Expect the EPA to adjust to cleaner GPH

[elkimmeg]

The state of Whashington adopted more stringent Epa emmissions regulations than the current EPA phase II

I think the current EPA phase II are 7.6 GPH ffor non cat stoves and 4 gph for cat stoves
the State od Wash9ington has further reduced the to lavels of 2.5 gph cat stoves and 4.6 non cat stoves.

Expect major manufactures to build all stoves to reflect the State of Washington Requirements To put this in perspective.
these regulations are mandating stoves to be 4 times cleaner than pre EPA stoves

 

[Highbeam]

I live in washington and I like to breathe but I do not like being at the cutting edge of reducing emmisions. It must be politics. I thought California was responsible for all of this.

 

[webbie]

This has been true for many years, and the vast majority of current stoves will pass the Wa. standards. It doesn't pay a manufacturer to ignore that market.

Ca. is not big on the stove emissions leadership because of the climate. They tend to lead in the car emissions race due to the worship of the Automobile there.

 

[Todd]

Wow! How low can they go? I know VC Encore is at .07 gph. You think they will ever get a stove down to 0.0? At least this should force some manufactures to look into even better efficiencies if it's possible.

 

[elkimmeg]

Todd I think with less to draft ,chimneys become an issue. The cleaner the burn the less going up the chimney that being so the less to propel the remaining exhaust.

At some point these stoves get harder to opperate and are less forgiving for drafting. Trade off will have to be made more heat will have to exit to drive the draft to burn cleaner .
then effeciencies and reduced burn times That means more wood . Really I think improvements will be decimal points. Only 1.5 years back only some cat stoves were under 1.5 gph
.7 cut this in half.. What I think is that more manufactures will make improvements to reduce ther particulate emissions to approach the .7 Remember this is practically mini gassification happening in the secondary burn. I would really like to take a look at what Englander did to get a fire box of 3.5 down to 1.6 GPH. without a mini gassification secondary burn chamber.

This could be a model for others to follow. I think their engineering is remarkable. Beyond a doubt most BTUs for a buck and cleaner

 

[Corie]

Remember though, that lower particulate emissions do not translate into reduced draft.


Heated gases up the flue result in draft. One could feasibly have 0 particulates and still achieve good draft, as long as the stove was putting enough heat up the chimney to establish draft.


It comes down to efficiency. There is a limit to efficiency without bringing forced draft into the equation. It would be nice to see the manufacturers (or me) bring particulate emissions down to essentially zero. The problem with the test is, often times when stirring the ash on the reload, some particulate matter from the ash escapes up the chimney. Limitations of the testing method.

 

[Andre B.]

Can you say " Electrostatic filter".

 

[Corie]

That's what I was really thinking. Although I doubt it would pass the "marketability" test, using some type of electrocstatic particulate filter would knock the ash from the reload out of the flue gases.



One could also, hypothetically using a tube with an induced cyclone which which spin the heavy particulates to the outside, like a stihl or husky centrigual air cleaner system.

 

[Andre B.]

I would need some kind of auto cleaning system $$$$.
Not many people are going to pull the cells out and take them into the shower.

And to avoid the high temp it may need to be at the top of the chimney.

 

[Corie]

True.

Just like the new Mercedes Diesel system with the blue urea injection though, a system that requires user maintenance like that probably won't be maintained.

 

[webbie]

Elk says "most bang for the buck", but what does that mean?
Is that stove proven to give more MPG in the real world burning firewood? Is it proven to do so after one year? after 2 years?
If those questions cannot be answered, I would say that marketing has won the day. If they can be answered, let's see the results....

These is no doubt that there is a point of diminished returns when it comes to both "heat up the stack" and "fine tuning for chimney, wood, etc." - so, where is the Bang for the Buck if everyone must put in all kinds of draft monitoring systems, get better wood, clean out their stoves more often, etc.

