New EPA regulations.

The emmisions requirements look pretty tight. Do any current stoves match the 2019 standard of 1.3 grams per hour?

Redlegs said:

The emmisions requirements look pretty tight. Do any current stoves match the 2019 standard of 1.3 grams per hour?

Click to expand...

I do believe so... the PH is reported at 1.33 which I have to wonder if this is an average of multiple runs, best of a series or what, but... And I believe that there are several other stoves (smaller?) in the <1 g/hr. So these new standards are not way out there, but I suspect that they will make cats more popular in terms of compliance strategies for at least a little while.

Edit: Thought that just occurred to me is that it seems larger stoves are likely to burn more/faster and thus perhaps be more likely to have higher output/hr. This then would perhaps imply that tighter standards may make larger stoves harder to design/develop - perhaps when they go into force we'll see more smaller stoves generally speaking? Could this be the death of >4cuft stoves?

I've been looking at some of the newer technologies for using wood burning and it seems to me that by insulating the chimney you can create such a high level of incineration that nearly nothing is left including any of the gases. This is the same idea behind the Rocket Stove some people have built. I still prefer looking at my fire over looking at a 55 gallon drum sitting upside-down in my house attached to what looks like a rock garden bench along the wall of the room. Still though, the technology is in there and it's so simple of a concept that the ideas coming out of this are fascinating. I can see in the future wood burners that are so efficient you may not even need a chimney anymore. In fact, some of the findings if they find their way into wood burners will even be able to make your electricity for you. Making your hot water shouldn't be far behind. I suppose then the over lying question would be, "If a wood burner can do all this, then what about the summer months when cool is needed over heat?" So when I'm looking at the big picture in front of this technology right now I believe the door is wide open for those who can and will invest for the future. Like what happened back in the 80's I hope doesn't happen again, where most of the manufacturers simply closed their doors. I found it interesting when Husqvarna had to comply with new emission standards. Instead of investing in research and development or implementing a CAT making their equipment heavier, they went out and bought another company that already had developed what they needed. They bought Red Max. Maybe we will see some of this in the wood burning manufacturing sector in the future. When will good enough be enough? Maybe it's not supposed to, I don't know.

Check out gasifiers. That is where the rocket stoves are heading. In fact, the new rockets aren't traditional rockets. They have taken on all of the characteristics of wood gasifiers. In the majority of cases, the only difference is the "rocket" has a feed tube.

They are not well loved but most of the VC cat stove test under 2g also. So these new standards should be doable.

I expect a lot more noncats becoming hybrids however.

The county I live in requires everyone who lives on a parcel that's less than one acre cannot have a wood stove which emits more than 1 gram of particulate matter per hour....

So every house hold that's on less than an acre has to get a stove which emits 1 gram or less of particulate matter per hour.

As of now there are only 4 wood stoves on the market I can choose from. The Lopi Cape Cod which emits 0.45 grams/hr and the three Blaze King 30 series stoves which are rated at 0.97 grams/hr.

I'm going to put either the Lopi Cape Cod or the BK Ashford 30 in this summer but haven't decided on which one yet. Not a big selection to choose from that's for sure.

NVHunter said:

The county I live in requires everyone who lives on a parcel that's less than one acre cannot have a wood stove which emits more than 1 gram of particulate matter per hour....

So every house hold that's on less than an acre has to get a stove which emits 1 gram or less of particulate matter per hour.

As of now there are only 4 wood stoves on the market I can choose from. The Lopi Cape Cod which emits 0.45 grams/hr and the three Blaze King 30 series stoves which are rated at 0.97 grams/hr.

I'm going to put either the Lopi Cape Cod or the BK Ashford 30 in this summer but haven't decided on which one yet. Not a big selection to choose from that's for sure.

Click to expand...

Reno was one of the first places to have the big problems with inversion.....so they've been dealing with this for a long time. Not a lot of firewood in some places either (lowlands) , so pellet stoves have been popular.

By the time 2019 rolls around, I suspect there will be 50+ models to choose from....but you are correct that the choice is limited this year.

those companies which are able to field stoves in this range will have several models available , those who aren't able to , well, they wont be around. simple as that

as it sits , when we fielded the 30-nc , it was at 1.6GPH the lowest emission 3+cf box on the market in non cat, it wouldn't pass as its not below 1.3GPH to be honest most of the pellet stoves out there aren't even close to the 1.3 benchmark.

new woodstoves are being developed as are pellet stoves, gonna be a long hard haul for the industry to meet these changes in that short a time. its doable , but it aint gonna be a piece of cake.

FWIW, I think money would be far better spent in this field getting the old pre epa units out of service. for every one of those that's taken out of use it removes the equivalent of quite a few epa units at the current level's emissions.

imagine how much cleaner the air would be if every stove today was modern versus what we have today with the percentage of older tech stoves still being used

stoveguy2esw said:

those companies which are able to field stoves in this range will have several models available , those who aren't able to , well, they wont be around. simple as that

as it sits , when we fielded the 30-nc , it was at 1.6GPH the lowest emission 3+cf box on the market in non cat, it wouldn't pass as its not below 1.3GPH to be honest most of the pellet stoves out there aren't even close to the 1.3 benchmark.

new woodstoves are being developed as are pellet stoves, gonna be a long hard haul for the industry to meet these changes in that short a time. its doable , but it aint gonna be a piece of cake.

