Outright Ban On Anything Wood In Utah! Pellets/Cord Wood/Fireplaces

I think if the stove community is serious about helping reduce wood smoke in the Wasatch Front, we should be talking about phasing out uncertified wood stoves - and beefing up enforcement. The HPBA solution, of allowing EPA certified devices to be used during the first stage of bad air quality days, and then everything banned during the second stage, does very little to really address the issue. Salt Lake already has the power to do that, but they need help with new strategies to show that they have a plan to get back into attainment. Otherwise, they lose highway funds. The Utah Air Quality Board sees the HPBA proposal as moving backwards, not forwards, because they can already ban all burning during an inversion, and they may just start doing that, more and more, until folks can only heat with stoves for half the winter or less. Its easy to oppose the kind of ban that the Utah Governor proposed - and there may be few states that can oppose such a thing as well as Utahns can.

We make the case here that phasing out uncertified stoves could reduce a lot of smoke and it too would be a tough sell in Utah, but not impossible, like the Governors' ban seems to be:

http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/clearing-air-in-utah-wood-stove.html

BKVP said:

This is part of the press release that we received today:
The Salt Lake County Board of Health has passed Health Regulation #35, Solid Fuel Burning, which prohibits burning coal, wood or pellets in fireplaces or wood burning stoves, and bans outdoor fires—including bonfires, patio pit and charcoal grill fires—on days that the State of Utah designates as either mandatory or voluntary air action (no burn) days.

Click to expand...

Glad someone noticed this development, as its a big deal, but not necessarily the direction that lots of folks want. By banning all stove use on both mandatory and voluntary air action days, Salt Lake County is showing that they are not buying the strategy of letting EPA certified devices burn on voluntary days. This county is the most urbanized and has more than a third of the entire state's population. I predict the ban proposed by the Governor will be voted down, but if several key, populated counties follow Salt Lake County's lead, it may be a Pyrrhic victory as more and more days each winter are air action days. We'd like to at least see pellet stoves exempted from these periodic bans.

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/so...cle_c8672f44-9da6-11e4-9349-4f63d9a753ff.html

Never heard it explained this way.

flyingpile said:

http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/so...cle_c8672f44-9da6-11e4-9349-4f63d9a753ff.html

Never heard it explained this way.

Click to expand...

Yes, nice to read new perspectives and learn more about the science behind ozone. Our community has focused so much on PM, that VOCs and NOx get lost. I can't find any stats now, but catalysts are pretty effective at reducing VOCs. Anyone have figures?I ran this article by a couple of experts in this area and here is what they said:

"VOCs are likely to be much more important than the NOx. There is very little thermal NOx because of the relatively low combustion temperatures.

He's wrong about the 2.6 grams of "stove ash". First, the field value of PM is almost certainly higher than the lab certification value. Secondly, the PM is mostly tar (OC, from smoldering combustion) and soot (EC, from flaming combustion). You get flyash from things like larger high efficiency pellet and cordwood boilers, where velocities are high, but that would be a lot less than than 2.6 g/kg of fuel, according to some of the data I have seen. VOC's are not measured in the EPA number, only solids ("dust" as measured in Europe and by the Wohler and Testo 380) and semi-volatile condensibles (tar droplets) - analagous to cigarette smoke."

John

begreen said:

Thanks for posting that link. That is a well written response. On the front page of the HJ there is also an article posted yesterday. 99% are against the ban.
http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/pe...cle_a8daa2fa-a1f2-11e4-af08-3feccab0db29.html

Click to expand...

99% sounds about right to me, based on what I've heard from people attending the hearings. The proposed ban is DOA, but the alternatives may not be so great either, and another proposal is likely to come out in the Spring. I just wrote another blog on the Salt Lake County decision, which could lead to periodic bans of half the winter or more. This blog won't make me too popular with the wood stove guys, as I still think far too many people don't operate their certified stoves very well, making pellet stoves the best alternative for densely populated areas. http://forgreenheat.blogspot.com/2015/01/as-utah-debates-seasonal-stove-ban-salt.html

john

BKVP said:

You are correct, that is an unpopular opinion to a cord wood stove guy. However, it is JUST AN OPINION and not based upon real world facts.....yet.

Click to expand...

I'm a cord wood stove guy too. I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions. If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong. There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.

John Ackerly said:

I'm a cord wood stove guy too. I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions. If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong. There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.

Click to expand...

OK, but pellets have to be processed. Somebody somewhere is using some electricity or natural gas or something to turn green cord wood into pellets, and selling them at a profit; after buying green cordwood and some energy and making the mortgage payment on the factory.

