EPA banning Catalytic stoves? "ZONKS"

  • 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.

allhandsworking

Feeling the Heat
Sep 30, 2008
378
NYC
Stopped by my LI NY stove shop to take a look at the new VC Merrimack. I further inquire about about Blaze King products. The sales person told me they don't carry Blaze King and the EPA is banning Cats. because of inefficient burns? I thought"ZONKS" What is going on is the sales person "Full of s..t" as we say in NYC! Or is the sales person hoping I'm dumb and just trying to make a sale?
 
Maybe they meant they are banning the burning of domestic felines? Cats generally have lower grams/hr. emissions rates from what I've seen.
 
Pagey said:
Maybe they meant they are banning the burning of domestic felines? Cats generally have lower grams/hr. emissions rates from what I've seen.

c;
 
Ha, if anything there will be more cats after the EPA lowers it's standards.
 
Heard the same crap from sales people when I was stove shopping. I call bs until I see different. If I could find a steel CAT stove I like I'd have one. Someday I may make my family room bigger, if that happens I'll be able to get away with a BK princess model. I "think" the wife would let me have a Princess in the room then. :lol:
 
I dont know about banning but it is quite possible that there will not be any cat stoves left after the next round of epa guide lines it will really depend on how the standards are written but the epa looks at the cat as a more dirty option. that is why the they set the origal standard at 4.5 vs 7.5 for non cats as the cat get old the profomance declines so they wanted it to start a lower level then non cats. by the time the epa is done there is a good chance there will be a new animal on the market but the epa putting a flat ban on cat stove that is not true from my understanding and at the pace the goverment works i would not expect to see the new standards for at least two more years at the earliest
 
Probably gonna ban burning pine too. :ahhh:
 
Anyone seen this?

http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/pdfs/Newsletter2010Issue2.pdf

"EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards is developing a proposal to revise the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new Residential Wood Heaters. These standards are scheduled to be proposed in April 2011 and promulgated in April 2012."

"What new appliances could be subject to these standards?
Markets are expanding and demand is increasing for new residential wood- and other biomass-burning (e.g., corn, switchgrass) appliances, while performance is improving. Given these changes, EPA is considering revising the standards to cover new wood stoves, as well as appliances such as new indoor and outdoor hydronic heaters (wood boilers), new pellet stoves, new masonry heaters, new fireplaces (indoor and outdoor), and new cookstoves."

Additional link: http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/woodheaters.htm
 
stoveguy13 said:
I dont know about banning but it is quite possible that there will not be any cat stoves left after the next round of epa guide lines it will really depend on how the standards are written but the epa looks at the cat as a more dirty option. that is why the they set the origal standard at 4.5 vs 7.5 for non cats as the cat get old the profomance declines so they wanted it to start a lower level then non cats. by the time the epa is done there is a good chance there will be a new animal on the market but the epa putting a flat ban on cat stove that is not true from my understanding and at the pace the goverment works i would not expect to see the new standards for at least two more years at the earliest

Cat stoves have gotten much better since phase II standards were implimented back in 1992. They last longer, burn much cleaner, and are more efficient than non cats. If the EPA does come out with lower GPH standards it will be the non cat manufactures that will be scrabbling to get a cleaner burn.


http://www.chc-hpba.org/chc_news.htm
 
Let's be accurate here in this forum. The EPA looks upon catalytic wood stoves quite favorably and DOES NOT SEE THEM AS THE DIRTIER BURNING of the two technologies currently in place. Simply read the web articles and studies published by OMNI Environmental Labs , the EPA and the Catalytic Hearth Coalition.

According to the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, more than likely there will be a single emissions standard for wood stoves. The original dual standard was done in 1988 because there was not real history for catalytic wood stoves. The post here that states there is a greater chance of more catalytic wood stoves in the future is absolutely spot on. The EPA is wise to the fact, as pointed out in the CHC published documents, the non catalytic wood stoves must burn exceedingly hot in order to burn clean enough to pass the grade. The article explains very clearly why the inside of my prior stove was warped so badly! Furthermore, experts in the stove industry have told the EPA that such damaged stoves do not burn clean once they suffer any sort of damage.

Read what the industry experts are saying, don't guess. There are some nice looking, clean burning non catalytic wood stoves, but they do not have large fireboxes and do have very short burn times. Any stove building company that does not address the needs of real wood burners such as myself (that is I like to HEAT my home not look at a fire while drinking a glass of wine) will not get my money on future purchases.

Perhaps, just around the corner, a stove company will introduce an entirely new technology to satsify all interested parties. Long live clean burning, efficient catalytic and non catalytic wood stoves!
 
That's my thought also! My interest in heating my home has become the major point of this wood burning thing. I have a non cat, the flames are pretty to watch but I am really wanting to get a longer burn time with steady controllable heat. I would love to try a cat. stove now that I'm a true blooded wood burner! The secondary flames do lose there novelty after a couple of years. Wood boiler's seem to have the latest technologies Gasification and so forth. When will some of that trickle down to inserts and stoves? Blaze king seems to be utilizing that the best with thermostat's and so forth!
 
