HERES A LINK TO SHOW JUST HOW PRESSURED OUR HOBBY/INTEREST/HEATING CHOICE IS:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/u...ying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/25/u...ying-warm-a-thick-coat-of-dirty-air.html?_r=0
What it shows is that we have to be mindful of the adverse health effects of our hobby. If you become the one who got lung cancer you would not think it's unreasonable scrutiny.
Question is, are all these folks using EPA stoves and do they have well seasoned wood and know good burning practices?
If I were not burning wood, I would be burning electrons, generated by burning coal. ~50% of electricity in my state is generated by burning coal. Last I heard, "clean coal" burning was an unrealizable fantasy. They're converting some powerplants to biomass or natural gas, but until they quit burning coal on such a large scale, going after wood burners is silly, IMO. YMMV in other areas.
Maybe in some cases having an EPA stove does not solve everything. My next door neighbor has what I think is a big Regency wood stove with secondary combustion. ( I have seen it only once few years ago so no model #) He buys wood in log length, after waiting 1 year he then cuts , splits and calls it seasoned. He makes huge splits ,like 8x8x18 . Red oak that still weights a ton . He uses that so it lasts longer in his stove. His chimney smokes for hours, big time. Good thing not in my direction. He tells me that he has to clean his chimney every few weeks and removes buckets of creosote. He is a nice guy otherwise,but he is resisting to change his ways. When I try to talk to him about what I learned on this site: css, wait 2-3 years, burn , he looks at me like I'm crazy. When I told him that I love pine for shoulder season and to burn down the coals, he almost called the state to have me committed. I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.I can see how folks are worried. I live in an area of many valleys and cold air pockets. Luckily I live up high. We are very sparsely populated but the air and smoke sinks into those valleys and sits there. As you drive down the roads it smells like a forest fire every time you get to a low spot. I'm glad my house is not down in there. I'm all for clean air but the sad part will be that by the time they study this, create a program and pay someone to enforce they could probably just buy everyone a New EPA stove and have it installed.
If I were not burning wood, I would be burning electrons, generated by burning coal. ~50% of electricity in my state is generated by burning coal. Last I heard, "clean coal" burning was an unrealizable fantasy. They're converting some powerplants to biomass or natural gas, but until they quit burning coal on such a large scale, going after wood burners is silly, IMO. YMMV in other areas.
As a side note, wow! an objective article from the New York Times. Well done!
p.s. A hot issue in my state is where to dump all the coal ash. Haven't heard of any locals getting riled up over ash from biomass.
Cleaner in some ways yes but it still puts allot more chemicals into the environment than wood. Believe me I work in some areas where coal is still the primary fuel used for heat and during cold spells you can smell the sulfur and feel it in your eyes and lungs. And yes all that is burned there is anthracite this is the center of coal country pa with some of the best anthracite in the world. Yes bituminous is much worse but anthracite is not as clean burning as many claim.Anthracite burns very clean certainly as clean or cleaner than wood than what the average person will do.
Unless it is anything that will be affected by the acid casued when water mixes with the coal ash. So no re bar in the concrete ect. It is also a very soft aggregate so no high strength concrete either.It is currently used in at least paving and concrete and certain anything that needs a good filler agent it would work just fine.
The fact that the conclusions of articles don't agree with your personal politics has nothing to do with how objective they are.
There are many fact checking organizations around, and the NYT non-editorial reporting generally checks out pretty straight.
I think than without educating people on good burning practice, replacing older stoves won't solve all the problems.