chronic exposure. Diesel exhause is the worst for pollution.

Don't take my word for it. Check out:
www.epa.gov/woodstoves
www.pscleanair.org

Bottom line in my view is that if we don't "fix it" ourselves, someone else later surely will; i.e., the "smoke police", the EPA, Big Brother with a small particle detector and a padlock for your old wood stove or somebody else you won't like, guaranteed.

Aye,
Marty
Click to expand...
A little smoke or a lot of smoke, It's still CO neutral, I'm not digging up dinosaur coffins to burn in the smoke dragon...

I don't know where your numbers are coming from, but I'd consider the source HIGHLY suspect on fuel costs - I know our gas bills have dropped by about 90% or better during the months we burn (we still use gas for h/w, cooking, clothes dryer, etc.) and even when we were buying the infamous short cords of not so seasoned "Cut & split" we were saving BIG money. Approx. cost for winter wood was about what we were paying for one month's NG bill.

Costs were higher for non-wood expenses like building woodshed, chimney sweep, protection gear, and so forth, but that will mostly amortize over the years, and still works out better short term.

I'm not happy about the smoke I put out, but we have looked closely at the priorities of our current cash flow, and have several things that are higher on the stack than replacing the smoke dragons.

Your toxic hazard numbers are also probably quite suspect - especially if they came from the gov't. Just like anything else from the gov't, it's probably twisted for propoganda purposes, and not particularly reliable. Is my woodstove smoke more of a health hazard to my neighbor down the street than my former smoking? Probably, Because there's alot more smoke! If he got as much smoke from my stove as he did from my pipe, I doubt there'd be a measurable difference.

Gooserider
 
Improperly burned wood smoke is really bad stuff. A number of studies have shown that it contains over 100 bad guys (compounds).
It is, of course, another matter as to the danger from these once diluted. Careful studies out west have shown that it can be a substantial ingredient in air pollution. Meaning, in more frank words, that it kills people and gives them diseases.

But, again, it comes down to the sum total. If 95% of wood burning is clean and 5% dirty, that is vastly better than the 100% dirty from long ago. For some relativity, fly over Fl or Central America when they are burning the cane fields!

These things are best addressed over time - as is being done. I think EPA and manufacturers should next do some kind of standard - even a relaxed one - for central heat, OWB's and open fireplaces.

I agree with Martys economics - if someone showed up at Erics door with a new $8,000 clean furnace and only asked for the wood saved (and got $150 a cord for it) - well, it would probably be a good bet.
 
Most everybody who has bought an EPA-compliant stove is all for them. Most of those who have exempt or pre-EPA reg. wood burners probably don't see much harm in continuing to use them.

It think it all depends on the situation. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, cut wood from your own woodlot and your smoke settles over your property (and that's not an uncommon scenario for OWBs), then what's the incentive to upgrade? What's the harm in not doing it? If you have a McMansion in a fancy subdivision, then obviously you're in a radically different situation and you should behave accordingly. Most of us exist somewhere in between those extremes. Personally, I find it a little annoying when people pass judgement on my setup based soley on the age of my wood burner or the amount of wood I burn, without taking any other factors into consideration. That's like saying "Everybody, regardless of any other factors, should drive a hybrid." Or ride a bike.

But Craig's right: mandated cleaner wood burning is inevitable. And I think that's a good thing, but I think it's an evolutonary process. Or at least it ought to be.

Worst case scenario, Marty, the govt. bans the operation of all appliances not meeting the EPA regs. That's not going to hurt you. Nor is the smoke from a relatively small number of grandfathered and exempt wood burners.
 
I don't know about that Marty, how do you figure heating with my 1992 woodstove is costing me more?

I buy 4 cord of wood each spring to be used in 18 months (the next winter). I use 3.5 - 4 cord each year. My cost last year was the most expensive I ever paid tho without a doubt it was an excellent price around here. It cost $130 a cord but everyone else wanted $175 to $200 a cord. So I paid $520 to heat my house in the upcoming 2007 to 2008 winter.

For this heating season I bought 4 cord and paid $105 a cord for $420 for this season.

