My Old Woodstove is worth $350 In Seattle!

[wooduser]

Recycling
King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties

For a limited time residents of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties can receive $350 for recycling their old, polluting wood stove.

Eligible devices include wood stoves and fireplace inserts (which are basically wood stoves made to be installed inside a fireplace) that are not US EPA certified or were manufactured before 1995. Also eligible are free-standing manufactured fireplaces (but not built-in, zero-clearance fireplaces), wood-burning furnaces, or residential coal-burning devices. Old device must be in working order but can be installed or uninstalled for the recycling reward. Indoor barrel stoves and trash burners are not eligible for the reward.

Replacement
Snohomish County Only

Residents of Snohomish County wanting to upgrade to new, cleaner heat can instead opt to have their old wood stove or fireplace insert scrapped in exchange for a $1,500 discount to go toward the purchase and professional installation of new heating equipment.

Replacement options include electric heat pump; natural gas, propane or oil furnace; or natural gas, propane or pellet stove or insert. Replacement equipment must meet certain efficiency and/or emissions requirements. Work must be done by a program-approved heating contractor. No new wood stoves or inserts are allowed with the discount.

To be eligible for the $1,500 Replacement Discount, you must have an uncertified or pre-1995 wood stove or fireplace insert, free-standing manufactured fireplace, wood-burning furnace, or residential coal-burning device. Old device must be installed and operable in order to qualify.

Requirements
After enrolling, applicants must submit several photos of their old wood stove or fireplace insert to be reviewed for eligibility. Funding is limited; one project per household.

After receiving an Agency-issued coupon, qualified applicants will receive instructions from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency for recycling their stove and receiving the $350 reward. Recycling participants have 45 days to recycle their stoves at any of our three designated recycling facilities (one located in each county).

 

[bholler]

Are you going to replace it?

 

[wooduser]

No.

I don't have high quality wood --- I burn scrap wood. My old stove burns that a lot better than an EPA stove, as I understand it.

So I already have the ideal stove for my needs.

In another five to ten years I'll be selling my house. I'll likely remove the wood stove then, plug the chimney and replace my old gas furnace along with other things. Perhaps I can collect my $350 then, when I'm going to remove the stove in any case.

 

[bholler]

No.

I don't have high quality wood --- I burn scrap wood. My old stove burns that a lot better than an EPA stove, as I understand it.

So I already have the ideal stove for my needs.

In another five to ten years I'll be selling my house. I'll likely remove the wood stove then, plug the chimney and replace my old gas furnace along with other things. Perhaps I can collect my $350 then, when I'm going to remove the stove in any case.

I burn scrap wood all the time. As long as it's actual wood no reason you can't burn it in a modern stove. And you would need allot less of it.

 

[wooduser]

I burn scrap wood all the time. As long as it's actual wood no reason you can't burn it in a modern stove. And you would need allot less of it.

That's different from what I've been told and read on this board, which has been that scrap wood having NAILs in it, or scrap wood that might have been treated with chemicals (which is apparently all of it) is not suitable fuel for EPA stoves.

Perhaps you can respond to the claims above that I have heard often enough on these boards.

Last night I picked up half a vanload of scrap wood from the nearby lumber yard, mostly 4x4s four feet long, 2x4 sticks and 1x4s and such. I'm a firebug by disposition, so not having to stoke up the stove as often might be a disadvantage...

I SUPPOSE I might be able to live with that....

 

[bholler]

That's different from what I've been told and read on this board, which has been that scrap wood having NAILs in it, or scrap wood that might have been treated with chemicals (which is apparently all of it) is not suitable fuel for EPA stoves.

Perhaps you can respond to the claims above that I have heard often enough on these boards.

Last night I picked up half a vanload of scrap wood from the nearby lumber yard, mostly 4x4s four feet long, 2x4 sticks and 1x4s and such. I'm a firebug by disposition, so not having to stoke up the stove as often might be a disadvantage...

I SUPPOSE I might be able to live with that....

Nails don't matter as long unless it is a cat stove which most aren't.

And stuff treated with chemicals isn't suitable for burning in any stove at all. Are the 4x4s pressure treated?

I have been burning untreated 2x4 cutoffs the last few days because I had a pile of them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[begreen]

which has been that scrap wood having NAILs in it, or scrap wood that might have been treated with chemicals (which is apparently all of it) is not suitable fuel for EPA stoves.

Scrap wood with nails is ok for non-cat stoves. Not an issue. No one should be burning wood that has been treated with chemicals in any stove at any time.

 

[jatoxico]

scrap wood that might have been treated with chemicals (which is apparently all of it) is not suitable fuel for EPA stoves.

Burning treated wood is bad no matter what stove your using. Cat stoves aside its also about health and safety.

 

[begreen]

If that wood is treated and being burned it is harming the whole neighborhood as well as the general urban area. Especially now while in a temperature inversion. This practice should be stopped immediately.

 

[Highbeam]

Notice that they will subsidize pellet stoves but not new wood stoves? The implication being that woodstoves pollute more.

 

[bholler]

Notice that they will subsidize pellet stoves but not new wood stoves? The implication being that woodstoves pollute more.

I would say with an average person running a woodstove they do pollute more than pellet stoves. They dont have to but most people dont eun them as well as they should

 

[bholler]

Notice that they will subsidize pellet stoves but not new wood stoves? The implication being that woodstoves pollute more.

And then you have people burning treated wood that give all woodburners a bad rep

 

[wooduser]

Nails don't matter as long unless it is a cat stove which most aren't.

And stuff treated with chemicals isn't suitable for burning in any stove at all. Are the 4x4s pressure treated?

