Outright Ban On Anything Wood In Utah! Pellets/Cord Wood/Fireplaces

  • 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.
During the past 5 years of working with regulators at nearly every level, it appears that a nation-wide program is unlikely. That requires regionally designed change outs. I will need to read more about burning habits of wood stove users in greater Salt Lake basin.
 
BKVP said:
The question is:

Is there much of difference between pre EPA and today's EPA stoves with respect to their contribution to particulate in the atmosphere?

The statement:

First hand experience with regard to having owned both types of stoves, the contribution can be enormous.

I base this upon the fact that this is likely the only way we are going to convince and educate regulators as to the benefits of removing pre EPA stoves in exchange of much cleaner burning EPA stoves.
Click to expand...

OK, that's fine. And you know I am not insulting you by following through with the logical follow up question. You're an intelligent guy, I am an intelligent guy, truly no offense intended - but what about burning dry wood, like 12-16% MC in a pre-EPA stove? How much difference does that make in atmospheric particluates?
 
Truly I am not trying to insult Chris. Were he in Fairbanks, us together at a table over a platter of chicken wings he would take this question completely in stride and probably already has stats to back up whatever it is he is about to respond.
 
First, remember we Use Method 28, the current test method, which was designed to give an apples to apples comparison between burning attributes of different models, and is very precise in the method. It was never intended to represent real world emissions data! That is why the ASTM group is working on a cord wood method.

Since Method 28 is all we have for this analysis, a current King model produces a weighted average of 1.76 gr/hr. The weighted average of a pre EPA King model was in excess of 65 gr/hr.

Method 28 may have some margin of error due to lab technician variances, but not that much. Paul Tiegs of OMNI did a paper for EPA and found when the studies of a single stove are done by the same technician, in the same lab, there was less than 12% of variation in results.
 
I justa kinda knew you would have that answer right away ;-)

I had no idea it was that much. 65 grams per hour running presumably Blaze King approved or at least planned for wood in a Blaze KIng stove at a EPA certified lab. And now the King is down to 1.76grams per hour.

Thanks for the fact Chris.
 
Poindexter said:
I justa kinda knew you would have that answer right away ;-)

I had no idea it was that much. 65 grams per hour running presumably Blaze King approved or at least planned for wood in a Blaze KIng stove at a EPA certified lab. And now the King is down to 1.76grams per hour.

Thanks for the fact Chris.
Click to expand...
That's not the worst of them either. There are products that are still made today that are EPA exempt that can PLUG the filter in just a few hours!
 
Do we have a community agreed nickname for the guy down the street burning wet wood, making thick smoke with enormous creo-sicles hanging off his chimney cap?

Mr. Couch Potato?

I get that somebody somewhere has been burning responsibly for years, broke their leg this summer, didn't get their wood split in time and is burning damper wood than they want this year. I mean the guy blowing nasty smoke year after year after year even though he has room on his lot to season plenty of wood.
 
When do you need the videos? Deadline? The this is my stove, this is my wood, see it burn, see me warm, see no smoke type.
 
Thank you. The sooner the better but I fly to Salt Lake on the 14th. I would love to have it within a week or 10 days if possible. We can then present them in person or electronically. We may even try to get them played on a special web site being designed to combat this legislation.

Thank you Highbeam...we need to stop this!
 
Another way of visualizing the difference between an EPA-stove and the rest:
Sweep a chimney and collect the soot. Weigh it and put it in containers according to the average amounts emitted per hour (per EPA). At your presentation pull it out and show:"That's how much you get from a fireplace, a pre-EPA stove, an EPA-1 stove; and here is what a BK stove emits:..." If you can find the numbers you could also include the amount from a diesel truck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christopix, turbojoe and newatthis
Grisu said:
Another way of visualizing the difference between an EPA-stove and the rest:
Sweep a chimney and collect the soot. Weigh it and put it in containers according to the average amounts emitted per hour (per EPA). At your presentation pull it out and show:"That's how much you get from a fireplace, a pre-EPA stove, an EPA-1 stove; and here is what a BK stove emits:..." If you can find the numbers you could also include the amount from a diesel truck.
Click to expand...
Yet another great idea!!!

I will keep BK out of it and just use EPA stove designation. But this is a great idea. I know a sweep in Fairbanks. Question is, is creosote considered a hazardous material and not able to be flown via carrier?