I think if we included the carbon footprint of _making_ pellets in with the rest of pellet emissions the difference between properly seasoned cord wood and pellets is going to get blurry.

How can we (you, me, everybody) make burning DRY cordwood attractive?

Poindexter said:

How can we (you, me, everybody) make burning DRY cordwood attractive?

Click to expand...

Speaking of dry cordwood, your hometown, Fairbanks, is first in nation, I believe, that is requiring dry firewood in the smoke zone? My question: is there an accepted protocol for measuring MC?

John Ackerly said:

Speaking of dry cordwood, your hometown, Fairbanks, is first in nation, I believe, that is requiring dry firewood in the smoke zone? My question: is there an accepted protocol for measuring MC?

Click to expand...

I was in California for the first public hearing but will be attending the second later this month. Clearly if someone's stack is out of compliance and there wood pile is outdoors, some kind of sample will have to be warmed up in a lab before a reliable electronic reading of conductance or resistance can be made. And the smoke cops will have to follow all the chain of evidence protocols already in place for handguns used in murders and cash recovered from bank robberies and so on for the fine to stick.

The only part of the proposed regs I am really thinking about objecting to is banning all wood burning, even EPA compliant stoves burning dry wood, when the air quality is bad enough. I am not certain I will object to it, but I think I am going to.

you ever try n buy below 20 percent moisture content wood logs or split its the biggest bunch o bullshiet ever imagined no matter the cost folk in this buis are deliverance folk most do not know what a cord is unit of measure of wood only how it is checked by stacking only most only know they ll bring you a cord in their truck bed wrong that's bout a 1/3 cord all this buis is out to do is rob folk when you know the deal folk hang up almost no dealer of wood in NC USA will talk to me cuz they cannot rip me off .. I now buy in 4400 pound loads kiln dried from like American woodyard or such theyre a legit buis and must deal with state boards of weight and measures most wood lots do not theyre private co op or whatever gets round legal;

John Ackerly said:

I'm a cord wood stove guy too. I have no desire to have a pellet stove in my living room. But from purely an emission perspective, pellet stoves have far more consistent, and lower emissions. If you can't keep it cleaner with 8% MC pellets, compared to the huge range of MC that the average cord wood burners uses, you are doing something wrong. There some good studies on this - its not just based on opinions.

Click to expand...

John, you say you are a cord wood guy but contend that pellet stoves are better for densely populated areas, yet you list your location as a densely populated area?

That aside, excluding the choice to burn cord wood in an efficient, modern stove would be a disservice to many and from what I gather, not solve anything.

I think there are many steps that should be taken before arriving at banning.

And shiet like this is Why were in the toilet as a whole (country) were not taken seriously anymore by any country worth their salt all of em looki that wild west spirit now he he ..

I sat down this morning and took the time to read every single post on this thread. I am not from Utah, however I am one of the millions who have a pre-EPA wood stove, and I heat solely with wood, with propane backup.

Last year we used propane alone, and spent nearly $3500 in propane heating our home at 62 degrees all winter, and were without heat numerous days because there were such high back orders on propane. I have a high efficiency LP furnace, and a fairly well insulated home. This year was my first year heating with wood, and I have spent $120 and have burned 6-7 cords of seasoned wood thus far, starting in October.

The big thing is the cost. If I had to spend $3500 again this year and every year beyond that, I'd literally have to sell my home and move. I simply cannot afford to heat it anymore. The cost of propane has increased to ridiculous proportions.

Furthermore, a new EPA approved wood furnace setup for me STARTS at $3000, not including shipping, not including HVAC installation.

By the end of the day, we're looking at $6000 for me to be in compliance with the EPA. Who the hell has that kind of money? Not this guy. I'm a 31 year old social worker with his first kid on the way. I've got $100,000 in college loans that equate to a second mortgage every month ($750) as well as a house payment, 2 car payments, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, I have one way to heat my house, and that's wood. Propane is not a realistic option. Upgrading to EPA regulations is not an option. Using what I already have, regardless of it's poor efficiency is my ONLY option.

If the government tells me I suddenly can't use it anymore, they're going to have to come take the stove out of my house to stop me. If they're going to take it from my home, it'll have to be by force, which I can only hope will bring national attention to the matter.

Welcome to the discussion j7art2.

As an RN I want every single patient of mine to have a Social Worker of their own. You are doing important work, I hope you are adequately recognized for it.

With four kids of my own in college, I fully understand your economics. Before the wood stove went in I was burning 2000 gallons of oil every year to make heat and domestic hot water. With a mild winter so far this year and a mild winter last year, I have purchased 826 gallons of oil in the trailing 12 months.