I have a new (7 year old) well insulated house 1500 sq feet. My furnance is oil fired hot water baseboard heat that I seldom use, Except for hot water, the furnance would run just 4 or 5 times a year. While I have never heated this house with the furnance I'd estimate it would take a minimum of 800 gallons of fuel oil. Now prices have been all over the map since Jan 2006 but the highest I've seen it is $2.43 and the lowest is currently $1.95 so let's just average that out for the 800 gallons and the cost is $1,752. I think 800 gallons is on the lower side but I'd not trying to make the cost higher. With wood my house is warm and I'm sure to keep it that warm with oil would require 1000-1200 gallons.

So this winter I saved $1,752 - $420 = $1,332 and assuming next winter's oil will cost just $1.95 for 800 gallons I'll save $1,560 - $520 = $1,040. So I estimated oil at a lower use than I think would really be the case if I heated with oil and look at the money I did not spend by heating with wood. I am not estimating the cost to clean the chimney at $70 because the cost to service the furnance is about $100+ (haven't had it done since 2003 since I burn 240 gallons every 18 months for hot water).

A local radio show host said for Dec he paid $400 to heat his house with ng, no idea the size or age of that house but that cost is not excessively high based upon what other ng users have said.

Tom
 
tjg911 said:
I don't know about that Marty, how do you figure heating with my 1992 woodstove is costing me more?

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom:

I'm not sure if your '92 wood burner is the "old" non-EPA certified or one of the newer ones (they came out in '95 ?). If the latter, you are burning more wood, putting out more pollutants (as much as 70% more) in everyone's air and increasing you and yours to more health risks than if you burned in a newer stove. It's that simple.

Since you paid maybe 30% less for your wood than others, you may be the exception to the general truth that I stated originally here in this thread, concerning the economics.

Aye,
Marty
 
Marty,

My stove is a VC Defient Encore with a catalytic combustor, got it new in early March 1993 so I assume it was manufactured in 1992. So since it has a cat I assume it's an EPA certified stove.

But all that said, look at the savings - well over $1000 per year burning wood. I thought your point was wood costs more to heat with based upon the facts you stated for the cost to heat with various fuels?

Even at $200 per cord X 4 cord for $800 per season (that is an astronomical amount compared to the $320-$360 I was paying just a few years ago) for wood, that is still way below the cost for heating with oil. Wood is going for $175-$225 per cord around here. While those prices are double what I used to pay and I balk at paying them, oil's cost and volume to heat the house is much higher. There's just no way oil or any other fuel (I have to buy) is even close to the low cost of using my wood stove. Plus it's fun too! :)

Tom
 
Marty S said:
I agree that more for the environment can be done than only "burning clean" in a wood stove; however, this is primarily a hearth forum and not a "totally green or be banned" forum.
Click to expand...

Meaning that you're only willing to debate the issues that you perceive you have the advantage on, no?

Obviously, Marty, if you're paying for firewood, then consumption becomes a factor. I don't see anyone disputing that. I think most people on this forum are smart enough to figure out where the tipping point is.

On the issue of pollution, again, I would say that it's a matter of circumstance, and perhaps one of conscience. Unlike the consumption of fossil fuels, generalizations are not always appropriate when it comes to burning wood.
 
tjg911 said:
Marty,

My stove is a VC Defient Encore with a catalytic combustor, got it new in early March 1993 so I assume it was manufactured in 1992. So since it has a cat I assume it's an EPA certified stove.

But all that said, look at the savings - well over $1000 per year burning wood. I thought your point was wood costs more to heat with based upon the facts you stated for the cost to heat with various fuels?

Even at $200 per cord X 4 cord for $800 per season (that is an astronomical amount compared to the $320-$360 I was paying just a few years ago) for wood, that is still way below the cost for heating with oil. Wood is going for $175-$225 per cord around here. While those prices are double what I used to pay and I balk at paying them, oil's cost and volume to heat the house is much higher. There's just no way oil or any other fuel (I have to buy) is even close to the low cost of using my wood stove. Plus it's fun too! :)

Tom
Click to expand...