I have been burning untreated 2x4 cutoffs the last few days because I had a pile of them. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yes,

Notice that they will subsidize pellet stoves but not new wood stoves? The implication being that wood stoves pollute more.

that's why my plan is to keep using my current stove until I'm ready to sell my house in 5-10 years time. I'll be replacing the furnace prior to that sale, and can benefit from the subsidy then, assuming it's available.

Selling a house with an old wood stove likely adds more complications than benefit, so my plan is to junk the stove and plug the chimney vent before selling the house.

 

[bholler]

Yes,

that's why my plan is to keep using my current stove until I'm ready to sell my house in 5-10 years time. I'll be replacing the furnace prior to that sale, and can benefit from the subsidy then, assuming it's available.

Selling a house with an old wood stove likely adds more complications than benefit, so my plan is to junk the stove and plug the chimney vent before selling the house.

So you are burning pressure treated wood??? Wow

 

[wooduser]

So you are burning pressure treated wood??? Wow

No, but what users on this board have claimed is that any scrap wood may have been treated with chemicals of some type and therefore shouldn't be used. Ergo, 100% of scrap wood is unsuitable to be burned. Also, there are those who claim that scrap wood with nails in it isn't suitable to be burned.

I ignore that advice. Burning scrap wood is perfectly legal around here, and I'm not interested in following the advice of environmental extremists.

 

[bholler]

No, but what users on this board have claimed is that any scrap wood may have been treated with chemicals of some type and therefore shouldn't be used. Ergo, 100% of scrap wood is unsuitable to be burned. Also, there are those who claim that scrap wood with nails in it isn't suitable to be burned.

I ignore that advice. Burning scrap wood is perfectly legal around here, and I'm not interested in following the advice of environmental extremists.

I read the thread you are referring to and no one said all scrap wood was treated with chemicals. Just that many times the crates used for overseas shipping is. And again nails are fine in noncat stoves.

Many of us burn a fair ammout of clean scrap wood in our stoves there is nothing wrong with that. And I am sorry but not wanting to be exposed to chemicals from burning treated wood does not make someone an environmental extremist.

 

[wooduser]

And I am sorry but not wanting to be exposed to chemicals from burning treated wood does not make someone an environmental extremist.

Those of us burning scrap wood don't know whether the wood we burn might have been treated with chemicals or not. YOU apparently are willing to take the chance that it hasn't, and feel virtuous doing so.

Others are taking the position that any scrap wood MAY have been treated with chemicals, and that therefore burning any scrap wood is irresponsible.

And I see that begreen has refined advice to include a recommendation against cat stoves if wood burned may have a high iron content from having nails in it. That's useful information to have, thank you.

The real bottom line is that I'm happy with my stove and see no compelling reasons to spend money to replace it. Furthermore, the government will subsidize the replacement of my old gas furnace if I delay replacing my wood stove, which offers a monetary incentive to keep using it.

Always glad to take a $350 cash bonus for doing something I was going to do anyway! That's the way with a lot of such subsidies.

 

[bholler]

Those of us burning scrap wood don't know whether the wood we burn might have been treated with chemicals or not. YOU apparently are willing to take the chance that it hasn't, and feel virtuous doing so.

Others are taking the position that any scrap wood MAY have been treated with chemicals, and that therefore burning any scrap wood is irresponsible.
.

And I see that begreen has refined advice to include a recommendation against cat stoves if wood burned may have a high iron content from having nails in it. That's useful information to have, thank you.

The real bottom line is that I'm happy with my stove and see no compelling reasons to spend money to replace it. Furthermore, the government will subsidize the replacement of my old gas furnace if I delay replacing my wood stove, which offers a monetary incentive to keep using it.

Always glad to take a $350 cash bonus for doing something I was going to do anyway! That's the way with a lot of such subsidies.

A little common sense can tell you if the wood is treated or not. If there is any question I don't burn it. It has absolutely nothing to do with virtue. It has to do with safely and effectively heating my house while not damaging my stove or chimney or poisoning my self my family or my neighbors.

 

[mellow]

Trying to figure out the point of this thread? Complain about others using common sense or $350 is not enough for the stove?

 

[wooduser]

Trying to figure out the point of this thread?

Personally, I find it interesting that local government is subsidizing the elimination of wood stoves.

Perhaps that is a fad that has already caught on elsewhere, or will spread.

 

[rwhite]

Clean air isn't a fad. I can almost guarantee that someone has weighed the cost of compliance vs the cost of getting rid of the problem. Old wood stoves are a low hanging fruit.

 

[begreen]

Others are taking the position that any scrap wood MAY have been treated with chemicals, and that therefore burning any scrap wood is irresponsible.

Who has taken this position? Like with the nails there appears to be confusion between catalytic stove operation and non-cat stoves. The concern with a cat stove is poisoning the catalyst. That is not an issue with a non-cat. If the scrap wood is coming from a cabinet shop, or construction cutoffs and is raw, then it's fine. If it is coming from an old house teardown and it consists of just studs and joists then the odds are very good that it is untreated. Contrast that to wood that is painted or pressure-treated. This is known treated and should not be burned. When in doubt, pass.

 

[Hogwildz]

learned he's an odd fellow.

That is putting it nicely.

 

[kennyp2339]

Personally, I find it interesting that local government is subsidizing the elimination of wood stoves.

You can think that.. its called perception "Where you stand determines what you see" I think some very smart people work for our government (for better or worse) but my interpretation is probabaly a grantee that fuel (pellets) are already dry and the stoves will burn cleaner because that variable has been removed.

 

[wooduser]

<<
Personally, I find it interesting that local government is subsidizing the elimination of wood stoves.
You can think that.. its called perception "


Actually, it's a matter of fact. Can't really spin it any other way.