1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)
    Caluwe - Passion for Fire and Water ( Pellet and Wood Hydronic and Space Heating)

Central Boiler 1400 vs 2400

Post in 'The Boiler Room - Wood Boilers and Furnaces' started by Mass Heat, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. Mass Heat

    Mass Heat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Loc:
    Southern Mass
    [/quote]

    Waiting on a quote for a Wood gun install. If the quote is reasonable, I plan on going this route. If the quote comes in too high, I'll revisit the CB 1450, which is now EPA approved. I plan on making my decision by March 15th.[/quote]

    Well the quote came in high. $7000 for the install. Add another $2k for the chimney and shed addition and the project is quickly exceeding my original budget. May need to revisit my options.

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. Mass Heat

    Mass Heat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Loc:
    Southern Mass
    I checked them out online. Seems like a nice unit. I like a couple of the features. Seems like the gassifications temps are achieved, like the low stack temp and the chimney cap option. I have a dealer within 1.5 hours and I'm thinking that it would be a good idea to check them out.
  3. leeeallen

    leeeallen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    46
    Loc:
    s. Maine
    Good luck - there is a dealer in S Maine as well - that's where I bought mine. If you need info, let me know - the owner was easy to deal with.
  4. Gasifier

    Gasifier Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,137
    Loc:
    St. Lawrence River Valley, N.Y.
    Waiting on a quote for a Wood gun install. If the quote is reasonable, I plan on going this route. If the quote comes in too high, I'll revisit the CB 1450, which is now EPA approved. I plan on making my decision by March 15th.[/quote]

    Well the quote came in high. $7000 for the install. Add another $2k for the chimney and shed addition and the project is quickly exceeding my original budget. May need to revisit my options.[/quote]

    $7000 just for the install? Holy sh!t. Sounds like the installer wants to make some serious cash. I got my install done for $4000. A hair over $3000 for all the piping, pumps, fittings, etc. etc. $970 for labor. These two guys work for an HVAC company and did the job for me "on the side". If you ask around maybe you could find someone like that. Mass, for whatever boiler you chose, look around at different installation options. Sometimes you can find a younger guy, someone who has a good reputation, and is looking to make some extra money outside of his job. As long as you tell him how you want it, he should be able to do it and make you happy. Just a suggestion.
  5. stee6043

    stee6043 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,349
    Loc:
    West Michigan
    The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me. An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high. I assume for most people "on the side" means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid. It's all in the risk/reward tradeoff.

    For what it's worth I wouldn't recommend folks make public record of their "on the side" dealings. Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to.
  6. Mass Heat

    Mass Heat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Loc:
    Southern Mass
    For the record, the "on the side" reference is being pursued and will include all the necessary permits. I'm pulling them and the electrician and plumber will need to be licensed. The original quote was based on 80 hours labor at $30 to 35 an hour. The Problem I have is that the plumber came by and stated he could do the tie in a day tops. Same with the electrician.
  7. Gasifier

    Gasifier Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,137
    Loc:
    St. Lawrence River Valley, N.Y.
    The difference you describe above does not seem unreasonable to me. An extra $3k for a permitted, insured and fully taxed installation does not sound overly high. I assume for most people “on the side†means no permit, no insurance, no taxes paid. It’s all in the risk/reward tradeoff
    For what it’s worth I wouldn’t recommend folks make public record of their “on the side†dealings. Insurance companies and/or local authorities certainly can crawl the interweb should they ever have a reason to.


    Stee,

    Wooo. Slow down a bit Stee. Never said no permit, no insurance. I am covered. Doing everything above the board is a good idea. But let's be realistic. There are a ton of guys on here who have done there own installs. That does not mean they are not covered by insurance or did not get a building permit. As long as you meet the building code and have insurance coverage. I will watch out for those local authorities those. ;-P
  8. stee6043

    stee6043 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,349
    Loc:
    West Michigan
    Gas, I'm referring to the liability insurance a contractor "on the clock" would carry and the licenses and taxes he'd be required to obtain and pay. A homeowner can legally do work in his own home but only licensed contractors can legally do work at others homes and charge for it. And when they do they pay taxes, maintain insurance and charge accordingly.
  9. huffdawg

    huffdawg Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,054
    Loc:
    British Columbia Canada
    Its $85 an hour for a plumber or heating contractor in my neck of the woods . It usually works out to half the cost of the materials in the end.
  10. heaterman

    heaterman Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,039
    Loc:
    Falmouth, Michigan
    To the opening poster.