Tom:

The thrust of this thread is to discourage burning in older pre-Phase II wood stoves because of reasons stated. Since you are not one who has such a stove, I have no argument with you, am happy you are enjoying your (relatively) inexpensive wood burning accessory heating device and feel you are doing your best.

Aye,
Marty
 
Eric Johnson said:
Marty S said:
I agree that more for the environment can be done than only "burning clean" in a wood stove; however, this is primarily a hearth forum and not a "totally green or be banned" forum.
Click to expand...

Meaning that you're only willing to debate the issues that you perceive you have the advantage on, no?

Obviously, Marty, if you're paying for firewood, then consumption becomes a factor. I don't see anyone disputing that. I think most people on this forum are smart enough to figure out where the tipping point is.

On the issue of pollution, again, I would say that it's a matter of circumstance, and perhaps one of conscience. Unlike the consumption of fossil fuels, generalizations are not always appropriate.
Click to expand...

Hi Eric:

Am I correct in reading your comments that you feel you are doing no harm, and posing as little risk as possible, to you and yours and the environment (which belongs to everyone) by burning your "free" wood in your antiquated boiler?

Aye,
Marty
 
tjg911 said:
I don't know about that Marty, how do you figure heating with my 1992 woodstove is costing me more?

I buy 4 cord of wood each spring to be used in 18 months (the next winter). I use 3.5 - 4 cord each year. My cost last year was the most expensive I ever paid tho without a doubt it was an excellent price around here. It cost $130 a cord but everyone else wanted $175 to $200 a cord. So I paid $520 to heat my house in the upcoming 2007 to 2008 winter.

For this heating season I bought 4 cord and paid $105 a cord for $420 for this season.

I have a new (7 year old) well insulated house 1500 sq feet. My furnance is oil fired hot water baseboard heat that I seldom use, Except for hot water, the furnance would run just 4 or 5 times a year. While I have never heated this house with the furnance I'd estimate it would take a minimum of 800 gallons of fuel oil. Now prices have been all over the map since Jan 2006 but the highest I've seen it is $2.43 and the lowest is currently $1.95 so let's just average that out for the 800 gallons and the cost is $1,752. I think 800 gallons is on the lower side but I'd not trying to make the cost higher. With wood my house is warm and I'm sure to keep it that warm with oil would require 1000-1200 gallons.

So this winter I saved $1,752 - $420 = $1,332 and assuming next winter's oil will cost just $1.95 for 800 gallons I'll save $1,560 - $520 = $1,040. So I estimated oil at a lower use than I think would really be the case if I heated with oil and look at the money I did not spend by heating with wood. I am not estimating the cost to clean the chimney at $70 because the cost to service the furnance is about $100+ (haven't had it done since 2003 since I burn 240 gallons every 18 months for hot water).

A local radio show host said for Dec he paid $400 to heat his house with ng, no idea the size or age of that house but that cost is not excessively high based upon what other ng users have said.

Tom
Click to expand...

Your "real" costs to heat with oil are even higher because it takes about $20-$40 per month to run the blower on the furnace so add in another $150 for 6 mo or so that you use the blower so now the cost to use oil is about $1,852 and that makes wood look even better. Plus, oil costs are even higher because when it comes time to replace the stove and the furnace, the furnace costs twice what the stove does, thus making oil even more expensive.........
 
Well Marty, to be honest, I guess I'm not perfect in every way.

I'm doing what works for me, in my situation, and within the constraints of the law and, (I might add) in a way that conforms to the status quo of where I live.

I'm happy with that situation, your disapproval notwithstanding.

Let me ask you this: Let's say there's $8,000 standing between me and a more efficient boiler. That may not seem like a lot of money to you, but it is to me. If I had to make that investment, I might be tempted to go back to burning gas or oil. You think that would be preferable to what I'm doing now?
 
Your "real" costs to heat with oil are even higher because it takes about $20-$40 per month to run the blower on the furnace so add in another $150 for 6 mo or so that you use the blower so now the cost to use oil is about $1,852 and that makes wood look even better. Plus, oil costs are even higher because when it comes time to replace the stove and the furnace, the furnace costs twice what the stove does, thus making oil even more expensive.........
Click to expand...

