"NEW" PFI standards

jtakeman · Jul 19, 2010

I took a look at the PFI site today and noticed its all new. I wasn't able to find the standards listing any more. While browsing I found these(see attachments) which looks like the new standards.

While They don't have anything set in stone yet.

See link here: http://www.pelletheat.org/index.html

Looks like the EPA is getting involved somewhat.

Mr. Gil Wood of the EPA addressed the PFI Board of Directors

Here is his presentation.

http://pelletfuelresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gil-Wood-EPA.pdf

I really like what was on page 16(see my attachment) About the auditing of the quality. This should help curb the junk on the market. I just hope it doesn't effect the pellet pricing?

begreen · Jul 19, 2010

The proposed standards appear to make a small differentiation from the "super" premium to the utility grade pellet. I would have expected greater differences. The added high grade for pellets seems unnecessary. I don't see any need for a "super" premium pellet except for marketing. Yes, you can expect them to cost more, but are you really getting a better fuel? Doesn't seem so.

For example, I expected to see a tighter spec for length on the premium pellets. If I buy premium, I want to be sure there is no bridging. For some stoves 1.5" is too long. I would prefer to know when buying good pellets that they are going to be between .75 and 1" long to avoid bridging issues. The super premium moisture content appears to be marketing too. It's almost impossible for wood to stay at 6% moisture content unless it is stored in a desert. By the time one is burning mid-pallet of a ton of pellets, I would expect the moisture content to be 8% or in the rainy pac nw, maybe even 10%. And last, where is the fines % differentiation between grades? What is the spec?

kinsmanstoves · Jul 19, 2010

Remember this is from the bagger in the mills, then the mill store the pellets outside and what happens? Do you think that "weather bag" will protect them for 3-8 months? When the pellets get to the distributor or the dealer and they are stored outside the density is long gone from these standards. Be aware of what you are buying. Ask the retail location on storage practices and what they will do if your pellets are found to be bad.

Eric

jtakeman · Jul 19, 2010

BeGreen said:
The proposed standards appear to make a small differentiation from the "super" premium to the utility grade pellet. I would have expected greater differences. The added high grade for pellets seems unnecessary. I don't see any need for a "super" premium pellet except for marketing. Yes, you can expect them to cost more, but are you really getting a better fuel? Doesn't seem so.

For example, I expected to see a tighter spec for length on the premium pellets. If I buy premium, I want to be sure there is no bridging. For some stoves 1.5" is too long. I would prefer to know when buying good pellets that they are going to be between .75 and 1" long to avoid bridging issues. The super premium moisture content appears to be marketing too. It's almost impossible for wood to stay at 6% moisture content unless it is stored in a desert. By the time one is burning mid-pallet of a ton of pellets, I would expect the moisture content to be 8% or in the rainy pac nw, maybe even 10%. And last, where is the fines % differentiation between grades? What is the spec?

I think the spec is a crossed the board at less than .5% at the mill gate. So thats pretty much useless for the end user. By the time they have been transported a couple of thousand miles. You could see much more depending on how severe the handling has been. But they passed at the mill, so blame the shipper for miss handling!

You can voice your comments to Mr. Wood if you would like. [email protected]

Sorry but I got all hung up on the 3rd party sampling, auditing, and reporting. For once the mills will have to pay more attention to detail. We know the self policing policy was stretched by many. If your stove bridged on 1 1/2 inch pellets? You should have tried the brands I burned last year with close to 3 inch pellets in the batch. One brand had over 25% at 1 3/4 inches and longer in the 2 bag sample.

From PFI site

More information will be provided at the PFI Conference on July 19th as well as through a Webinar on July 29th.

Like most other things in life, They will figure out what we need, Even though many don't even burn pellet fuel. They can afford the dino juice and don't need to pinch pennies!

vvvv · Jul 19, 2010

BeGreen said:
The proposed standards appear to make a small differentiation from the "super" premium to the utility grade pellet. I would have expected greater differences. The added high grade for pellets seems unnecessary. I don't see any need for a "super" premium pellet except for marketing. Yes, you can expect them to cost more, but are you really getting a better fuel? Doesn't seem so.