    FWIW......I just spoke with a customer today who was referred to me by the CB dealer. The customer has an EPA tagged CB that has accumulated over $5,500 in repairs not covered by the warranty. It is at the end of its fourth (that's 4th) heating season. He found out, like so many others that the warranty is not worth the paper it is printed on. The unit, which I am guessing is a first production EPA model, has had numerous control board failures and CB refused to honor any of them citing customer mis-use. (how one mis-uses a control panel would need further clarification in my book) He has also experienced several other problems with it and now it was losing 25 gallons of water per week. CB refuses to do anything about that claiming they have no proof that the customer maintained the proper chemistry in the water even after the dealer himself told the factory that the customer faithfully purchased treatment from him every year, and has the receipts to prove it. Their response was that the customer should ship the unit back to Minnesota (at his expense) and allow CB to make a determination of the failure.
    As you can guess the customer basically said "SCREW YOU"....(not his exact words but this is a family forum after all).
    Needless to say he is done with CB in any way shape or form. The customer told me he is taking the CB to the local scrap yard and having it crushed, then putting it on a pallet and actually returning it to CB. To say he is angry would be the understatement of the decade.

    Now here's the part you and anyone else considering one, need to know about CB boilers with the foam insulation........

    Upon deciding he was done with trying to get anywhere with CB, the owner took the jacket off the unit and stripped off the foam to see what was going on with the leak. He discovered that the unit had corroded through in several spots. Now pay attention because this is the dirty little secret on CB's from what I can tell...........the corrosion was obviously coming from the outside in rather than coming from the water side out. Apparently the foam traps moisture against the skin of the boiler or else there is poor surface prep done before the foam is applied and allows corrosion to attack the steel from the outer surface. I have seen this type of corrosion on CB's too often over the years to think it is just an isolated incident. In none of the cases did CB cover any of the damage to, or the failure of the boiler.

    As for the dealer, I feel sorry for the guy. He just purchased the inventory and business of the previous guy who handled them here in my area and has no idea what the history of the company is when it comes to warranty. To my knowledge, the old dealer told him nothing about any of the problem units that he had out in the field or the fact that CB basically refuses to honor very few, if any, claims submitted for warranty consideration.

    I would sooner tell someone to build a boiler themselves than buy anything made by CB.

    The owner of the CB would likely be glad to talk with anyone here regarding his experience and I can probably get you his phone number if you would like to speak with him.
  11. Mass Heat

    Mass Heat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Loc:
    Southern Mass
    BM, thank you for the post regarding your encounter with the CB issue. Im not a big fan of the pro rated warranty, never mind a warranty that won't be honored.
  12. samuel

    samuel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Loc:
    SoCal

    I liked to read some of the threads but this one makes me mad. Heaterman - please STOP commenting on the EPA Test Method(s) because it appears you DO NOT have a clue! You sound like an anti-wood burning activist who feeds that garbage through their cyber balkanist sites. First - OWB manufacturer's started a process in ASTM to develop a test method for particulate matter emissions and efficiency in 2004 - the ASTM process then involves other manufacturers, test laboratories, EPA, State agencies, and any other interested parties to develop it - hence a consensus process. The STATES essentially forced the EPA to take a draft method (draft 4) of the ASTM process and implement it to start the voluntary program in January 2007 - called EPA Method 28 OWHH. Later the ASTM process finished by passing draft 12 in 2008 - ASTM E2618. So in the meantime - an unfinished draft method gets shoved down the manufacturer's throats and in order to qualify an OWB - manufacturers used independent labs that tested to the Method they were required to use to qualify an OWB. Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading? By the way - the reason that the ASTM process took 4 years is because the States could not make up their mind regarding cribwood or cordwood and what species of wood would be used. When the test methods came for indoor stoves, essentially from the Oregon wood stove laws, Oregon had chose douglas fir - softwoods in the N.W. The N.E. States involved in the OWB process chose oak.

    Yes EPA Method 28 OWHH was revised and approved in August or so of 2011 to make results more accurate (requiring more moisture content readings, measurements from the boiler side to the load side, etc.) but the general requirements stayed the same. Measurements from the boilers side to the load side were already being done and only required recalculations were needed.