A lot of non cat stove that give nice long burns out there.
 
everyone can defenend there cat stove and non cat stoves as much as they want but until the standards are set there is no one that will be able to tell you what the final outcome will be but i can tell you this , the likely hood of the cat becoming the standard again in very small the chc dosent even have a horse in this race! this is all about politics and the hpba pocket book those maf. dont even show up on the radar
 
BrotherBart said:
Probably gonna ban burning pine too. :ahhh:
that is next on the hit list!!! ha ha
 
stoveguy13 said:
everyone can defenend there cat stove and non cat stoves as much as they want but until the standards are set there is no one that will be able to tell you what the final outcome will be but i can tell you this , the likely hood of the cat becoming the standard again in very small the chc dosent even have a horse in this race! this is all about politics and the hpba pocket book those maf. dont even show up on the radar
catstove is complicated to operate properly & if not so,,, polluting!+ cats wear out, etc. I CAN SEE WHERE THE EPA IS COMING FROM
 
BigBlockChevy said:
Let's be accurate here in this forum.

Read what the industry experts are saying, don't guess. There are some nice looking, clean burning non catalytic wood stoves, but they do not have large fireboxes and do have very short burn times.

Could have fooled me. I could have sworn that 3.5cf firebox in my Englander 30-NC rang in at 1.6 gph in its EPA test and it sure seemed warm in this place 15 hours after I loaded it many times last winter. And the winter before and the winter before..
 
BrotherBart said:
BigBlockChevy said:
Let's be accurate here in this forum.

Read what the industry experts are saying, don't guess. There are some nice looking, clean burning non catalytic wood stoves, but they do not have large fireboxes and do have very short burn times.

Could have fooled me. I could have sworn that 3.5cf firebox in my Englander 30-NC rang in at 1.6 gph in its EPA test and it sure seemed warm in this place 15 hours after I loaded it many times last winter. And the winter before and the winter before..
GOTTA ASK, DID U REALLY PLUG YOUR SECONDARY INTAKE OR WAS THAT A JOKE?
 
BrotherBart said:
BigBlockChevy said:
Let's be accurate here in this forum.

Read what the industry experts are saying, don't guess. There are some nice looking, clean burning non catalytic wood stoves, but they do not have large fireboxes and do have very short burn times.

Could have fooled me. I could have sworn that 3.5cf firebox in my Englander 30-NC rang in at 1.6 gph in its EPA test and it sure seemed warm in this place 15 hours after I loaded it many times last winter. And the winter before and the winter before..

Since we want to be accurate here, remeasure your usable fire box, it's more like 2.7, and while your at it unplug those zipper air outlets you modified to get a longer dirtier burn! :coolgrin:
 
BLIMP said:
stoveguy13 said:
everyone can defenend there cat stove and non cat stoves as much as they want but until the standards are set there is no one that will be able to tell you what the final outcome will be but i can tell you this , the likely hood of the cat becoming the standard again in very small the chc dosent even have a horse in this race! this is all about politics and the hpba pocket book those maf. dont even show up on the radar
catstove is complicated to operate properly & if not so,,, polluting!+ cats wear out, etc. I CAN SEE WHERE THE EPA IS COMING FROM

EPA doesn't have all the facts. I think you need to install one of those inline cats on your sawdust burner right before your Magic Heat.
 
Todd said:
BLIMP said:
stoveguy13 said:
everyone can defenend there cat stove and non cat stoves as much as they want but until the standards are set there is no one that will be able to tell you what the final outcome will be but i can tell you this , the likely hood of the cat becoming the standard again in very small the chc dosent even have a horse in this race! this is all about politics and the hpba pocket book those maf. dont even show up on the radar
catstove is complicated to operate properly & if not so,,, polluting!+ cats wear out, etc. I CAN SEE WHERE THE EPA IS COMING FROM

EPA doesn't have all the facts. I think you need to install one of those inline cats on your sawdust burner right before your Magic Heat.
why? the MH never plugs, i clean chimni every few years, & the sdust dont burn hot enuff to burn my hand on the fluepipe anyway.
 
BrotherBart said:
Probably gonna ban burning pine too. :ahhh:

Central Oregonions would revolt. That's all we got around here. Plenty of it too.
 
Todd said:
Since we want to be accurate here, remeasure your usable fire box, it's more like 2.7, and while your at it unplug those zipper air outlets you modified to get a longer dirtier burn! :coolgrin:

The original long burns were before zipping up the zipper. And the firebox size measured to the top of the bricks leaving the combustion space above it is a dead even 3.0cf. That is why I say it and the Summit have the same box size. Summit owners stuff it up to the baffle but anymore I only load to the top of the bricks. So we have the same size load of wood.

Not a dimes worth of difference in burn time not stacking it up to the baffle and more heat and a more consistent burn leaving the combustion space. And anymore I burn all N/S. The thing burns forever E/W but I absolutely hate having to stack a load and get it going that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.