Good article

[flyingcow]

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/...n_could_be_as_easy_as_funding_woodsheds_.html

 

[gzecc]

This article continues to freeze on me. However if the article is serious about the gov't funding woodsheds, I've now seen and heard it all.

 

[tsquini]

24/7 wood burners are not really the issue. They tend to understand the value of seasoned wood. The issue is wood suppliers. The majority of them false advertise the quality of there wood. They leave it up to the buyer test the quality of the wood. The causal wood burner doesn't know.

To some extent smoke is the nature of wood burning. With seasoned wood or the most advanced stove a fire still needs to begin from a spark and build to clean fire. The question is how fast can technology or wood quality get a fire to clean burning?

 

[bigbarf48]

I can't say I agree with government subsidized wood sheds or firewood loans, and ill leave it at that since this isn't a political forum

 

[firefighterjake]

I can't say I agree with government subsidized wood sheds or firewood loans, and ill leave it at that since this isn't a political forum

You should see the Road to Nowhere that you and I paid for . . . it's a nice 1/4 mile or so raised gravel road that runs on my brother's property and then just ends with a 2-3 foot drop off . . . government gave him a grant to build it to "move his sheep from one pasture to the other so the wouldn't get their feet wet". Incidentally, he is not a sheep baron . . . last I knew he had something like 15 or so sheep.

 

[Applesister]

I'm off grid. And I plan on keeping it that way.

 

[BillLion]

I thought it was interesting brought up green wood AND slow burns as perpetrators of air pollution, but he only addressed the "solution" of the wood.

Is the idea that we shouldn't burn long, hot fires? Assuming dry wood, doesn't the secondary burning action clean many of the particulates in that scenario?

 

[paul bunion]

I think his basic assumption that poor seasoning and burning techniques are the problem and that regulating the appliance can't solve it is right on target.

 

[Paulywalnut]

Really could you see if Everyone burnt wood for heat? There's alot of responsibility involved being a wood burner. A grant or whatever would be dangerous.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

Has some good points but also has some flaws. For sure many people would still get into big problems by cutting the wood and stacking it inside a shed. Air circulation; that is what is needed and it is poor inside a building. It is still best to dry the wood outside and then move it into the shed just before the snow flies.

As for the government getting involved, that should make the while article worthless. We do not need more government

 

[gyrfalcon]

24/7 wood burners are not really the issue. They tend to understand the value of seasoned wood. The issue is wood suppliers. The majority of them false advertise the quality of there wood. They leave it up to the buyer test the quality of the wood. The causal wood burner doesn't know.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Most people who burn wood burn it either in fireplaces for fun or in old pre-epa "smoke dragons" that don't need dry wood as we do. The suppliers are supplying what the market demands, which is to us nowhere near seasoned. A supplier who kept stacks of splits at various lengths for two or three years would have to charge vastly more for it than I'm sure you're willing to pay. "Seasoned" around here, and almost certainly in your area, has always meant wood cut down in the spring and then cut and split to order in the fall, and there are nowhere near enough knowledgeable EPA stove users to change that definition. That's not the suppliers' fault, that's what the market is. The vast majority wouldn't even know what you (or I) were even talking about.

I get my wood from a small-scale guy in the next town who does kiln-dried, but I'm the only customer he has who wants it so dry, so he leaves it in the kiln for two weeks rather than one to give me what I need. Nobody else asks for that but me.

You want Martha Stewart firewood on a five-and-dime price, you're not going to get it.

 

[tsquini]

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Most people who burn wood burn it either in fireplaces for fun or in old pre-epa "smoke dragons" that don't need dry wood as we do.

Everyone who burns wood, if they know it or not, should burn seasoned wood. Just like people who own cars, if the know it or not, need to change the oil. As the article states, seasoned wood burns cleaner with less particulates. That is undeniably true. The point of the article is that burning green firewood is a bigger issue with pollution than the existing stove regulations. Adding more EPA stove regulation will only add cost to stoves. I agree with that general statement. We don't need more regulation, but better education. The flaw of the articles is that placing wood is an shed doesn't mean it's seasoned. That is why government funded wood sheds don't matter.

I'm not asking for Martha Stuart wood, that was good by the way. My point was that wood suppliers are misleading their buyers by manipulating the term "Seasoned" wood. I have read hundreds of posts from experienced wood burners on this site talking about how they bought wood with claims of being seasoned turning out it is not. I have been duped a few times by suppliers. It sucks when it happens. I have the understanding to not use it and let it season. The casual wood burned has no idea what they are burning and will believe the product they bought was advertised correctly. I'm not saying that suppliers should only sell seasoned wood, that would cost a small fortune. They should honestly tell people what they are buying green, half seasoned, or fully seasoned. There are existing laws about false advertising and using misleading term. Example: "Organic" food has a legal definition. Manufacturers mislead buyers by using terms like "Natural" or "All-Natural" which have no legal definition exists. The use of these misleading terms make people believe what they are buying is Organic.

 

[gyrfalcon]

Everyone who burns wood, if they know it or not, should burn seasoned wood. Just like people who own cars, if the know it or not, need to change the oil. As the article states, seasoned wood burns cleaner with less particulates. That is undeniably true. The point of the article is that burning green firewood is a bigger issue with pollution than the existing stove regulations. Adding more EPA stove regulation will only add cost to stoves. I agree with that general statement. We don't need more regulation, but better education. The flaw of the articles is that placing wood is an shed doesn't mean it's seasoned. That is why government funded wood sheds don't matter.

I'm not asking for Martha Stuart wood, that was good by the way. My point was that wood suppliers are misleading their buyers by manipulating the term "Seasoned" wood. I have read hundreds of posts from experienced wood burners on this site talking about how they bought wood with claims of being seasoned turning out it is not. I have been duped a few times by suppliers. It sucks when it happens. I have the understanding to not use it and let it season. The casual wood burned has no idea what they are burning and will believe the product they bought was advertised correctly. I'm not saying that suppliers should only sell seasoned wood, that would cost a small fortune. They should honestly tell people what they are buying green, half seasoned, or fully seasoned. There are existing laws about false advertising and using misleading term. Example: "Organic" food has a legal definition. Manufacturers mislead buyers by using terms like "Natural" or "All-Natural" which have no legal definition exists. The use of these misleading terms make people believe what they are buying is Organic.

My apologies for losing my temper. This whole subject drives me absolutely nuts. You want to pass a law changing the legal definition of "seasoned" from what it's been since human beings first discovered fire.

Yes, sure, "should,:" but people have been burning green and what they call "seasoned" from time immemorial and it's always heated their homes. They won't even believe you if you tell them to burn actually dry wood. They think i'ts, A, dangerous, and B, gives less heat than green or near-green. A fair number of people around where I live don't even cut their winter's wood supply in the fall but wait until they almost run out, then go up in their woods and cut some more to put right in the stove. That's what their parents did, that's what their grandparents did, and on back as many generations as you can count. I've actually been warned that my obsession with dry wood is dangerous and won't heat my house properly. I know only one local guy who discovered the joys of dry wood for himself, and he says he's been teased and jeered at by his friends and relations ever since he started doing it.

That's in the country. In the suburbs, woodstoves are a pretty new phenomenon, and still today the vast majority of the demand for firewood is for cozy living room fireplaces. The guys who do the cutting and splitting for customers are not, I assure you, savvy suburban businesspeople who know all about EPA stoves and are snickering up their sleeves at what they're getting away with. They're rural people or have been taught by rural people, and they're doing what they know and what their customers want.

If you can figure out a workable regulatory regime that would solve the problem of newbie woodstove burners not knowing what they're buying, go for it, but I can't imagine what that would be. But to sneer at the suppliers and accuse them all en masse of being cheaters and scammers because they go by the definition they know, the one they've always used, and the one their customers expect is outrageously unfair and false. And that particularly applies to small-scale guys with a wood lot or a permit cutting on weekends and selling their wood on Craigslist.

These people are NOT "manipulating" the term "seasoned." You and I are the ones changing the meaning from what it's always been.

 

[BillLion]

I agree with the author and those here that dryness of wood has a much greater effect than technology. I just saw this article this morning:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...foxnews/politics+(Internal+-+Politics+-+Text)

For those ready to dismiss it because it's from Fox News, just realize the factual content is what it is. O'Reilly didn't write it. I get my news from a variety of sources and this was the only source I saw reported it.

Notice: There is a 90 day period for comments from the public so we can make some noise. My guess is we are such a small segment of the public that it won't matter; the EPA will do what they want. But at least you have a chance to speak your piece if you want.