1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)

So Which stoves are the cleanest burning stoves?

Post in 'The Hearth Room - Wood Stoves and Fireplaces' started by elkimmeg, Sep 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. backpack09

    backpack09 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    554
    Loc:
    Rochester, Mass
    Then they still BURN the cleanest.

    I also resolve that all of the electricity I use comes from hydroelectric.... Even if it is all the way from niagra, it is in the grid and is piped to me directly.. :)

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. elkimmeg

    elkimmeg Guest


    From Whitman ma I think Pilgram I and seabrook dearfield and the oil burner down Cape cod is part of out grid? Especially living in Whitman
  3. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH
    It would seem to me to be a "net zero sum game here"........it would seem that most grids are full-up putting out power (both green and non-green) and while it may make a person feel good to buy "green" all it really means is that some other user (who would have gotten green power regardless of if they wanted it or not) got "non green" power instead and you got "green". This is possible because all grids are inter-tied and "swap" and sell power to other people. So, the "non-green" power you tell your local provided you don't want instead goes to someone else but the total KW-HRs produced is still the same. Put another way: "green power" will not go unused just because someone didn't ask for it and when you in particular ask for it, the net sum of the grid has not changed......

    Only way this equation changes is this: if when people ask for "green" they constantly keep adding new "green power" but this is difficult with hydro and can only be quickly brought on-line with wind or solar....
  4. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,384
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    Problem is - that the BI people also read the reports of performance in the real world and quote them often!

    So quoting "sales" numbers is not fooling either the government or the opposition. However, some more real world tests showing a lowering of numbers WOULD be something to trumpet.

    As they say, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but I doubt you can fool the BI people most of the time. They may be crazy - like a fox. And, I do agree with many of their issues! For instance, the issue of having a close neighbor stinking up your house with smoke when you can't stand the smell of it. They are right on this issue.....

    Wood smoke should be neither seen nor smelt....other than a tiny whiff here and there. It is not good stuff......

    BTW, Grams Per Hour means exactly that. All the smoke is sucked through filters, then dried in a little oven and weighed! Has anyone here ever seen what a gram of dried materials looks like! tiny........if someone dropped a fingernail in there it would thrown the process off by a lot.
  5. jjbaer

    jjbaer New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    781
    Loc:
    OH

    Not really.......using your logic we'd all abandon totally the EPA's MPG figures on autos because in your words "in the real world the numbers go out the window." Most people I know however, use EPA figures for comparison even though they know the "real world" conditions don't mimic the EPA test. Not saying I buy based totally on GPH specifications but they cannot be discarded just because real-world stove use conditions are different from EPA test conditions. As Hitler said to his generals when they said they couldn't fight in the rain: "it rains on the enemy too"......translation: I use stove "A" under other than EPA conditions but if I had bought stove "B" it too would have been used under these same non-EPA conditions..........given that, you fall back to known EPA test conditions that tested the units under the same conditions and if stove "A" was far cleaner under those tests, then guess what.....under different (but same conditions for the two stoves) it's most likely that stove A is still cleaner than stove B......for those who would disagree, I say you have no EPA tests at these different test conditions so, lacking that info, you must admit the EPA test results into the argument....and that means you cannot discard them.......and that means GPH DO matter.....
  6. elkimmeg

    elkimmeg Guest

    For once lets be honest here: The greatest opposition to the GPH numbers are from owners who manufactures do not make the list. No complaints from owners like BB that are on the llist.

    So opponents find it easy to discredit the process because their stoves did not make the list Well neither did mine. What they really should be doing is asking their manufactures how come you can't burn greener? One way to discredit the testing procedures and the place they are actually tested in the manufacturer's labs It is common for most manufactures to have a burn lab The constantly test stoves work out the bugs prior to certification It is also common that many of all manufactures administer the test under watchful eyes of certified inspectors. Even Pacific industries has its own testing labs Then innuendo id hinted at the manufactures technicians load the stoves and man them. My answer to this is that all labs have equal opportunity to take advantage of this practice It's not like one lab or testing facility has an upper hand on the alike of another manufacturer. So that argument favors no one.

    then there are members here that take exception to this post I only reproduced what another member researched and posted I did not make up the numbers or the top ten list.
    Then why the hostility towards me ? Get angry at the PHD at Omni for publishing the article.

    Since Web does not own any wood burner, then why your zealous efforts,, to disclaim the only tested regulated controlled enviorment for comparisons?
    Could it be some of the site sponsors did not make the list?