    Did you know that EPA Test Method 28 (indoor woodstove method) uses dimensional lumber with spacers for testing? Why is it required that 4by4 cribwood with spacers be used???? Because the States demanded it and because the States want "worst case" scenario PM emission results and they believe they get it this way. However, the most important reason this fueling requirement is used is because it allows for REPEATABLE results from test laboratory to test laboratory. How to you get repeatable results from cordwood???? The cordwood option was given to manufacturers by EPA in the Phase 1 Program - why didn't more manufacturers choose this test option and provide their results to EPA? I believe only 1 manufacturer in Phase 1 chose it and then EPA abandoned it because the STATES won't allow it. Did you know that indoor woodstoves and OWBs essentially use the same PM sampling method? So how could those results be skewed? I'm sure we are all educated enough to know the difference between default efficiencies (63%, 72% and 78%) and efficiencies based upon an OUTPUT based emission limit of 0.32 lbs/mmBtu output!

    One last thing - EN 303-5 used in Europe show efficiency results over 90% and they have been endorsed by States and other governmental organizations. Why does Heaterman then claim the numbers "defied the laws of physics"? I am in no way saying that the European Method is bad - I'm making a point as it is different. U.S. Methods require 4 test burn categories with highest weighting on the lower categories - the "dirtiest categories". In EN 303-5 you hand pick your burn rate, your fuel and you test. Is is proper then to compare the results? Maybe, maybe not. But why is there a problem when U.S. tests show close to or over 90% and nobody questions the EN units which show over 90%? Europe doesn't accept the U.S. methods for approval so why should the U.S. accept the EN methods?

    Now to tie into the topic - the literature I saw at Expo on the E-Classic 1450 shows it meets both U.S. and EN requirements.

    Also, if you are in Massachusetts and you want to install an OWB (not an indoor - meaning inside your home) you have to install a Massachusetts Certified OWB. Massachusetts requires this if you are installing an actual OWB meaning outside your house or in a shed or other structure not normally occupied by persons - http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/certohh.htm. I'm not sure other units discussed here are on that list.
    martyinmi likes this.
  13. stee6043

    stee6043 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,349
    Loc:
    West Michigan
    Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to share with us.
  14. wishiwasfishingguy

    wishiwasfishingguy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    Loc:
    MN
    Very informative Sam. You are obviously very well educated on this process and thank you for sharing.
  15. NP ALASKA

    NP ALASKA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Loc:
    North Pole, ALASKA
    Morgan's Phone 017.JPG

    Very interesting reading! I have done a little reading in regards to testing methods. Depending on the testing site things are done a bit differently. I think lots of the numbers presented are a guide and in no way are they a gaurantee. This is especially true if coming from a government agency. What I have done instead of getting caught up in these numbers is do some real research of actual appliances in use. I bought into a OWB some years back, unfortanately I had not found this site before making the investment.
    I have since ordered a different appliance to help in doing away with my smoke wagon. My neiborghs are as excited as I am and luckily we are great firends and they have tolerated me for the past 5-6 years(smoke-smoke-smoke)
    I did make a few long distance calls and even international calls to owners of the appliance I decided on. Also looking at many things overseas the technology they have is light years ahead of the US.
    I think the best research a person can do is to visit with some using the appliance of choice. Luckily I was able to compare a few different gassers that are heating similar size homes and in similar climates to me. This helped alot, in my decision process. I realized the amount of wood I burn in one day will heat my home for a week or more in a gasser.
    I wasnt keen on loosing the space inside for storage but have made due and both trucks wtill park inside.

    Just my 2 cents----on research and comparison. The government is always straight forward in everything they report and share with us right????

    Regards
  16. NP ALASKA

    NP ALASKA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Loc:
    North Pole, ALASKA
    To be fair, I feel compeled to mention that the above picture was taken directly after loading. The load was half pallets and hard wood on top of that.
    Not the way I will do things in the future for sure.

    Regards,
  17. stee6043

    stee6043 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,349
    Loc:
    West Michigan
    Is that really a photo of your smoke pipe? Yikes....I've never seen an OWB in my area smoke like that. That looks like a volcano! ha. Glad to hear you're taking steps to improve. That much mess out the pipe can't be good for much of anything.
  18. woodsmaster

    woodsmaster Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,491
    Loc:
    N.W. Ohio
    Looks like a diesiel pulling tractor.:)
  19. NP ALASKA

    NP ALASKA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Loc:
    North Pole, ALASKA
    I cutt the half of the square footage to be heated by my up grade off the OWB yesterday. Gonna burn some oil until spring. But I will have the new system installed this summer and will recover. The folks next door said they could tell right-away that I had changed something. Not the amount of smoke in the air that used to be.
  20. Gasifier

    Gasifier Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,137
    Loc:
    St. Lawrence River Valley, N.Y.
    Did you pick a boiler yet Mass?
  21. NP ALASKA

    NP ALASKA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Loc:
    North Pole, ALASKA
    Yes that is an actual picture of my OWB in full force!! Time to put it to bed.

