Where did myth that pellet stoves are exempt start?

[John Ackerly]

I like to think I'm pretty savvy about wood and pellet stove matters, but for years I bought into the myth that pellet stoves didn't have to be certified because they were plenty clean to start with. Even our Department of Energy bluntly states "With combustion efficiencies of 78% to 85%, they are also exempt from EPA smoke-emission testing requirements.” And virtually every site says or infers that the EPA default efficiency for pellet stoves is 78%. I bought into that too. But turns out, this is all wrong.

Pellet stoves are no different than wood stoves. They were intended to be certified but both can be made to be exempt by using a loophole for stoves that with air to fuel ratio of 35 to 1. A couple wood stoves companies exploited that loophole, notably Vogelzang and US Stoves, but in the case of pellet stoves, most of the industry uses that as a way to avoid certification. With wood stoves, avoiding certification typically means the appliance cost $300 - $500, burns hot and fast and is polluting and inefficient. But for pellet stoves, there aren't those big differences and there isn't necessarily any price difference that I know of. I'm still far from an expert in this but the one thing experts say, is that on average, the exempt pellet stoves are likely to be at least 5 - 10% less efficient, if not more. And the 78% default efficiency? That just applies to EPA certified pellet stoves. Anyone know how these myths started and why they persist?

 

[BrotherBart]

Nobody goes the extra step to get their wood stoves tested for efficiency. Why should makers of pellet stoves do it? The EPA certification test is for particulate emissions. Not efficiency.

 

[webbie]

Some of this is a guess - but it's how I remember it!

Pellet stoves were getting popular in some parts as early as 1989 or so, well before the EPA would have had standards for them. Some of the early models tested out at very decent efficiencies (some didn't!), and most all of them were vastly cleaner than the average wood stove of the time. Heck, back in the last 1980's manufacturers had a difficult time getting their wood stoves EPA tested because their were so few labs! I think there was a long wait......

You could probably find out from HPBA when the standards for pellet stoves became fully implemented, but my guess is that many manufacturers had already designed and built tens of thousands (or more) of units. So they were unable to "design to the standards"...since the cart followed the horse.

Many of the early burn bans didn't apply to pellet stoves - EPA exempt or not - again, as I remember.

As far as myths, you should have heard some of the stuff that pellet stove makers were fabricating back in the beginning! Our joke around the shop was that pellets must be made of nuclear material....to achieve the magic that was being claimed. PT Barnum was in full bloom in those years...as it was years later with the whole vent-free craze.

In short, there are a lot of mistruths, sales pitches, marketing schemes....and all the other stuff...in this industry. Snake oil, so to speak...

Did I ever tell you the story about Buck Stove advertising that you could put milk jugs full of water (frozen) in their fireplace inserts, turn the blower on, and air condition your house? That was on top of them heating your house for 14 hours on 2 logs.

 

[smwilliamson]

The myth and such still continues....for example: Harman recently changed it's brochures, for the Accentra freestanding, perhaps more models but...used to be listed as a 40k BTU heater that could heat up to 1500 SQFT, that same stove now does up to 2300 SQFT. I guess they needed to justify f the recent up tick in price since the stove has gone up in price $300 since last year for the basic model.

Harman isn't the only one, just the only one that comes to mind right off. The Accentra is listed as 82% effcient, though I'm not sure where that number comes from, I'm not sure if the stove is actually EPA approved...is it?

 

[Delta-T]

The myth and such still continues....for example: Harman recently changed it's brochures, for the Accentra freestanding, perhaps more models but...used to be listed as a 40k BTU heater that could heat up to 1500 SQFT, that same stove now does up to 2300 SQFT. I guess they needed to justify f the recent up tick in price since the stove has gone up in price $300 since last year for the basic model.

Harman isn't the only one, just the only one that comes to mind right off. The Accentra is listed as 82% effcient, though I'm not sure where that number comes from, I'm not sure if the stove is actually EPA approved...is it?

my guess on the brochures revolves around the fear that HHT was losing sales because they used to play conservative with the sq ft of heating capacity. Folks would look at units with 34K btu able to heat 2000sq ft and assume it was more powerful than the 40K stove that heats 1500. Its all about "keepeing up with the joneses". Now all the manufacturers are equally using completely unrealistc numbers (unless you're in Alabama). Saves me the trouble of having to teach people what a BTU is, and how that equates to actuall energy. So much easier to say..."this stove more bigger".

 

[FyreBug]

In these forums people come to be educated and proper answers are given with plenty of caveat as to the performance of any units.

Unfortunately, in a show room most consumers rely on labels and marketing puffery to make their decisions. This BTW applies to most other items (BBQ comes to mind). Things such as burn time, input vs output BTU, Sq ft, efficiencies are not really regulated or defined yet the consumer puts a lot of faith in them to the point in a showroom a unit with 1 extra hour in burn time or extra 200 ft in Sq ft etc... might very make the difference in a sale.