FWIW, I think money would be far better spent in this field getting the old pre epa units out of service. for every one of those that's taken out of use it removes the equivalent of quite a few epa units at the current level's emissions.

imagine how much cleaner the air would be if every stove today was modern versus what we have today with the percentage of older tech stoves still being used

Click to expand...

Good post.

Thing is they are using kiln dried wood to get the numbers which most of us don't. gotta love politics..lol.

But you're right money is a huge motivator!
I would not have bought the stove I have now if it was not for the tax credit that the feds gave. And that would have been a shame but my old smoke dragon BKK was still going.
I did scrap it though but didn't have too.

I'm with you that this should only be one part - and I suspect if I was sitting in on the negotiations, I would have come up with about double the figure they did. But having taken a small part in these years ago, I can state with some certainty that the real experts (not you or I, but test lab folks in this industry, etc.) were in on the talks and must have stated their capability to meet the regs....

As to companies not being here - I suspect that is the truth is most every industry. Look at cars and trucks - the market is vastly bigger than stoves, yet there are relatively few models (considering). Look at Tablet computers or even smart phones......most of them are built on just a very few platforms and chip sets.

I suspect smaller companies may be able to license some designs, instead of reinventing the wheel. But that's a tough way to plan!

Many locales are doing just what you say - getting rid of the old stoves. Orgs like HPBA and Forgreenheat are constantly lobbying for such programs (change outs, etc.), but doing it on the Federal Level is going to be quite impossible since Congress is do-nothing and, even if they did something, many there believe that coal/oil/gas (fossil fuels) are King and renewables should not get much Gubment $$$....

Hopefully the states and regional air districts will pick up the slack. The cost would be very low in comparison to the benefits.

EPA says "Consumers will also see a monetary benefit from efficiency improvements in the new wood stoves, which use less wood to heat homes."

... that is, IF those consumers burn adequately-seasoned wood with a proper flue set-up using correct burning technique. So my question is this: will the next few generations of high-efficiency stoves be MORE forgiving, or LESS forgiving, of poorly-seasoned wood or improper flue set-up or poor burning technique?

While the total health and economic benefits of the proposed standards are estimated to be at $1.8-2.4 billion annually, I would think the realization of those estimates is somewhat dependent on the answer to my question. After all, these stoves are going to be used by real people burning so-called "seasoned" wood in the real world, not by technicians burning 10%MC pine 2x4s in a lab. To what degree, if any, does the EPA take this into account?

Personally, I'm thrilled. Jotul support told me they'd be reintroducing cat stoves, if these new standards passed. I'd love to have the option for newer (attractive) cat stoves.

branchburner said:

After all, these stoves are going to be used by real people burning so-called "seasoned" wood in the real world, not by technicians burning 10%MC pine 2x4s in a lab. To what degree, if any, does the EPA take this into account?

Click to expand...

They definitely took all this into account when developing the standards - but just like car companies have to use dummies and blocks of concrete to standardize things, so do test labs.

I think the 4x4 and 2x4's in the EPA testing have spacers around them - which simulates real wood (strange shapes) to a degree. Real world experience has shown that well-designed EPA stoves burn much cleaner in the real world. As one example of that, I don't think our chimney sweeps EVER found a chimney either plugged or totally dangerous with our decent EPA stoves (mid-sized Avalon or Resolute Acclaim or Jotul 3 as examples). That's a massive difference from the previous situation where we had customers who built up dangerous levels of tar in 3-6 weeks.

IMHO, the cleaner the better. Yes, education is needed also....that's job #1 here, so hopefully we'll grow even bigger!

Redlegs said:

The emmisions requirements look pretty tight. Do any current stoves match the 2019 standard of 1.3 grams per hour?

Click to expand...

My stove already does. At 1.1 average and .8 on low fire.

webbie said:

Real world experience has shown that well-designed EPA stoves burn much cleaner in the real world.

Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that at all. The point is, a certain number of users (through a variety of ways) fail to maximize that ability to burn cleaner. I'm questioning whether further increased efficiency requirements mean stoves might become increasingly sensitive to user "error". If that's the case, we could expect an increase in the number of users that fail to maximize potential, meaning some of the efficiency gains will be offset by the decrease in properly-run stoves.

It is THAT which I wonder if the EPA took into account (not that people burn splits rather than 2x4s) when projecting the dollar-amount of benefits from tighter emissions rules.

