Post in 'The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces' started by semipro, Mar 1, 2009.
Does any one know for sure if you can include a liner in this tax rebate?
Helpful Sponsor Ads!
Yep. Everything it has to have to make it work. Including labor if you pay somebody else to install it.
I'm including everything listed below because it was my investment to put in an energy efficient stove and pass inspection.
Stone hearth extension
Labor for all above
At 30% back, I'm expecting $1334 for a credit.
This is what we have been told by the independent Lab that tests our stoves for EPA standards.
1. The calculation method is standardized. It was proposed by the Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association, endorsed by the USEPA, and approved by the IRS.
2. The calculation is made using test data from emissions testing.
The flaw is this: The calculation can be made using test data from the actual EPA certification test series OR data from any R and D test burn leading up to the EPA series. A stove can have dozens of R and D runs and we only have to calculate based on the best one. If we use one of the better test runs to calculate efficiency and just squeak past 75%, there is a good chance that a long average would show that stove to be less than 75%.
How much difference does 5, or even 10 percent make when it only takes me 3.5 Cord/year to heat my home? I say choose your stove for features, the style you like, customer service, etc.. As long as it is 75% or better, it's good enough for the tax credit. Hope that helps.
I would be curious to know how efficient a stove is at putting heat into the room. I know I'm down a bit on efficiency with my insert, but it would be nice to see a number.
I'm with you there.
EPA concern is reducing smoke/emissions from stoves. That's great and I know that there is a relationship between that and the heat output. I tend to believe that all EPA stoves this day have that issue pretty much under control if one is burning good dry/seasoned wood. So for the sake of productive conversation let's for the moment accept that stoves are functionally equal/adequate in this regard. Let's also accept that the owner/operator will be feeding the stove quality wood and operating in a proper manner.
Now, given these two assumptions - I would like to have some objective way of comparing which stoves put out the most heat into the room per cord of wood during normal operations on average with a 24/7 burning pattern.
I submit, based on my my limited observation of my former stove (VC Encore NC) and discussions here, that there are stoves that although quite 'efficient' by EPA standards may actually not throw as much heat into the room, presumably allowing more heat to go up the chimney than necessary.
Good point, but if the heat isn't going up the stack, it's being transfered to the surrounding areas. As far as real world numbers go, I wouldn't plan on seeing 75%!
If higher stack temp means more heat leaving the building....would this suggest that a cat stove is more efficient at throwing heat because it seems to operate at a lower stack temp ?
Alternatively, the same amount of heat may be leaving the building, just over a longer period
Here's the skinny on lower heat value efficiency calculation, as I understand it: http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/protocols.htm. The numbers shown aren't representative of actual real-world heat values; I wanted to use whole numbers to make the math easier to understand at a glance.
^^^ maybe in some cases, but if so, why are all the makers going/have gone to secondary combustion sysytems??
opinions abound, lol
So having read the "high heat value" vs "low heat value" article (thanks Tom) it seems that if the assumption is 10% goes up the flue there may be a time when some stoves could hit over 100% if technology gets to the point where the flue gasses are clean enough to not require as much draft etc eh? Perhaps some great cat stove putting out just steam and CO/CO2 eh? Just wondering... Tom - the article mentions 10% - is that merely an example or is that the actual adjustment number used?
All makers aren't going to secondary burn systems. Energy King switched back to catalytic and told me because it was more efficient. But if I were to guess why some have switched to burn tubes, I'd have to say there are too many people out there that burn improperly or burn garbage, scrap lumber or wet wood which is death for a catalyst. So manufactures just didn't want to deal with it anymore.
If your a serious 24/7 wood burner who takes care of his/her system and wood supply a cat stove experience can be excellent. Starting out cats are more efficient, but over time they probably even out with non cats as they degrade at the end of their lifespan.
Energy King, Blaze King > we have been dealers for many years
both products my customers have loved for ever, but they ARE in the minority
i agree, cat stoves are great> i replace very few cats each year, with good care they last along time
secondary combustion is so much nicer looking though
ps i should've said " all the "MAJOR" makers"
Yes, cats are generally more efficient. The down side is they need replacing every 6 to 10 years (at $100 to $300) and as Todd stated, they require a died of clean wood (no trash).
If a stove doesn't qualify for the rebate, there must be some serious problem, I would not buy it. I was looking at Vermont castings just out of curiosity because I own one of their stoves, and it looks to me like basically every model they sell qualifies, 43 models are listed specifically:
Separate names with a comma.