Anyone living in Conn. might be interested in knowing that there is a vote to ban ALL OWB's except those for agriculture purposes on Wed Feb. 9th. Has everyone gone crazy? Right in the middle of the worst winter we have seen in years, and they want to ban burning wood? I can see going after those that burn garbage or totally smoke out a neighbor, but a total ban is a little much. Whats next? Will they ban your fireplace insert or the all-nighter in the basement? What about campgrounds that burn wood all summer? I think it is worth making a call or sending a letter to your rep or senator and voice opposition to this one. The law is in Bill 830. Lets stop them before its too late.
Wood boiler ban
- Thread starter Ctdeer
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
soupy1957
Minister of Fire
ctdeer: You said, ".............and they want to ban burning wood?
Be careful what you say. As a CT resident who burns wood, I don't want to be an alarmist. They are not banning the burning of wood. They (the Legislature) had been lobbied hard to discuss certain types of wood burning units. Specifically, they are talking about those units that are like a little outhouse outside the house, that burn wood for heat and hot water. (This last effort was in March of 2010; a bit out of date).
The "wood stove in the house" types are not under consideration.
In Pennsylvania (for example; there are other states with the same issues), in areas like Wilkes Barre and so forth, where the mountain ranges rise really high, surrounding the community in the valley, there is the concern (albeit a legitimate one) about the settling of smoke that is trapped over the top of the whole community, by the mountains surrounding it, and the air quality issues that presents for the whole community.
Let's face it........even the best of the best wood stoves, (external or internal), EPA-Rated or not, put out chemicals (the list is here in this Forum somewhere........I've seen it, and you probably have too), that are toxic. This is not good for the air, regardless of whether you have a mountain range around you or not. Burning wood as a lifestyle will continue to be under attack, on all levels.
The most recent concern you are noting however, is not all inclusive of wood burning units in general.
Just a note to clarify.
By the way, the original Bill, "died" in Committee, and any new effort will probably die an equally quick death, as well...........see this link for further details:
http://environmentalheadlines.com/c...door-wood-burning-furnaces-dies-in-committee/
This particular link info seems to be generated by those who don't particularly care for wood burning, and yet in all fairness, they did acknowledge the truth of the situation (and I quote) "........Not only was the state legislature unwilling to do anything at all about outdoor wood furnaces – they would not even deal with wood smoke as a public health nuisance.
-Soupy1957
Be careful what you say. As a CT resident who burns wood, I don't want to be an alarmist. They are not banning the burning of wood. They (the Legislature) had been lobbied hard to discuss certain types of wood burning units. Specifically, they are talking about those units that are like a little outhouse outside the house, that burn wood for heat and hot water. (This last effort was in March of 2010; a bit out of date).
The "wood stove in the house" types are not under consideration.
In Pennsylvania (for example; there are other states with the same issues), in areas like Wilkes Barre and so forth, where the mountain ranges rise really high, surrounding the community in the valley, there is the concern (albeit a legitimate one) about the settling of smoke that is trapped over the top of the whole community, by the mountains surrounding it, and the air quality issues that presents for the whole community.
Let's face it........even the best of the best wood stoves, (external or internal), EPA-Rated or not, put out chemicals (the list is here in this Forum somewhere........I've seen it, and you probably have too), that are toxic. This is not good for the air, regardless of whether you have a mountain range around you or not. Burning wood as a lifestyle will continue to be under attack, on all levels.
The most recent concern you are noting however, is not all inclusive of wood burning units in general.
Just a note to clarify.
By the way, the original Bill, "died" in Committee, and any new effort will probably die an equally quick death, as well...........see this link for further details:
http://environmentalheadlines.com/c...door-wood-burning-furnaces-dies-in-committee/
This particular link info seems to be generated by those who don't particularly care for wood burning, and yet in all fairness, they did acknowledge the truth of the situation (and I quote) "........Not only was the state legislature unwilling to do anything at all about outdoor wood furnaces – they would not even deal with wood smoke as a public health nuisance.
-Soupy1957
That's called sticking your foot in the door, one ban always leads to another. Have you read up on the EPA lately????