    Like i tor not the GPH numbers aer published and some will use them for comparisons Like should I purchase a .75 Gph or a stove the pollutes almost 700 times more at 4.62 GPH .
  7. MrGriz

    MrGriz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,022
    Loc:
    Waterford, WI
    Cast, the last time we beat this horse I made the point that if stove A tests cleaner in the lab than stove B, it is likely that stove A will also burn cleaner than stove B out in the real world. So yes, to a point the GPH numbers are relavant to the real world. I still say that you can throw the actual test emission numbers out the window in the real world because no one burns like the tests are conducted and no one is going to consistently achieve (if ever) the emission numbers that the labs do. For one thing, the tests aren't even conducted with cord wood.

    I'm all for burning as clean as possible, but the bottom line is that if you lined up ten houses with the top ten stoves and burned them "correctly" you shouldn't see or smell any smoke outside. It doesn't matter that stove one is burning under one GPH and stove six is burning at 1.7 GPH, they are both clean enough that no one gives them a second look.

    I'm still just not convinced that any significant number of people buy a stove based on the emission numbers. As for trying to discredit the results or process because my stove didn't make the list; I could care less if my stove made the list or not. My stove does a good job of heating my house and once it's running, you can't look at the chimney and see or smell smoke. I've had neighbors ask if I was still burning because they never saw smoke from the chimney. My answer was that it had been going 24 / 7 all week.
  8. elkimmeg

    elkimmeg Guest

    Problem is I would be confused with my Brother David that already has a PHD in Math Btw Brother Richard PHD Math teaches in a college very near to you Lives in south hanpton
  9. dlpz

    dlpz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    80
    Loc:
    Syracuse, New York
    You can throw the hammer down on me, but here's my .02.

    People actually do care about GPH output, that's why Pellet stoves are so popular, they don't put out any exhaust but water. People don't care that without power pellet stoves don't work, people don't care pellet stoves are overpriced and relatively unreliable, noisy, and expensive. They care that they are getting heat and "saving" the environment, regardless they are paying the same amount or more than running the Natural Gas furnace. Case in point, I work with a very intelligent woman who is saving 6000 to put in a pellet stove, I asked her why she doesn't save atleast 3000 and put in a good wood stove. She'd have nothing to do with it, in her mind wood stoves are inefficient polluters.

    Also if you step back and look at all wood stoves they are essentially the same. They all look the same, BTU output between similar models are the same but the GPH's between them change, I really think that if someone is comparing 3 different models with the same BTU output and the basically the style, the GPH number will swing them to buy that stove regardless of a higher price point.

    Look at the popularity of Hybrid cars, any car can get you from A to B, a Civic can do it for 30 MPG, a Hybrid Civic does it for 40mpg,
    Will you really see the difference in saving the environment , no, but it gives people a warm and fuzzy feeling.
  10. biggins08

    biggins08 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    227
    Loc:
    Springfield MA
    Looks like I need a 30NC!
  11. Mike Wilson

    Mike Wilson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,003
    Loc:
    Orient Point, NY
    Huh??? :grrr:

    Ever huff a pellet vent?

    -- Mike
  12. BrotherBart

    BrotherBart Hearth.com LLC Mid-Atlantic Division Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    29,175
    Loc:
    Northern Virginia
    He is talking about the ones that burn hydrogen pellets Mike. Not the wood pellets.
  13. MrGriz

    MrGriz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,022
    Loc:
    Waterford, WI
    Would that be the hybrid pellet stove?
  14. Mike Wilson

    Mike Wilson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,003
    Loc:
    Orient Point, NY
    Yeah, the last time we tried to burn a hydrogen pellet we really pissed off a bunch of the natives on Bikini Atoll... gave them a nasty sunburn too...

    -- Mike
  15. Jags

    Jags Moderate Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,283
    Loc:
    Northern IL
    Ahhh....thats why I come here in the morning. Always get a good giggle before I start the daily grind. ***huff a pellet exhaust**, **pissing off the natives on Bikini Atoll**. PRICELESS.

    On topic - my stove didn't make the list (isle royal), but I doubt that you are gonna see it replaced anytime in the near future. EPA cert, reburn technology, low GPH and a hell of a heat producer. Yep, that will work just fine. Don't really care what the list says. And if I were looking for a new stove...still don't really care what the list says. The end user and setup make more real world difference than what is listed in a manual.
  16. BrotherBart

    BrotherBart Hearth.com LLC Mid-Atlantic Division Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    29,175
    Loc:
    Northern Virginia
    We on the list would like to thank the Academy, our parents and all of the little people out there without whom this moment would not have been possible.
  17. Todd

    Todd Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    9,226
    Loc:
    Lake Wissota
    Well if you look into the future I think the GPH will be a bigger part of sales than you think. Look how Washington State has lowered it's GPH requirement. They went below what the EPA phase II requires. Will other states follow? I think so, and stove manufactures will take this as we need to get better and push our "green" numbers to the consumer.
  18. Rob From Wisconsin

    Rob From Wisconsin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    531
    Loc:
    East-Central Wisconsin
    All the people I've known bought Pellet Stoves because....

