EPA taking another look at standards

First-rate article. My thanks, too, for positing the link.

This is what really jumped out at me: "it is remarkable that so little effort has been devoted to supporting the public in using wood burning appliances effectively."

He's talking about the U.S. here, I assume, since Canada at least has those superb videos on wood-burning.

For a start, I'd love to see stove dealers required by law, dammit, since they won't do it voluntarily, to do SOMETHING about informing their customers about the realities of the wood supply problem.

But just in general, I'm mildly depressed at how invisible woodstoves and wood-burning in general seems to be unless there's some local uproar about a smoky stove or outdoor boiler causing a neighborhood uprising. Even here in VT, where I'd bet at least half the population uses a woodstove for at least part of their heating, I've seen zero mention of the tax credit for the purchase of new stoves.

Anyway, lots to ponder in that article, and the excellent handful of comments he's gotten on it.

Lovely. While there's a tiny part of me that says, "yes, I could see where this might lead to the development of even better, cleaner technology" the larger, more realistic part of me says, "the government...meddling? And creating unintended consequences? No!" I would venture to say that these types of decisions will be made by people who swear we must "go green" (if for no other reason than to get reelected) and who do not heat their homes with wood (and probably never have, but they knew someone with a stinky, smoky old stove when they were growing up). They'll plead global warming and climate change, of course, yet they're probably heating their own homes with some sort of fossil fuel but unlike many, they can afford to simply turn up the thermostat when they are cold. I think these people fail to understand the carbon cycle and how heating with an advanced technology stove can bring us closer to being "carbon neutral".

/end political rant

"I think these people fail to understand the carbon cycle and how heating with an advanced technology stove can bring us closer to being “carbon neutral”.

And I think you are forgetting that there wouldn't be any advanced technology stoves if there hadn't been government regulation.

DanCorcoran said:

"I think these people fail to understand the carbon cycle and how heating with an advanced technology stove can bring us closer to being “carbon neutral”.

And I think you are forgetting that there wouldn't be any advanced technology stoves if there hadn't been government regulation.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I am merely pointing out the fact that government intervention often has unintended consequences.

Pat10 said:

seems pollution @ startup is not mentioned?

Click to expand...

Not with cars either.

precaud said:

DanCorcoran said:

And I think you are forgetting that there wouldn't be any advanced technology stoves if there hadn't been government regulation.

Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Things were already heading in the "clean-burn" direction before the Fed directive. The Jotul 201 and Kent Sherwood (may have that model name wrong) were stoves that I owned in the mid-80's that incorporated many of the features we take for granted today. I'd bet the standard wouldn't have been put in place without some big industry players giving them confidence it could be met. As the article clearly points out, there were definite winners and losers in this process. So I see the standard as accelerating the adoption rather than creating the movement.

Click to expand...

Well put, precaud. And please note that I'm not saying ALL government regulation is prima facie bad/wrong. I think that the free market (if left alone) usuallyworks to produce these things on their own anyway. What better way to differentiate yourself in the marketplace at the time than to be able to tout your "clean burn" technology that won't smoke up your house and your neighbors? Sure, making it a federal mandate will speed the process, but I think it would be a stretch to say that without government regulations we'd have NO clean burning stoves on the market today.

Now, if the government can work with today's proven, reliable manufacturers to ensure an even cleaner product that will work just as well, safely, and durably for the end user, then go for it. But I think we should all be aware that there is a huge, strong environmental lobby in this country, some of whom would be just fine with us moving back to some Paleolithic lifestyle. Now, I don't know about you, but I feel that I should have the choice and the freedom to heat my home with wood. My concern is that if we make the standards TOO restrictive, some government genius will just say, "Well, we can't achieve .00005438934 grams per hour, so we might as well ban all solid fuel appliances."

Pagey said:

[ My concern is that if we make the standards TOO restrictive, some government genius will just say, "Well, we can't achieve .00005438934 grams per hour, so we might as well ban all solid fuel appliances."

Click to expand...

Exactlly what I'm afraid of. The EPA has too much power. Look what they did after thinking the Cape and Tax bill died, they came out calling co2 a pollutant and said they can regulate it. Well my wood stove produces co2 so are they going to regulate my carbons? I'm all for clean air but don't get too extreme and go overboard with Gov regs.

Interesting. The upside is that we could see even more efficient and cleaner burning stove designs in the future. The downside could be more government regulation which I do not support. I totally agree with woodheat's observation that properly operating a modern stove is key to clean burning. You could design a 90% efficient stove that puts out < 1 gram, but if the operator feeds it wet wood and lets it smolder, it won't come close to meeting its specs. Now, if a manufacturer can design a stove that is more tolerant of burning less than ideally seasoned wood efficiently or is easier to operate efficiently, they'd have a winner.

cycloxer said:

Interesting. The upside is that we could see even more efficient and cleaner burning stove designs in the future. The downside could be more government regulation which I do not support. I totally agree with woodheat's observation that properly operating a modern stove is key to clean burning. You could design a 90% efficient stove that puts out < 1 gram, but if the operator feeds it wet wood and lets it smolder, it won't come close to meeting its specs. Now, if a manufacturer can design a stove that is more tolerant of burning less than ideally seasoned wood efficiently or is easier to operate efficiently, they'd have a winner.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Nirvana would be a clean-burning, efficient stove that could burn green wood.

The problem with just letting the market sort it out is that there really aren't all that many folks out there who would see a clean-burning "green" stove as enough of a personal benefit to be willing to pay a huge premium over a less clean one. Take outdoor wood-fired boilers as an example. What happens instead is that the neighbors get annoyed, the local authorities step in, there's a big public wrangle, and the next thing you know the appliance has been banned completely, which is a lot easier than mandating standards.