It would be nice if such specifications had a regulated definition to end the controversy.

 

[John Ackerly]

In 18 - 24 months from now, we will at least get 3rd party, consistently measured efficiency on stove labels. As for BTU, burn times, Sq ft, etc. I don't think the new EPA regulations will touch on that. And, the EPA will get rid of the loopholes that allow for uncertified wood and pellet stoves to be sold on the market.

Brother Bart, above, said nobody goes the extra step to test for efficiency, so why should pellet stove manufacturers do so? As far as I now, lots of manufacturers test for efficiency but don't publicly disclose it. My point was that consumers don't realize that exempt pellet stoves are likely to be less efficient than certified pellet stoves. And, the loophole created by the EPA gives some manufacturers an incentive to make their stoves less efficient, so that they don't have to be certified. If you use the 35 to 1 air to fuel ratio to get your stove exempt, you are likely to be making a less efficient stove than it would otherwise be. I'm sure some of you guys know this stuff far better than I, but that is how I understand it. And, state and federal agencies are doing little or nothing to roll back these myths about pellet stoves. Even the EPA's Pellet Stove Fact Sheet says "Technologies are used to ensure the best fuel‐to‐air ratio in the combustion chamber so that the fuel can burn completely." In fact, the opposite is frequently true because their own regulations allow for it. And if you allow for lots and lots of air by using the 35 to 1 loophole, you get to avoid EPA certification costs.

 

[FyreBug]

We certify all our pellet stoves. Good practice and to a certain extent bragging right. Dont know why other MFG would not follow suit.

 

[John Ackerly]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't build a high efficiency exempt pellet stove. And, you can probably make a certified stove that is not very efficient. But most of the pellet stoves on the market are exempt, and we know some of the exempt ones are only between 40 and 60% efficient, whereas the good ones are up to 80 or even a little above. That can makes a HUGE difference in your annual heating bill! I assume that most manufacturers don't get certified just to save the money and hassle, no?

 

[BrotherBart]

We certify all our pellet stoves. Good practice and to a certain extent bragging right. Dont know why other MFG would not follow suit.

You certify emissions, but do you pop the bucks for efficiency certification too?

 

[FyreBug]

You certify emissions, but do you pop the bucks for efficiency certification too?

All our pellet appliances list efficiencies as tested to CSA B415 Standard.

 

[BrotherBart]

Good to know they are tested for efficiency. Why do the tested efficiency results for any SBI products not appear on the EPA list of certified stoves. They only show default efficiency numbers even though there is a place on the EPA list for tested efficiency and some other maker's products show them?

I am confused, as usual.

 

[John Ackerly]

FyreBug,

Thanks for putting yourself out there, offering that all your stoves are EPA certified and tested to B415.1. I've noticed that SBI provides better info than most to consumers, and its great you get your pellet stoves certified. But SBI is a great, and unfortunately typical example in other respects. Two of your companies - Osburn and Drolet - list numbers for "optimum efficiency." So what does that mean? Presumably that isn't the B415.1 number. Enerzone simply lists for "efficiency" but none of the companies say whether its HHV or LHV, and these days, its safer to assume LHV in the stove world, as that is likely what the competition is using. I think best thing to is to list both HHV and LHV numbers and tell the consumer if its the B415.1 number. Thoughts?

John

 

[FyreBug]

Good posts above and good questions... Let me ask and get the answers.

Often time is not necessarily an attempt at deception but rather the info getting from the lab to marketing...

I'll report back.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

I would think that the difference between HHV and LHV is not that significant for wood pellets.
PFI is aiming for a max moisture content of 8% for premium and max 10% for standard wood pellets.
If you look at real product data, the moisture content is 3% to 5%
For cord wood of course this is completely different; 18% to 25% MC

 

[Trex83]

I would think that the difference between HHV and LHV is not that significant for wood pellets.
PFI is aiming for a max moisture content of 8% for premium and max 10% for standard wood pellets.
If you look at real product data, the moisture content is 3% to 5%
For cord wood of course this is completely different; 18% to 25% MC

Hi there,
Is it only Oko-FEN that has a condensing wood pellet boiler on the market in EU?
I remember seeing in this forum discussions over efficiency ratings for combustion. I stay on the wood boiler side/section of this forum usually.
Cheers,
Trex83

 

[smwilliamson]

Hi there,
Is it only Oko-FEN that has a condensing wood pellet boiler on the market in EU?
I remember seeing in this forum discussions over efficiency ratings for combustion. I stay on the wood boiler side/section of this forum usually.
Cheers,
Trex83

The Auto Pellet I believe is the only one to market with this feature with pellets as far as I know.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

We certify all our pellet stoves. Good practice and to a certain extent bragging right. Dont know why other MFG would not follow suit.

we do too. and ditto to the above statement. not doing so limits your market as some locales do not allow exempt units washington state for instance. this list of places not allowing the exempt units is going to grow and rapidly IMHO, its silly not to certify