    Mass have you decided on an appliance? I was very gun shy when committing. There are alot of good appliances out there.
    Hope you make a good decision for yourself and oyur situation.

    I thought my OWB was a good fit since I am on 10 acres, the probelm is I am surrounded by lots of 1-2 acre lots and my smoke definatley gets over the property line.

    Best Regards,
  22. heaterman

    heaterman Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,039
    Loc:
    Falmouth, Michigan
    Samuel. I most definitely am NOT an anti wood burning activist. I feel that burning bio-mass, wood, pellets or whatever is an excellent choice for a person to make. Far better payback than a wind generator or solar electric, even solar hot water. That being said, I have to add that it must be done in a responsible manner first and foremost, secondly that a person should take great pains to select an appliance that is truly clean burning under real world conditions.

    What unit of government mandated the current testing regimen is immaterial. It is still an inaccurate "yardstick". Regardless of whether it is mandated by local, state, or federal authorities the test method in it's current form is nearly worthless in establishing a true picture of how a given unit will perform in someone's backyard or house. Seriously. What good is data that while being repeatable, bears little accurate reflection of how the unit is actually going to work. People read the white or yellow tag on the unit and assume that their results will be similar. No? Of course they do.

    You are correct when you assert that Method 28 specifies cribbed, clean wood, nailed together to present a uniform, repeatable test. This method of testing dates back to the early days of EPA getting "involved" in wood stove emissions. It was specifically developed for use in freestanding, indoor wood stoves like Lopi, Vermont Castings, etc, etc. That method is basically a holdover from the last century and was used not because it accurately portrayed emission and efficiency levels but simply because of inertia required to change it and a little back room politics.

    Now...........Here is the major difference in those little indoor units and any wood fired hydronic heater (save a couple) and also the reason it is fatally flawed.
    An indoor wood stove can be accurately tested with this method because of the way it operates. You can achieve fairly accurate results across the output range because the fire is never cycled completely off even at low outputs. You can throttle the fire down by closing the damper, arrive at a 25% or 50% output level without shutting down the fire and get a pretty good "read" on what is going on.
    No OWB's that I am aware of are able to "throttle" the fire (burn rate). They merely cycle full off/full on at a different rate and effectively shut the fire down for longer durations to arrive at the lower output levels. Even the high end boilers that are able to modulate air flow reach a point where they have to shut down the burn and cycle to avoid over heating the system fluid, whatever that may be. Brookhaven National Labs recently conducted tests in conjunction with NYSERDA (sp) using a very high end wood boiler and found emissions to be extreme when outputs were reduced to the 25-35% range (this is not publicly available yet) The unit performed in a satisfactory manner when operated between 50-100% output but went downhill fast once it was operated below that. Now compound that with the fact that the operating conditions are absolutely and positively unrepeatable in the field and you end up with consumers who are being grossly mislead.

    EPA 28 worked to a large extent in the indoor units it was originally designed for but fails to account for the 100% shutdown of the burn common to nearly all OWHH units. That fact, as much as the cribbed wood renders the results false when compared to what consumers will actually experience.


    Now how is this in any way the fault of the manufacturers or misleading? Let me start with a few assumptions that I think are safe to make........
    I believe that many, if not all manufacturers have engineers who are probably a lot more educated than I am. The larger manufacturers especially.
    I also believe that these companies and their engineers knew that the EPA test was a poor indicator of actual performance. (if the engineers did not grasp this I have to question if they are in the right occupation) I have also heard through the grapevine in this rather small industry that some manufacturers set up units for the test method in such a way that results would be favorable even though the units were operating far outside normal primary/secondary air ratios.

    So how is it the manufacturers fault? Simply put, they went along with something they knew was bogus and ran with it instead of strongly making a case for something different. As such they are complicit in providing false and misleading information to the public.
    Maybe it's not that black and white but it sure seems to me that a responsible manufacturer would have railed mightily against a testing method that did not/does not provide consumers with an accurate portrayal of how their unit will perform in a customers backyard.

    Again. I would simply ask, what good are repeatable test results when they bear no semblance to normal operating conditions?
    It would be the same as CAFE mileage standards being produced based on driving your car at 30 mph rather than normal speeds. Yes the results would be accurate but a person would never see anything close to it after he bought the car. Accurate but totally unrealistic.