I see the Bang quickly becoming a whimper or a low whistle.....I can install a perfect chimney, buy perfect wood (square fir) and install the VC through some test runs and maybe I'll get good numbers.

As far as all the technology, when you look at the current vc, you are looking at an "improved" Acclaim.....downdraft system. When you look at an Acclaim, you are looking at a Riteway.....etc, etc.

The downdraft system is just one way of getting a clean burn. It is about the ONLY way of doing it if you want top loading. Most stoves on the market are updraft and use a completely different method...which obviously works.

Washington state looked REAL HARD at BAT (best available technology) when making these standards. In other words, any stove which passes the Wash. state numbers is extremely clean.

In lieu of a real world test, we'll have to wait a year and see the reports here from folks who buy the new VC's. When they get user reviews as high as PE or Woodstock, then I will be impressed. Even then, there will be no proof of real world GPH.

The EPA has been telling us for 10+ years NOT to use their numbers when comparing and shopping for a stove. I would hate to see the "numbers" game head folks in wrong directions.

 

[elkimmeg]

Craig I was talking about the 30-NC from Englander and quoting BB sign off Most BTU's for the buck which I do believe to be true and still stand that Englander should take a bow or two for Getting a 3.5 cu ft fire box down to !.6 Gph.. The numbers you are talkingh about the EPA is they used to post the effeciency percentages.
Like the Pe was in the 70's%. The GPH is actually tested monitored and particulates collected on filters and weighed. The EPa no longer post effeciency numbers but post the defaults 63% for non Cats and 72% for cat stoves these were the Numbers you are talking abou The GPH is collected brom real filters.

Again maybe one should not shop numbers no arguement. One need to correctly size, budget and match the draft system Point of the post is manufactures are developing cleaner burning stoves. Everbody wins when we burn cleaner.

 

[Andre B.]

Since much of the pollution is produced during a cold start.

One could put electric elements in the ceramic baffle plate to preheat it to red hot before starting the fire. This would also get a good draft going so the wood lights off faster.

Electric or propane to preheat the combustion air until the stove gets hot enough to do it.

Not worth the cost for those with sufficient distance to neighbors or those who only start one fire each winter, but for those in a city and often starting fires in cold stoves it could. If you are not running your stove continuously chances are you already use some heat other then wood so using some of it to preheat the stove would not be much of an extra fuel cost.

 

[webbie]

Years ago, Country stove had a prototype at the show which used gas to preheat for this very reason.

What I have not heard mentioned is that although there has been no real action by the EPA to tighten the GPH as per the existing regs, there has been a lot of back and forth about the new clean air regs which now regulate even smaller microns of pollutions - I don't keep up, but I think the old regulations were for particles 10+ microns and the new standards are for 2.5+. There has been a lot of HPBA involvement in this.

This applies to all sources of pollution, not just stoves. I think they have two basic classifications:
1. Point - Factories where you can control everything from one source - power plants.
2. Non-point - stuff like stoves, bbq, and even cars that move around a lot

 

[CountryGal]

The state of Whashington adopted more stringent Epa emmissions regulations than the current EPA phase II

I think the current EPA phase II are 7.6 GPH ffor non cat stoves and 4 gph for cat stoves
the State od Wash9ington has further reduced the to lavels of 2.5 gph cat stoves and 4.6 non cat stoves.

Expect major manufactures to build all stoves to reflect the State of Washington Requirements To put this in perspective.
these regulations are mandating stoves to be 4 times cleaner than pre EPA stoves

According to Country Stoves, my Striker S160 is 1.6 gps average and they claim it is the lowest emissions non-cat in the world. Wow!
http://www.countrystoves.com/pdfs/wood_04.pdf

 

[elkimmeg]

That a go you cow girl. See it can be done and should be BTW what about a new post and critique that stove. I'm not that familiar with it but I think others should get a first hand account from one of our users..

BTW how is that Ryobi work out for Yeah?