I will have to look into this. Thank you Grisu
 
I like the idea of not having the smell of creosote...regardless of the amount. On the other hand, nothing like a picture of the sweep next to the two see-thru glass containers...a bit like an endorsement, testimonial.
 
I have a different opinion about lots of these issues. I just think that in urban areas with bad inversions, really strict regulations on wood burning are justified, along with stricter regulations on other air pollution sources. With all due respect, a lot of comments about the benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown. Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people. I think any changeout should only be from wood to pellets or gas. And, a sunset law, banning the use of uncertified stoves after 2018, for example, could be a really good idea. Regardless, Salt Lake is going to have to put up more funding for enforcement. Bot wood to wood changeouts are not going to get the air quality gains needed. It was only a year or two ago that we were fighting against Central Boilers campaign to keep selling outdoor wood boilers on the Wasatch Front. They hired a lobbyist, which hopefully won't be same lobbyist that HPBA hires. That lobbyist spread all sorts of disinformation to the Utah legislature, insisting that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves, etc. etc. I believe Salt Lake has already banned the installation of uncertified stoves, like Washington and Oregon do, and that is a vital first step. But you can still buy exempt Vogelzangs at some of the big box stores along with Wasatch front. So again - they need to start investing in more enforcement so they can at least enforce some of the good regulations they already have on the books.
 
John Ackerly said:
I have a different opinion about lots of these issues. I just think that in urban areas with bad inversions, really strict regulations on wood burning are justified, along with stricter regulations on other air pollution sources. With all due respect, a lot of comments about the benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown. Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people. I think any changeout should only be from wood to pellets or gas. And, a sunset law, banning the use of uncertified stoves after 2018, for example, could be a really good idea. Regardless, Salt Lake is going to have to put up more funding for enforcement. Bot wood to wood changeouts are not going to get the air quality gains needed. It was only a year or two ago that we were fighting against Central Boilers campaign to keep selling outdoor wood boilers on the Wasatch Front. They hired a lobbyist, which hopefully won't be same lobbyist that HPBA hires. That lobbyist spread all sorts of disinformation to the Utah legislature, insisting that outdoor boilers were cleaner than wood stoves, etc. etc. I believe Salt Lake has already banned the installation of uncertified stoves, like Washington and Oregon do, and that is a vital first step. But you can still buy exempt Vogelzangs at some of the big box stores along with Wasatch front. So again - they need to start investing in more enforcement so they can at least enforce some of the good regulations they already have on the books.
Click to expand...
Oh I have heard this statement way tooooooooooo many times... "The benefits of certified wood stoves compared to uncertified ones are way overblown. Certified stoves are simply operated too poorly by too many people."

Please link me to the study by any neutral body that proves either of these contentions to be correct. Personal observations aside, just the facts. There are wood stoves that burn cleaner than some pellet stoves, so pellet stoves are not the fix (all unto their own but part of the solution).

Stove change outs do work. Not just in emissions reduction! In fact, we support the need for manufacturers to include a moisture meter in the new NSPS. They get wood burners thinking about proper burning. Think about it this way....old wood burner burns his pre EPA stove with trash, oil filters etc. (Not all do this but some). Give that guy a new EPA certified stove of and it will choke on the same rubbish. He will complain and get a second chance at a teachable moment. Just look at the number of people that purchase EPA stoves and search this very web site prior to purchase and subsequently when they run into performance problems. Not too many seek guidance with proper use of the PRE EPA Stoves.

As Sargent Friday always said..."Just the facts"
 
  • Like
Reactions: rasp21
BKVP said:
Please link me to the study by any neutral body that proves either of these contentions to be correct. Personal observations aside, just the facts.

As Sargent Friday always said..."Just the facts"
Click to expand...

As I read through this string of comments, I was surprised how many people were citing emission levels from stoves in labs. Those aren't the emissions that stoves give off on the Wasatch front or anywhere else. So, yes, we need to start using statistics on the average amount of PM that the average wood burner emits. And, what we will find is that the average guy burning an EPA certified stove is a lot better than the average guy burning on old stove. But the average amount of PM from a certified stove is a lot of PM to be putting out in a densely populated area with bad inversions. If the average stove put out 3 grams an hour in the real world, it wouldn't be so bad, but its far more than that, partly because so many people aren't even using dry wood. Some folks think that only about 50% of the country is using wood under 20% moisture. That matches with my experience in my town too. I think pellet stoves are far, far better for densely populated areas with inversions, because you can't use unseasoned pellets and ratchet down the air too far. They do burn dirtier in the real world than the lab, especially if you don't clean them - and you can easily lose 15 - 30% efficiency too if you don't regularly clean a pellet stove. In California, a big air district is offering rebates to change out any stove - certified or uncertified - if the homeowner will switch to pellets or gas.
 