    As far as the European models and other US made units claiming 90% efficiency is concerned...It does indeed defy the laws of physics to claim that level of heat conversion when stack temps are 400-700*. Real efficiency at those stack temps would be more along the lines of 65-70 assuming the real heating value of the fuel. A wood boiler that was actually cranking out 90% would require a condensate drain in the heat exchanger. Show me any wood boiler that has provision for a condensate drain and I'll eat some crow but from what I am aware of there are none.
    woodsmaster likes this.
  23. NP ALASKA

    NP ALASKA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Loc:
    North Pole, ALASKA
    Awesome, and AMEN!
  24. samuel

    samuel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Loc:
    SoCal
    PART 1

    Heaterman

    I did not say you were an anti-wood burning activist – I said you sound like one. I don’t think this would be an issue if you sold your products based upon their own merits rather than trying to slam specific products and test methods. I believe that your statement “grapevine in this rather small industry that some manufacturers set up units for the test method in such a way that results would be favorable even though the units were operating far outside normal primary/secondary air ratios” is flat-out BS.

    Most of the testing requirements in the methods for OWBs were derived from what the EPA, states, test laboratories, manufacturers and other interested parties learned from 20 years of testing indoor woodstoves. It appears you are claiming that you know more all of them – including their engineers. You should take the time to learn about the consensus ASTM process and how the test method development process works and how many different interested parties participate in them. If manufacturers aren’t at the table - EPA and the states can create their own regulations/legislation/test methods without input and participation from industry – at least until they propose such.

    Many manufacturers have been preparing since EPA’s first test of OWBs in 1995. That’s difficult without knowing what test method or PM emission limit would be established. The EPA Phase 1 and Phase 2 Programs allowed for test methods to be used that are similar to indoor woodstoves tests. Here is a comparison of methods:

    EPA Test Method 28
    v Indoor woodstoves/pellet stoves
    v 4 test burn categories
    v Uses 4 test burn categories to quantify results
    v Use an average of results that weighs a medium-low heat category higher since these solid fuel burning devices are used in that range most of the time
    v Wood test load using dimensional lumber with wood spacers
    v Wood fuel moisture content ranges (19-25%).
    v Established an 18 g/hr cap for any individual test run when burn rates were more than 1.5 kg/hr.
    v Includes a requirement for measuring particulate matter (PM) collected by a dilution tunnel

    EPA Test Method 28 OWHH/WHH (this is true for OWHH and WHH so major category comparisons DID NOT change)
    v Outdoor hydronic heaters/indoor hydronic heater
    v 4 test burn categories
    v Uses 4 test burn categories to quantify results
    v Use an average of results that weighs a medium-low heat category higher since these solid fuel burning devices are used in that range most of the time.
    v Wood test load using dimensional lumber with wood spacers
    v Wood fuel moisture content ranges (19-25%).
    v Established an 18 g/hr cap for any individual test run - burn rates are typically more than 1.5 kg/hr.
    v ASTM Method E2515 – Standard Test Method for Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions Collected by a Dilution tunnel

    When a lab performs everything required in ASTM E2515 – it performs everything in Method 28. E2515 is a more up-to-date dilution tunnel method and will likely be instituted in the revised NSPS for all wood heaters. EPA allows for ASTM E2618 to be used to qualify outdoor/indoor pellet hydronic heaters. CSA B415.1-10 (the Canadian standard) also is fairly similar to the above Methods but has 3 test burn categories and defers to ASTM E2618 in several areas. ASTM E2618 is being revised to “match” the revisions completed in Test Method 28 WHH - April 2012. ASTM E2618 is approved by EPA for qualifying pellet wood boilers. Are all these methods and results from them suspect?
    martyinmi likes this.
  25. samuel

    samuel Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Loc:
    SoCal
    PART 2
    The OWB tests methods established as real world as you get, worst case scenario for PM emissions and efficiency that EPA and the states demanded. How? If your thoughts on cordwood were spot on, then more manufacturers would spend countless hours and thousands of dollars testing and proving with both and submitting the results to EPA and the states. However, why would manufacturers do that when EPA and states WON’T accept?

    Here is a hypothetical OWB test for you to consider:
    v An OWB is run at its Max Capacity for the Categegory IV test. That OWB runs at Max Capacity in the test for 3-10 hours at 250,000 Btu/hr. This establishes and determines where categories I, II and III are run at.
    v Cat. I runs at less than 15% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test then runs for the next 25-50 hours in the laboratory.
    v Cat. II runs at 16-24% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test runs for the next 20-30 hours.
    v Cat. III runs at 25-50% of the max – 340+ lbs of wood are loaded into the OWB and the test runs for the next 10-20 hours.