    1. They don't want to pay a lot to put up an expensive chinmey system
    2. They don't want the grief of having to harvest wood
    3. They like the "no-fuss" operation - long burn times w/ little tending

    No one cared about GPH & clean-burning....

    Rob
  19. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,384
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    But why were Pet Rocks, Fake Cell Phones, and Britney Spears so popular?

    If Pellet stoves needed a full chimney, I think sales would go down from the already relatively low numbers.....to about 1/3 or less of what they are.

    But I do agree that price, noise, etc. has little to do with it. The Green Reason is a lot of the impetus behind Pellet stove sales.

    As to Washington State and stricter regs - well, that happened a LONG time ago. And I do suppose that stoves in the field will get cleaner and cleaner. But you can bet that before additional national legislation is passed, the negotiating parties will look at "real world" performance and not just test lab numbers. They will have to explain to the regulators why stoves in the field are not performing as well as they should, and what can be done about it. Although it is easy to dismiss the EPA and other government agencies as bureaucrats, these committees are made up of many industry insiders, as well as engineers, test lab folks, manufacturers, designers, etc. - as a group, they are quite astute and not likely to be misled (unless they WANT to be for political or economic reasons).

    As I said many times - I applaud R&D;and lower numbers...as long as it translates to the field and to ease of use at the same time. Also, it should not add to the cost of the products too much, or the service costs.
  20. Corie

    Corie Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Loc:
    Halifax, VA
    Just for the record, pellet stoves are often times no cleaner than wood stoves. I've seen pellets stoves do 4-6 grams/hour of particulate matter just like a wood stove.
  21. BrotherBart

    BrotherBart Hearth.com LLC Mid-Atlantic Division Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    29,175
    Loc:
    Northern Virginia
    Can't say on the the Pet Rocks or Fake Cell Phones, but...
  22. elkimmeg

    elkimmeg Guest

    A non argumentative post to add to the discussion. The top ten list was comprised in 2004. A couple of factors not mentioned, is existing stove lines are re-certified every 5 years.
    At the time of re-certification, most manufactures may submit models, that have been tweaked further and reduce the prior test results. Also a new technology has been licensed by other manufactures similar to the everburn technology These stoves too test out to being less than 1 gram. Harman Oakwood .85 Lopi leyden again under 2 grams
    The Isle Royal would make the honorable mention list at 2 grams. As mentioned Wash state has reduced acceptable GPH by 40 % Correct me if I wrong but, 4.65 for non cat stoves and
    2.6 for cat stoves..

    It is quite hard for manufactures to ignore GPH numbers ,when their livelihood is governed by them. Legislation is passed recognizing them and a Phd at major testing Labs write
    articles pointing out them. Whether some like it or not ,the numbers are used to set legislation and used for comparisons.
  23. Mike Wilson

    Mike Wilson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,003
    Loc:
    Orient Point, NY
    The most wasted day of all is that on which we have not laughed. -- Sebastian Chamfort

    We aim to please...

    -- Mike
  24. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,384
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    Do I hear others taking credit for my "nuclear pellets" - a term I invented about 15+ years ago?

    When Pellet stoves first hit the streets, we had local outfits (not stove stores) selling them. The first ads said a ton of pellets were equal to 1 1/2 cords of wood (we were in OAK territory) - then the ads got bolder and bolder - one ton equaled TWO cords. So 2000 lbs of pellets were equal to 7,000 lbs of Oak. The ads got even bolder "many of our customer burn only one ton a year" and so on. For the record, they sold only Jamestown stoves.

    Hence, I came up with the "nuclear pellets' moniker in an attempt to explain how these things could generate so much more heat than the wood they were made from. Finally, a Perpetual Motion Machine.

    Did you know that the Patent Office refuses to take claims to Perpetual Motion machines? (some trivia there)....
  25. webbie

    webbie Seasoned Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    12,384
    Loc:
    Western Mass.
    OK, Griz - please see enclosed chart, take the cert numbers and the real world numbers and tell me if they are related in the way you say. If they are not, then let us know if you stand by your statement above, or if it was just a guess.

    A quick scan shows absolutely no relationship!

    Example: PE - certified at 3.x, runs at 4.x
    Earth stove certified at 3.x, runs at 15.x
    VC Encore cert at 1.x, runs at 20.x
    Haughs cert at 4.x, runs at 2.x

    So I guess if we want to say that numbers could be off by a factor of 20X or more, we might be getting closer to reality.

    Please show or argue SOME factual basis for thinking that cleaner in lab = cleaner in field.

    Attached Files:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page