When the Oregon test method was developed, it was not anticipated that it would demonstrate how a stove performs in the real world. It was intended to show how one stoves' emissions compared to another's.

When EPA adopted (with minor changes) the Oregon method, they too never saw the test method as representative of real world emissions.

EPA stoves have been designed to pass the standards, using the test method. In 1988, as a knee jerk reaction, the standards resulted in hundreds of catalytic wood stoves that again made the grade, but were not robust or well engineered for durability and predictable performance.

Back to Salt Lake, we need to prevent any agency from an outright ban of wood burning products. It won't fix the problem and knee jerk reactions have terrible consequences, learning from our past experiences.

Happy New Year!
 
Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox. Fighting with youtube. My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.
 
Poindexter said:
Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox. Fighting with youtube. My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.
Click to expand...
I've met your wife...good disclaimer! (And cover your butt!)
 
Poindexter said:
Have one take continuous video of clean stack to flaming firebox. Fighting with youtube. My wife had NOTHING to do with upcoming 48 second video.
Click to expand...
Highbeam just sent me one....just email to me.

Chris
 
John, visited your website and stopped to think (twice) before I open my big mouth.

As a resident of a non-attainment air quality area with bad inversions, I agree that strict regulations on wood burning are coming and will be here to stay. I think significant areas upwind from the known non-attainment area should be included in the regulated air shed.

Your statement that certified stoves in the real world "put out far more than" 3 grams per hour is unsubstantiated. I invite you to come instrument my stack, I'll even hold your beer in one hand and the ladder you are climbing with the other. In the meantime I have no scientific reason at all to believe you really know what you are talking about and thus can not give much weight to your conclusions.

There are too many people in the SLC basin driving too many cars too many miles. Their wintertime air quality sucks. As referenced in post #116 above, according to Utah's own data, all wood burning devices _and_ all area and point solvents COMBINED are less deleterious to wintertime air quality than motor vehicle exhaust. Those people need to start carpooling. Not only will that reduce vehicle miles driven, there will also be less point solvent emissions from pumping less gas at all the gas stations.

In my personal subdivision the one guy running coal has no visible stack emissions. The two pellet stacks I can see from my deck both look pretty good. The five wood stove stacks I can see from my same deck, four of them look great, and I got the one "that guy" in my neighborhood. One out of eight. If you would like to bring your instruments my home zip is 99709, nearest airport is FAI. I'll PM you my cell as soon as you get your ticket, I readily admit my eyeball is not an EPA certified measurement device.

While I agree you can't buy unseasoned pellets, I am curious to know how long it takes to dry pellets if they accidentally get wet.

I doubt regular folks are any more likely to clean their pellet stoves than they are to season their cordwood. Actual enforcement of reasonable stack exhaust parameters should solve both problems quickly.

I find it ironic that your website has a picture of a rotting, methane emitting log lying on the forest floor labeled 'forest preservation', your "carbon hero" was a couple that burnt 10 cords annually for 50 some years, and you are advocating installation of carbon liberating natural gas burners in the SLC airshed. I am somehow certain you have a reasonable explanation for all of these observations.

In the meantime, oil heat costs me three times as much per BTU as cordwood. I got three kids in college. Banning wood stoves is a really really bad idea. Running dry cord wood in certified stoves is a good idea.

Best wishes.
 
BKVP said:
Highbeam just sent me one....just email to me.

Chris
Click to expand...
on the website PM system, or do you wanna PM a regular email addy to me like chris.@ gmail dot com?

The data file is 16.7 MB, probably too big for the messaging system here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
EPA to ban wood heat
Replies
11
Views
6K
The Inglenook
EatenByLimestone
EatenByLimestone
webfish
  • Locked
General SHOULD OPEN FIREPLACES BE ILLEGAL
Replies
0
Views
10K
Articles
webfish
webfish
RoseRedHoofbeats
  • Locked
Wood burning in Utah
Replies
13
Views
2K
The Wood Shed
PapaDave
PapaDave
Top Bottom
Back