Are you located in an EPA "non-attainment area" where average air quality doesn't meet EPA standards?

Like Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, I live in a non-attainment area. We are having an "event" right now. It was -38dF when I last checked a few minutes ago, we have an inversion layer of cold air trapped against the ground, lots of wood smoke and car exhaust in the cold air. If I drive less than two miles from my home and drive up the nearest ridge surrounding the city I will climb maybe 200 feet to break out of the inversion layer into clean warm air up on the ridge. Its probably only -20, maybe -15dF up there with miles and miles of visibility, but that warm air can't push the cold air down in the valley out to anywhere, its trapped until the weather breaks.

Did I mention it's -38dF at my house right now? Darn right my stove is running.

Proposed regs in SLC are to ban all wood burning from September to March - basically heating season- to help clean up the air. Proposed regs for me in Fairbanks are to ban all wood burning - even in EPA certified stoves like mine - when air quality is "unhealthy" like it is now and probably will be all week.

Last winter with an older EPA certified non-cat stove in weather like this I could and did burn a cord in one week, several times. A face cord every two or three days. Basically all I can do is work, eat, sleep and feed the stove. No time for TV or other pleasurable activities. With my new this year EPA cert cat equipped stove, my wood consumption in weather like this is down noticeably. If I had to let the stove burn out and heat with oil it would be many many dollars, at -40dF my oil burner runs about 56 minutes out of every hour and can barely keep the inside of the house at +62dF.

If the proposed reg goes through here my wife and I probably can't afford to stay. Losing an RN with 20 years experience is bad enough, the irony is my wife is an expert at documenting EPA compliance for large plants like oil refineries and power generation plants.

I don't live in an area where EPA standards do not meet requirements to my knowledge. Every single house on my street burns wood and I can still see the stars clearly at night, so I'd imagine not.

One thing that I noticed mentioned here is that Utah doesn't have a lot of trees. Potential elevation issues aside, simple botany can tell you that plants in general utilize carbon dioxide, etc and give off clean oxygen.

That being said, I live in the middle of state land. I literally go outside my front door, and hit hundreds of miles of dirt bike trails. Largely the amount of wood I gather is through my DNR firewood permit from state land which allows 5 cords of dead and down wood harvesting a year. Even if I was allowed to, I'd never have to take a live tree in my lifetime.

Essentially what I'm getting at, is that there seems to be other factors that could come into play that would dramatically help the situation other than simply banning wood burning devices. I don't know how feasible it is to plant more trees, but that seems like a very large win/win situation to me.

The solution I am seeing right now is that the government is breaking BOTH your legs, then giving you a pair of crutches to walk on. Clearly it doesn't work that way. The solution addresses the problem bass ackwards, but does not fix the problem.

I'm not from Utah or from a polluted air area, but I do have a loud voice. I've utilized it as a Libertarian, and utilized it as an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor standing up for my second amendment rights. That being said, if you make any headway and need another loud voice, I'd be happy to do my part from Northern Michigan, whatever it may be.

I hate to do this to a wood heat supporter but...

People that put themselves in a situation where the only way they can heat their homes is with free or nearly free heat perhaps should move. Sounds like a losing situation to me if you aren't living within your means enough to be able to pay for heat.

I make good enough money to be able to live in my location and heat with whatever I want. I could not afford to live in NYC in the same house. Same with Hawaii.

Highbeam said:

I hate to do this to a wood heat supporter but...

People that put themselves in a situation where the only way they can heat their homes is with free or nearly free heat perhaps should move. Sounds like a losing situation to me if you aren't living within your means enough to be able to pay for heat.

I make good enough money to be able to live in my location and heat with whatever I want. I could not afford to live in NYC in the same house. Same with Hawaii.

Click to expand...

Easy to say until something happens when you can no longer live within your means. I'm a social worker, and this is all I deal with from clients on a daily basis.

Medical bills, broken leg, loss of a job, unexpected children (in my case), etc. Life happens. Sh*t happens. We aren't fortune tellers. We don't want to walk this road of discussion. Let's end this conversation before it starts -- it has no place here.

j7art2 said:

Easy to say until something happens when you can no longer live within your means. I'm a social worker, and this is all I deal with from clients on a daily basis.

Medical bills, broken leg, loss of a job, unexpected children (in my case), etc. Life happens. Sh*t happens. We aren't fortune tellers. We don't want to walk this road of discussion. Let's end this conversation before it starts -- it has no place here.

Click to expand...

Here's how this conversation applies. