Massachusetts Woodstove Change Out Pilot Program

[Wachusett]

Check this out. Yeah I know its my tax dollars.

http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm/cdid/14170/pid/11159

 

[stoveguy2esw]

the "non-cat" 70% efficiency is going to be a mess. 90% of the non-cats sold are "default" 63% rated due to the extremely high cost of maintaining a "true" efficiency rating. unless they change the formula to account for this its going to really limit stoves available to this program

 

[fmsm]

Mike,

Do any of your stoves meet the 70%? If so by using a qualified installer (smwilliamson) would your company accept the voucher?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

i gotta be honest, i hadnt even heard of this mass program before about an hour ago when i saw this post. we are rated at default so its less then 70% by the accepted EPA system in phase 2. so i really dont know. as for the vouchers im not sure if thats worked through the manufacturer or the dealer i've never dealt with one before so i have no idea.

 

[Lousyweather]

not a whole lot of money is allocated to the program, and its for low incomers right now......I guess high emissions are a non-issue for high-income folks.......I think $100k has been allocated for the program, and they are tageting roughly 60 households in the state of MA.......

 

[stoveguy2esw]

not a whole lot of money is allocated to the program, and its for low incomers right now......I guess high emissions are a non-issue for high-income folks.......I think $100k has been allocated for the program, and they are tageting roughly 60 households in the state of MA.......

high income folks can afford to buy a new stove, many folks who live 'hand to mouth" (not trying to insult anyone) dont have the extra money laying around to afford the initial layout for a new stove, even a less expensive one like mine or the others in the "big box" market its still several hundred bucks which is a lot of scratch for a lower income household.

 

[envirosphere]

The EPA use the same OMNI-HPBA formular everywhere, but yes they have lost a bit of funding. The whole anti wood smoke PM concern is weakening due to a lack of 'real' scientific evidence of harm. Their statements of the like, "PM2.5 - commonly known as soot" leave me unimpressed and unfaithful to their environmental closed-shop ponzi schemes. Australia and New Zealand adopted the EPAs formulated change-out scheme. It starts with low income and then moves to the next middle income phase after that. Certification is not performed in real life conditions and stoves do not catalytic converters, HETAS filters, electric fans or the ability to close the damper removed. Most don't need new stoves at all. Still. Good for business. Just make sure it's good for yours. Nelson, NZ where I'm from produced some cheap rubbish with the scheme here - simply due to lab certified in fabricated 'ídeal' combustion conditions. My father, an electrical engineer found a design of cowl that naturally made use of the outside cool air downward pressure, mixing it with the warmer upward flow of combustion gases. It resulted in a perpetual upward flow, consistent flue vacuum, and full protection from adverse weather conditions. That stopped incomplete combustion, increased fuel efficiency and keeps the system clean. I mention this, because with the change-out scheme came unprofessional favoritism and uncompetitive behaviour from the industry. How many steel manufacturers make stoves in Oregon now compared to the late 1970s? What is still the most popular heating fuel? Who wants it not to be the most popular heating fuel? Asthmatics, small children, the elderly, the sick - could it be more emotionally manipulated without toxicology evidence of any such harm. Cost benefit analyses studies yes - for their funding, but what else?

 

[stoveguy2esw]

The EPA use the same OMNI-HPBA formular everywhere, but yes they have lost a bit of funding. The whole anti wood smoke PM concern is weakening due to a lack of 'real' scientific evidence of harm. Their statements of the like, "PM2.5 - commonly known as soot" leave me unimpressed and unfaithful to their environmental closed-shop ponzi schemes. Australia and New Zealand adopted the EPAs formulated change-out scheme. It starts with low income and then moves to the next middle income phase after that. Certification is not performed in real life conditions and stoves do not catalytic converters, HETAS filters, electric fans or the ability to close the damper removed. Most don't need new stoves at all. Still. Good for business. Just make sure it's good for yours. Nelson, NZ where I'm from produced some cheap rubbish with the scheme here - simply due to lab certified in fabricated 'ídeal' combustion conditions. My father, an electrical engineer found a design of cowl that naturally made use of the outside cool air downward pressure, mixing it with the warmer upward flow of combustion gases. It resulted in a perpetual upward flow, consistent flue vacuum, and full protection from adverse weather conditions. That stopped incomplete combustion, increased fuel efficiency and keeps the system clean. I mention this, because with the change-out scheme came unprofessional favoritism and uncompetitive behaviour from the industry. How many steel manufacturers make stoves in Oregon now compared to the late 1970s? What is still the most popular heating fuel? Who wants it not to be the most popular heating fuel? Asthmatics, small children, the elderly, the sick - could it be more emotionally manipulated without toxicology evidence of any such harm. Cost benefit analyses studies yes - for their funding, but what else?

i agree with some of this but not all of it, as for testing for PM compliance , there has to be a standard , a control for the testing to keep it on a consistent level, so the tests are performed using a dilution tunnel which is a mechanically controlled chimney to provide an controlled even amount of draft velocity. this control allows the variable to be the stove itself and while its obvious that the stove on the test stand will not perform exactly the same in every chimney application, doing i this way does provide a standard. as for making a "steel box baffle stove" burn as clean and efficient as a modern unit, it aint happening, running a fisher stove wide open can allow a clean burn, but when you deny primary air to facilitate a longer burn time its gonna be puking smoke, period, no way around this. providing a reburn capability fixes this, allowing a long burn time with what in an old stove without this technology would be regarded as a "bad fire" can result in a long lasting clean fire with far and away less particulates released.

the simple fact of the matter is smoke is simply wood that didnt get burned all the way before it left the combustion chamber of the stove. reburning allows less of this unused fuel to escape. granted the stoves are "built for the test" of course they are, we have to do this or simply no longer have a product to sell, however at the same time the things we do to achieve this have opened up methods where we can actually benefit from the cleaner burn, giving users a much bigger "BTU for the stick' output while keeping their flue cleaner and dumping less into the air. granted in a marginal flue system the stove isnt going to perform as well as it will in a well built proper flue, but the older style stoves arent either.

 

[Lousyweather]

high income folks can afford to buy a new stove, many folks who live 'hand to mouth" (not trying to insult anyone) dont have the extra money laying around to afford the initial layout for a new stove, even a less expensive one like mine or the others in the "big box" market its still several hundred bucks which is a lot of scratch for a lower income household.

point being, youre not gonna get rid of the old smoke monsters that way

 

[stoveguy2esw]

not necessarily, by offering a credit of some sort to lower income families taking the "sticker shock" away you might get some to make the purchase. making it a mandate to over time reduce smoke emissions from woodburners would necessitate getting a more modern unit which is capable of burning cleaner, problem is getting folks who have used older tech stoves which were built to last a lifetime to give them up. as far as they see it, it works why replace it.

 

[urkiddin]

Check this out. Yeah I know its my tax dollars.

http://www.masscec.com/index.cfm/cdid/14170/pid/11159

Not to worry about tax dollars.The state will find a way to attach a fee for pellets so they can recoup the $100000.Only thing is once they have that paid they will keep the fee and then put the money in the general fund.

 

[Lousyweather]

so, they allocated $100k.......how much does one mid-;level gummint functionary make in MA these days?