For example, I expected to see a tighter spec for length on the premium pellets. If I buy premium, I want to be sure there is no bridging. For some stoves 1.5" is too long. I would prefer to know when buying good pellets that they are going to be between .75 and 1" long to avoid bridging issues. The super premium moisture content appears to be marketing too. It's almost impossible for wood to stay at 6% moisture content unless it is stored in a desert. By the time one is burning mid-pallet of a ton of pellets, I would expect the moisture content to be 8% or in the rainy pac nw, maybe even 10%. And last, where is the fines % differentiation between grades? What is the spec?

there is a diff on the humidity content lne=6,8,10% this seems significant as does volume= higher volume means less auger stress when the auger crunches the pellet

begreen · Jul 19, 2010

there is a diff on the humidity content lne=6,8,10% this seems significant as does volume= higher volume means less auger stress when the auger crunches the pellet

The point being is that pellet moisture is going to stabilize with the ambient moisture. I am willing to bet that after a couple months of outdoor or garage storage, the pellet moisture for all four grades would be roughly the same. Ask a wood flooring contractor how hard it is to get wood to reach and stay at 8%.

jtakeman · Jul 19, 2010

BeGreen said:
there is a diff on the humidity content lne=6,8,10% this seems significant as does volume= higher volume means less auger stress when the auger crunches the pellet

Click to expand...

The point being is that pellet moisture is going to stabilize with the ambient moisture. I am willing to bet that after a couple months of outdoor or garage storage, the pellet moisture for all four grades would be roughly the same. Ask a wood flooring contractor how hard it is to get wood to reach and stay at 8%.

Kind of the same as the fines, They are only concerned as what state it was at the mill. Once it goes out the door all bets are off.

Maybe we can get them to vacuum store our pellets from the mills? If it would help any???

smwilliamson · Jul 26, 2010

j-takeman said:
BeGreen said:

there is a diff on the humidity content lne=6,8,10% this seems significant as does volume= higher volume means less auger stress when the auger crunches the pellet

Click to expand...

The point being is that pellet moisture is going to stabilize with the ambient moisture. I am willing to bet that after a couple months of outdoor or garage storage, the pellet moisture for all four grades would be roughly the same. Ask a wood flooring contractor how hard it is to get wood to reach and stay at 8%.

Click to expand...

Kind of the same as the fines, They are only concerned as what state it was at the mill. Once it goes out the door all bets are off.

Maybe we can get them to vacuum store our pellets from the mills? If it would help any???

as in vacuum out the fines???

jtakeman · Aug 12, 2010

I sent an email to PFI on the Super Premium grading level. Not only do I expect a cleaner burn but I also feel they should be a higher BTU rated pellet. My suggestion was there should be a minimum spec of at least 8500 BTU's. Might be kind of high, But if we pay a premium price the product should be the best we can buy! I tried to expain it like hitest gasoline and an octane rating. They did reply with:

Dear Jay:

Thank you for your feedback. I will forward your comments along to the Standards Committee for their consideration.

Best regards,

Jennifer Hedrick

Seemed pleasent and they did reply.

Anybody look at the new standards yet?? Any thoughts?

Before the said new standards are in place. I think we might want to voice concerns. Its our chance to unput of what should be there. Enter them now before its a done deal! Standards docs can found at the link. Please review and email your comments.

http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/what-are-the-pfi-standards/

Email them here:
[email protected]

vvvv · Aug 12, 2010

BeGreen said:
The proposed standards appear to make a small differentiation from the "super" premium to the utility grade pellet. I would have expected greater differences. The added high grade for pellets seems unnecessary. I don't see any need for a "super" premium pellet except for marketing. Yes, you can expect them to cost more, but are you really getting a better fuel? Doesn't seem so.

For example, I expected to see a tighter spec for length on the premium pellets. If I buy premium, I want to be sure there is no bridging. For some stoves 1.5" is too long. I would prefer to know when buying good pellets that they are going to be between .75 and 1" long to avoid bridging issues. The super premium moisture content appears to be marketing too. It's almost impossible for wood to stay at 6% moisture content unless it is stored in a desert. By the time one is burning mid-pallet of a ton of pellets, I would expect the moisture content to be 8% or in the rainy pac nw, maybe even 10%. And last, where is the fines % differentiation between grades? What is the spec?

read the development of bag graphics again= i like it. as to the gain of moisture from storage, weigh a bag before & after storage. Date of manufacture would be nice but I dunno if that makes a diff in quality

hossthehermit · Aug 12, 2010

j-takeman said:
I sent an email to PFI on the Super Premium grading level. Not only do I expect a cleaner burn but I also feel they should be a higher BTU rated pellet. My suggestion was there should be a minimum spec of at least 8500 BTU's. Might be kind of high, But if we pay a premium price the product should be the best we can buy! I tried to expain it like hitest gasoline and an octane rating. They did reply with:

Dear Jay:

Thank you for your feedback. I will forward your comments along to the Standards Committee for their consideration.