Ctdeer,
soupy1957,
bigburner,
There ae many models of OWB that have entered the gasification mode and are not equatable with the smoke dragons so many are familiar with and many look like the "little outhouse " you speak of soupy1957. Under the guise of what is healthy (even though there is some validity) the oil companies will win (It would be interesting to see if any of the proponents of the ban bill have received funds from the major oil companies). Those who have indoor burners are not exempt either as there have been attempts to eliminate those as well. As far as the emissios are concerned there are toxic emissions from fossil fuels too. There is wisdom in not being an alarmist however in a country where we deem who is to be the overseer of the laws we have to govern us we all need to be activists. Calling ones rep is a wise thing as they can/should send a copy of the bill or a link for it's scrutiny by John Q Public. Many forms of legislation have "slipped through the night" of inattention. You bring cautious reasoning to the front and ctdeer brings a call to action. I think they are both calls with merit. No offense intended. Bigburner brings out a point about an appointed committee that can and does have a policing power over the way we live and the things we do. It is good that we see to it that such appointed committees do not exceed the rights of all citizens by pandering to the politcal motivations of a selct few. $.02
soupy1957,
bigburner,
There ae many models of OWB that have entered the gasification mode and are not equatable with the smoke dragons so many are familiar with and many look like the "little outhouse " you speak of soupy1957. Under the guise of what is healthy (even though there is some validity) the oil companies will win (It would be interesting to see if any of the proponents of the ban bill have received funds from the major oil companies). Those who have indoor burners are not exempt either as there have been attempts to eliminate those as well. As far as the emissios are concerned there are toxic emissions from fossil fuels too. There is wisdom in not being an alarmist however in a country where we deem who is to be the overseer of the laws we have to govern us we all need to be activists. Calling ones rep is a wise thing as they can/should send a copy of the bill or a link for it's scrutiny by John Q Public. Many forms of legislation have "slipped through the night" of inattention. You bring cautious reasoning to the front and ctdeer brings a call to action. I think they are both calls with merit. No offense intended. Bigburner brings out a point about an appointed committee that can and does have a policing power over the way we live and the things we do. It is good that we see to it that such appointed committees do not exceed the rights of all citizens by pandering to the politcal motivations of a selct few. $.02
Como
Minister of Fire
The issue appears not the fuel supply, but the efficacy of the process.
I would not like to be down wind of an OWB either.
I would not like to be down wind of an OWB either.
I really thought that there would have been more activity in this thread considering the number of people who frequent it and own at least one of the various types of boilers. Anyway... Como I think you are right on both counts... The industry should have anticipated the negative impact that a smoke dragon causes in more closely populated areas. The idea of playing catch-up does not rest easy either. All the more reason one would think there would be a lot more attention addressing the situation.
711mhw
Feeling the Heat
how many feet of copper tube 3/4" do i need to put in a 800 gallon tank to heat it to 180 in 4 hours with a boiler that puts out 700000 btus
Frozen Canuck
Minister of Fire
I think the thread title should have been "Proposed OWB Ban" as that is the type of woodburning device that is squarely in the crosshairs (pun intended) of all the legislative bodies in North America.
I hope we get there eventually (clean burning) that is. I just think it is going to be a very long road travelled.
With no shortage of screaming by those who see it as their "right" to burn as dirty as they please, when & where they please, with little or no regard for the neighbors. Same people who caused the issues in the first place.
I hope we get there eventually (clean burning) that is. I just think it is going to be a very long road travelled.
With no shortage of screaming by those who see it as their "right" to burn as dirty as they please, when & where they please, with little or no regard for the neighbors. Same people who caused the issues in the first place.
Frozen Canuck said:
Unfortunately, Connecticut seems to already have imposed an efffective ban without it being a clear ban. You cannot have an outdoor wood boiler within 200 feet of a dwelling not served by the boiler, and chimney must be taller than the peak of any residence within 500 feet, but cannot exceed 55 feet in height. Their definition of an outdoor wood boiler is simply a wood-fired water heater located in a structure that is not intended for habitation. They do not differentiate based on combustion technology as far as I can tell.
trailhound68
New Member
I thought our legislature already declared wood smoke a public hazard. First step toward the proposed ban of OWB's. What next? Smoke Police..
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/S/2010SB-00126-R00-SB.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/JFR/H/2009HB-06616-R00PH-JFR.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/S/2010SB-00126-R00-SB.htm
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/JFR/H/2009HB-06616-R00PH-JFR.htm
There are some outdoor boilers (the older ones) that are not very efficient and do put out allot of smoke. My neighbor has one the older ones, its about 500+ feet from my house and i do get some smoke in my yard from it. Personally i don't mind the smoke. I have an indoor boiler and believe it is much more economical. I burn 3.5 to 4 cords of wood per season and i know he goes through 10+ a season. His house is slightly larger but not twice the size of mine. I'm not a math wiz but i could go almost 3 years on what he uses in one. I suppose if your wood is free this would be ok, but id rather process 4 cords a season then 10+.
- Status
Similar threads