FWIW, here is my suggestion for a radical change:
1) establish a well-defined standard for the MC range within which firewood can reasonably be called "ready-to-burn";
2) major stove manufacturers agree (through trade groups) to REQUIRE -- not suggest -- that new appliance owners only use wood with "ready-to-burn" MC, on condition that the warranty may be rendered void if this requirement is not met (the fact that this won't be verifiable or enforceable is not all that important -- it is only important that manufacturers have stipulated that burning wood above a certain MC constitutes misuse/abuse of the appliance);
3) stove manufacturers insist that their retailers point out this new warranty requirement to all potential customers, giving added weight to the conversations that should already be occurring with regard to using proper fuel
4) stove manufacturers, having made this effort without EPA involvement, leverage this pro-active stance in future negotiations with the EPA over future emissions standards and timelines, hopefully buying leniency when needed.

branchburner said:

EPA says "Consumers will also see a monetary benefit from efficiency improvements in the new wood stoves, which use less wood to heat homes."

So my question is this: will the next few generations of high-efficiency stoves be MORE forgiving, or LESS forgiving, of poorly-seasoned wood or improper flue set-up or poor burning technique?

Click to expand...

The other question/thought I forgot to add:

One way that stoves got made less smoky with reduced creosote was to make them burn hotter and let more of that heat go up the flue. Of course, the "lost" heat was part of the surplus generated by the secondary combustion, so even with what was "lost" up the flue there was a net gain in productive heat output for the user.

It seems one way to get stoves to burn even hotter/cleaner is too allow even MORE heat up the flue. Emissions would be lower, and the burn would be "more efficient" in the respect that more particulate was burned up during secondary combustion. But past some point couldn't that greater emissions efficiency come at the expense of a reduced productive heat output for the user, if too much heat goes up the flue? Meaning a monetary loss rather than a gain?

(I ask this partly because I believe, at times, I already own one of those stoves!)

Some of the current designs could be improved. Slowing down the air moving through the stove may achieve a hotter burn. My harman burns cleaner than my englander 30 does.
I can burn piles of pine lathe in the harman with zero smoke,not so in the englander.

branchburner said:

The other question/thought I forgot to add:

One way that stoves got made less smoky with reduced creosote was to make them burn hotter and let more of that heat go up the flue. Of course, the "lost" heat was part of the surplus generated by the secondary combustion, so even with what was "lost" up the flue there was a net gain in productive heat output for the user.

It seems one way to get stoves to burn even hotter/cleaner is too allow even MORE heat up the flue.

Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. My flue temp drops from 500 to 250, when I engage my cat. So, bypass = pre-EPA = more heat up the flue. Secondary active = cat cruising @ 1000F = less heat up the flue.

Joful said:

Now I'm confused. My flue temp drops from 500 to 250, when I engage my cat. So, bypass = pre-EPA = more heat up the flue. Secondary active = cat cruising @ 1000F = less heat up the flue.

Click to expand...

Yes, with a cat you get less heat up the flue, because it allows you to burn smoke at lower temps. But burn tubes and especially downdrafts require higher temps to burn smoke.

Think about it this way: how does a pre-EPA airtight smoke dragon manage to become a creosote/particulate factory? By having low flue temps, which means less heat going up the stack. When you start using smoke as fuel -- by burning at higher temps -- you are getting more heat out of the same amount of wood, but losing some of that additional heat up the flue in the process. Even in losing a bit more heat, you see a net gain in your stove's ability heat the house.

At some point, it is possible for your losses to exceed your gains, and burning "smoke-free" will yield more overall heat but less PRODUCTIVE heat per unit of wood. A firebox at 2000f could be pretty great at not letting any particulate up the stack, but not so great at not letting lots of heat up the stack. More efficient smoke-wise, less-efficient heat-wise.

This is already a problem for some setups with excessive draft, as the inability to control secondary air lets the flue run at temps much higher than your cat stove.

branchburner said:

1) establish a well-defined standard for the MC range within which firewood can reasonably be called "ready-to-burn";

Click to expand...

I really like that idea!
It would raise the price of wood some I bet because they would have to store it for at least one year for most types.

HotCoals said:

I really like that idea!
It would raise the price of wood some I bet because they would have to store it for at least one year for most types.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, because I bet most wood would probably still be sold green or "semi-seasoned" / "seasoned", with a slowly growing increase in the number of consumers holding the wood longer. Wood dealers could still basically offer three types of wood at increasing price points:
- green
- semi-seasoned or "seasoned" (but not really, as is mostly the case now)
- dry (actually seasoned/dried to meet MC requirements)

With stove warranties dictating dry wood use, there might be an increase in the number of people who wanted to hold their wood longer and who wanted to "burn dry" but had no space to store wood. Some of these people could afford the pricier stuff that their new stoves required, and would pay the extra price.

If the demand for dry wood increased, the price for it would rise at first. (Currently, truly dry wood is only a niche market.) But as more dealers moved into that growing market by holding back larger reserves of wood, the supply of dry wood might grow, and the greater supply/competition would keep price rises in check as it moved from a niche market to a mainstream market.

But then, I'm no economist. The real question is: how much is the carrying cost for a wood dealer to hold wood back an extra year?

I would say that in the long run, the only way to convince the bulk of people to burn drier wood is to convince them that it is in their own economic self-interest. If they can't be convinced, then they can be incentivized with subsidies. But they can't be forced, any more than Prohibition could force people not to drink... too damn many trees out there.