I certainly agree that sometimes EPA or whoever gets things wrong so the process needs to be really carefully watched, but government-mandated standards I suspect in this case are more likely to preserve wood-burning by gradually doing away with the smoky offenders nationally instead of with all appliances on a town by town or state by state basis.

Todd said:

Well my wood stove produces co2 so are they going to regulate my carbons?

Click to expand...

No.

Maybe we'll end up with some kind of electric or fossil fuel / wood hybrid stove that can get hot, and clean quickly and then stay clean and hot with wood only?

Well they could design a catalytic stove with an electric smog air injection pump for a quick, hot, clean start-up.

Pat10 said:

maybe simply educating the woodburner as to how to burn efficiently& understanding the nature of combustion would be more effective & i aint talking about simply reading a stove manual & assuming expert status.

Click to expand...

I understand the idea of educating the operator, but I also think that a large part of the population is not educatable. The hybrid concept would take the operator out of the equation. A properly tuned, carbureted car can run quite clean, but most people didn't work that hard at keeping those cars tuned properly. Modern, computer controlled, fuel injected engines will run clean for many miles with no attention from the operator. To make wood stoves super clean, the operator will have to be taken out of the equation.
This is not something that I as an "educated" wood burner want to see, but it may be where tighter regulations bring us.

Just start all your fires with Tsar Bomba! :coolgrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

Pagey said:

Just start all your fires with Tsar Bomba! :coolgrin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

Click to expand...

That might have some negative "fallout".

Pat10 said:

Flatbedford said:

Maybe we'll end up with some kind of electric or fossil fuel / wood hybrid stove that can get hot, and clean quickly and then stay clean and hot with wood only?

Click to expand...

there are combo wood/oil furnaces which i'd guess would burn cleanly especially if the igniting wood is engulfed in an oil flame but its expensive & complicated. maybe simply educating the woodburner as to how to burn efficiently& understanding the nature of combustions would be more effective & i aint talking about simply reading a stove manual & assuming expert status.

Click to expand...

A stove with a propane or natural gas afterburner would be cool. Could use the gas to ignite the wood too but then Thomas' kids would have to go barefoot.

BrotherBart said:

When they reach the point where they are convinced that operator error can't be overcome is when they would ban wood stoves period.

Click to expand...

Right wing politics: It's just another form of hypochondria.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Nirvana would be a clean-burning, efficient stove that could burn green wood.

The problem with just letting the market sort it out is that there really aren't all that many folks out there who would see a clean-burning "green" stove as enough of a personal benefit to be willing to pay a huge premium over a less clean one. Take outdoor wood-fired boilers as an example. What happens instead is that the neighbors get annoyed, the local authorities step in, there's a big public wrangle, and the next thing you know the appliance has been banned completely, which is a lot easier than mandating standards.

I certainly agree that sometimes EPA or whoever gets things wrong so the process needs to be really carefully watched, but government-mandated standards I suspect in this case are more likely to preserve wood-burning by gradually doing away with the smoky offenders nationally instead of with all appliances on a town by town or state by state basis.[/quote]

Woodstoves have two problems. The wood that goes into the stove, and the people that place that wood into the stove. The "EPA" certified stove has partially taken the 'people' problem out of the mix by ensuring that a minimum volume of air gets into the device to properly combust our good friend, "seasoned wood".

Which leaves the first problem - the wood that goes into the stove. Well, guess what, the EPA is monitoring the wrong industry. Good fuel in an inefficient device will burn cleaner than bad fuel in an efficient device. If the "G-man" were to regulate anything, my take is that it would be the folks who split, measure, and deliver our fuel to us. "Seasoned" should mean just that - it's been seasoned and is ready to be burned efficiently in today's technological catalytic secondary burning marvels. Of course, the downside to "regulating" our friendly neighborhood cordwood seller is that his prices will be higher. But the upside is that our fuel should be better, and a cord should (gasps) actually be a cord? Really? Perish the thought!

The pellet stove industry hit a home run because they created an easy to use appliance (load and go) and an entire fuel industry was built to support it. By design, they're clean and almost foolproof. As solid wood burners, we can't (affordably) go to the Home Depot and buy 50 pound bags of cordwood. Instead we have to rely upon sometimes less than reputable cordwood sellers and we've all heard the stories.

Of course there's the bio-fuel industry (ie biobricks and their kin). Clean, consistent, convenient, and sold by weight, not by volume. I've been running these all winter. A warm house, clean chimney, and not a hint of smoke once things are up to temp in my Kent Sherwood. Compare that to the guy at the end of my street who is spewing smoke literally on a 24x7 basis.

Well, just my honest opinion.

Cheers

agartner said:

If the "G-man" were to regulate anything, my take is that it would be the folks who split, measure, and deliver our fuel to us. "Seasoned" should mean just that - it's been seasoned and is ready to be burned efficiently in today's technological catalytic secondary burning marvels. Of course, the downside to "regulating" our friendly neighborhood cordwood seller is that his prices will be higher. But the upside is that our fuel should be better, and a cord should (gasps) actually be a cord? Really? Perish the thought!

Click to expand...

Exactly. You're right on all points except the price going up. Competition, the sheer amount of product available, and relative ease of processing vs pellets or biobricks would keep the price pretty close to where it is. As of now, there is usually some archaic weights and measures board in a municipality, but putting a complain into them does next to nothing. if fuel sellers were just as regulated as fossil fuel dealers, things would change quick.

What's wrong with the guy who sells seasoned wood at the market price? Nothing.

The problem is with the guy who sells unseasoned wood at the same price, but says it is seasoned...that's just as much greed as is anything else.

Great article. Thanks for the link.

Government should stick to putting out flames outside the firebox, not inside.
Once in a while they get something right, but what a botched up mess of things they tend to make. just look at this country.