Best regards,

Jennifer Hedrick

Seemed pleasent and they did reply.

Anybody look at the new standards yet?? Any thoughts?

Before the said new standards are in place. I think we might want to voice concerns. Its our chance to unput of what should be there. Enter them now before its a done deal! Standards docs can found at the link. Please review and email your comments.

http://pelletheat.org/pfi-standards/what-are-the-pfi-standards/

Email them here:
[email protected]

Kinda seems like "Transparency in pellet rating", "Change you can believe in", and "We're from the government, and we're here to help".

jtakeman · Aug 12, 2010

Whoa, Guys pass your comments along to them. I have submitted mine. Its your turn.

I don't know about the the change part. Most were fine with the old standard. But having a policy to enforce spot checks at the mills might be a plus.

Hoss the thing that scares me with the EPA getting involved is will it raise the prices on pellets for the mills that choose to have a PFI label and will it enturn require all pellet manufacturer's to be PFI certified??? Things might get bumpy down this road, But I like some of the improvements there looking into.

gscreely · Nov 23, 2013

begreen said:
The proposed standards appear to make a small differentiation from the "super" premium to the utility grade pellet. I would have expected greater differences. The added high grade for pellets seems unnecessary. I don't see any need for a "super" premium pellet except for marketing. Yes, you can expect them to cost more, but are you really getting a better fuel? Doesn't seem so.

For example, I expected to see a tighter spec for length on the premium pellets. If I buy premium, I want to be sure there is no bridging. For some stoves 1.5" is too long. I would prefer to know when buying good pellets that they are going to be between .75 and 1" long to avoid bridging issues. The super premium moisture content appears to be marketing too. It's almost impossible for wood to stay at 6% moisture content unless it is stored in a desert. By the time one is burning mid-pallet of a ton of pellets, I would expect the moisture content to be 8% or in the rainy pac nw, maybe even 10%. And last, where is the fines % differentiation between grades? What is the spec?

I agree about the moisture content, but I think the bar is to low for premium to be the top rating.

Besides the really low end pellets that get the premium ratings, there are really high end pellets that far exceed the average premium pellets. I think a super, or ultra premium would be a very useful thing.

SwineFlue · Nov 23, 2013

The new standards were set up to support the EPA's upcoming emissions regulations on wood burning stoves (pellet stoves & outdoor boilers will be added). The regulations will require independent testing, and apparently they don't want a stovemaker to use super-premium pellets to pass the test while most customers burn the premium ones.
Even though they eliminated the super-premium standard, pellet makers can add the old super-premium moisture/ash/fines/etc numbers to their new PFI labels.

Only 4 pellet makers are certified. The current list is:
New England Wood Pellet
Registration Number: 16003
Jaffrey, NH Facility
Deposit, NY Facility
Schuyler, NY Facility

Curran Renewable Energy
Registration Number: 16004
Massena, NY Facility

American Wood Fibers
Registration Numbers: 16001 (hardwood pellets), 16002 (softwood pellets)
Circleville, OH Facility
Marion, VA Facility

Lignetics, Inc.
Linn, West Virginia Facility (Registration Number: 03304)
Kenbridge, Virginia Facility (Registration Number: 03434)
Sandpoint, Idaho Facility (Registration Number: 03208)

sinnian · Nov 23, 2013

Why bring up a dead horse? Those aren't even the PFI specs any longer.

http://pelletheat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/standards-table.jpg

RKBAGUY · Nov 23, 2013

jtakeman said:
Looks like the EPA is getting involved somewhat.

Oh, great. Another agency is putting their shithooks on another industry. I feel safer already. I mean, really... how could all us dumb ol' boys manage to figure anything out on our own without their help?

SwineFlue · Nov 23, 2013

sinnian said:
Why bring up a dead horse? Those aren't even the PFI specs any longer.

http://pelletheat.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/standards-table.jpg

What Jay posted was the first cut at creating the current PFI specs. As of today, only those four companies I listed are using them. Everyone else is either using the old PFI label or none at all.

BrotherBart · Nov 23, 2013

Oh great. Another three+ year old thread dredged up.

"NEW" PFI standards

Minister of Fire

Attachments

Mooderator

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

New Member

Mooderator

Minister of Fire

The Stove Guy

Minister of Fire

New Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Member

Minister of Fire

Minister of Fire

Feeling the Heat

Minister of Fire

Modesterator

Similar threads