    Regardless of the fuel requirement – if cordwood was used as the fuel – the testing scenario is the SAME. The particulate sampling methods – dilution tunnel methods are the same. I have NEVER seen a claim the g/hr numbers are wrong. Here’s a quote from Vermont – with my underlining:
    Choosing an OWB: All the Phase II OWBs are far more efficient and less polluting than the uncertified OWB models. Although some of the efficiency based test results are questionable, the grams per hour emission rates listed above should be correct. For comparison, the US EPA standards for indoor wood stoves are 7.5 grams/hr for non-catalytic and 4.1 for catalytic stoves. The emissions from most recently designed indoor woodstoves are approximately half the level of the wood stove standards during tests. The grams/hr emissions from most of the Phase II OWBs approach or exceed the woodstove standards during laboratory testing, even though they produce at least twice to several times the heat output (in BTUs).
    Indoor woodstoves have been sold for over 20 years solely based on their g/hr numbers – so while a couple of issues get worked out on the efficiency for OWBs – it DOES NOT make information subject. Imagine the kinks that might have to get worked out if and when efficiency limits are set in the NSPS for indoor woodstoves (70%). Are groups going to be running around claiming the efficiency numbers are suspect and a new efficiency test needs to be worked out once results start coming in?

    Another issue where EPA and states wanted to show worst case scenarios for PM emissions demonstrates a consumer filling the OWB to the hilt – no matter the Btu/hr needs of the buildings being heated. Wouldn’t a consumer know that the temperature outside is warmer – they need less heat – and they load the OWB according to their heat demand with less wood? NOPE! EPA and the states want worst case PM emissions and this is how EPA and the states believe that many consumers load OWBs – the consumer fills the OWB to the brink every time they load it regardless of heat demand. That is why you see 340+ lbs of wood being loaded into the unit for each category burn rate test. The test methods determine wood load on firebox size.

    An typical OWB operates cyclically in the field by providing heat on demand. The OWB operates between a high and low water temperature differential. In the testing – the OWB operates as they do in the field - cyclically. When the OWB brings the water up to the set high, the OWB shuts down and goes into “idol” or “slumber mode.” Heat is continuously drawn off the heat exchanger at the Cat I, II, III or IV heat draws until it calls for heat, heat is supplied and then idol – this happens repeatedly over the course of many hours test until the test is complete just as it would heating a home. The test replicates a home drawing off the Category I-IV heat categories. PM emission sampling is done throughout. I’m at a loss why you don’t think this represents real world use?

    If an OWB cannot operate in Cat. I, II or III, then it cannot be tested in this method. Should the remote thermal storage people stop working on a similar ASTM process because of “backroom politics” you wrote about? If completed should their results be automatically suspect?

    Here is what EPA has on the Burn Wise website about the Test Method 28 OWHH and revisions that resulted in Test Method 28 WHH – some of which can already be re-calculated from the tests that have been done (1, 2 and 5):
    Because of uncertainties associated with the previous Test Method 28 OWHH, EPA, states, manufacturers, and laboratories spent several months revising this method and have made several improvements, including:
    1. Efficiency calculation uses calibrated flow meter and temperature thermopiles on the load side;
    2. Increased data readings from every 10 minutes to every minute;
    3. Increased moisture readings from three to five;
    4. Use CSA B415.1 stack loss method to check appropriateness of the overall efficiency calculation;
    5. Changed the HHV default to 8600 BTUS/LB or using ASTM E711, and LHV default to 7938BTU/LB.
    Now for NYSERDA - they support EU 90% efficiency numbers and endorse them. NYSERDA statement, “Over the last 30 years average efficiencies of biomass boilers have increased from approximately 55% to more than 90% based on the NCV(net calorific value)…” The most recent NYSERDA tests (if you can even call them that) were suppose to show RESULTS of comparisons from the U.S. and EU tests with the same wood boiler. The labs, regulators, manufacturers and other interested parties were there and NYSERDA had NO real results. NYSERDA didn’t even have the essential equipment to conduct the tests (no scale and other vital equipment). The result was they will spend the next 6 months possibly doing some type of testing but unsure if it will follow any of the prescribed methods or result in anything.

    I find your statements to be “fatally flawed” “an inaccurate yardstick” and “manipulated”.
    martyinmi likes this.

Share This Page