Hmmm, though it's correct to include the electrical costs, that seems a pretty high estimate. First of all, the blower is going to run a whole lot less in fall and spring and on many winter days lately. And the math doesn't seem to back up the monthly price either. Let's say the running blower draws 500 watts and the furnace runs 5 hrs per day. That equals 2.5kw.hrs. / day. 2.5 x 30 = 75kw.hrs. At .10/kw it would cost $7.50 a month to run the blower. At .20/kw it would cost $14.50/mo. for the blower. Even if the fan ran 10 hrs per day with electricity costing .15/kw.hr. it would only cost $22.50 - for that month. (And if the blower is running 10 hrs/day, get those leaks fixed and the house insulated! It's a better investment.)

There are hidden costs for wood as well including the fuel and equipment used for cutting, transport and splitting., And there are the cleaning and health costs, especially when there is a lot of wood burning in non-rural environments. No heat comes for free except the sun and perhaps geo-thermal if you live on top of a hot spring.
 
Eric Johnson said:
Well Marty, to be honest, I guess I'm not perfect in every way.

I'm doing what works for me, in my situation, and within the constraints of the law and, (I might add) in a way that conforms with the status quo of where I live.

I'm happy with that situation, your disapproval notwithstanding.

Let me ask you this: Let's say there's $8,000 standing between me and a more efficient boiler. That may not seem like a lot of money to you, but it is to me. If I had to make that investment, I might be tempted to go back to burning gas or oil. You think that would be preferable to what I'm doing now?
Click to expand...

Eric:

I agree, we mortals are not perfect. That said, in my mind at least, that should not be an excuse for not trying to improve ourselves or help others; and it definitely should not be an excuse to cause others harm. More off topic, I feel large scale problems (and they exist) can be solved starting with individuals.

I understand, as a practical matter, you and many others cannot (or, your priorities won't allow you) to upgrade to a cleaner and healthier wood burning device of your choosing.

No one can do what is not possible for them to do.

As an intellectual matter however, if you could upgrade, would you? That's all I'm asking for here.

Aye,
Marty
 
Tell you what.

Give me an old smoker and some well seasoned Oak
Give some other schmuck with the cash for a brand new stove some wood that isnt all that well seasoned.

Take the readings from each chimney for a full season of burning.

I GUARANTEE that I will have put less "bad things" into the air than the schmuck with the new stove.
Good wood and good burning habits will beat better technology every time. I see it every day on my way home, I can tell who has seasoned wood and who doesnt....... no matter what the stove.
 
I've got an add-on cat on my boiler, I burn dry wood and it's located in a place where the prevailing winds (from the west), blow the smoke away from my neighbor's house and into the woods.

I have a greenhouse, a nice, organic vegetable garden and I drive a partially zero emissions car. And I follow my kids around and turn out the lights.

When the time comes to replace the boiler, clearly I'll be looking at something more efficient.

Hey, I answered all your questions and you haven't answered any of mine. This is starting to feel like a "green police" interrogation. What's up with that?

How about it? What kind of vehicle do you drive? How big is your house? Would you rather I burn oil or gas?
 
MountainStoveGuy said:
^^^ a vegatarian too!
Click to expand...

THAT is where I draw the line.

I quit cigarettes long ago
I have given up booze while my wife was pregnant

BUT MEAT, nope I know I couldnt give it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whynotoils
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Need advice on which wood stove to buy
Replies
4
Views
549
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
marty319
marty319
R
CE Approved Residential Wood Stoves in the US?
Replies
15
Views
865
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
T
Advice on insert vs stove to replace Superior zero clearance fireplace
Replies
32
Views
2K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
A
10 states plan to sue the EPA over standards for residential wood-burning stoves
Replies
34
Views
4K
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
ABMax24
A
S
Advice on Replacing Gas Stove back to Fireplace or Wood Stove
Replies
1
Views
321
The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces
begreen
begreen
Top Bottom
Back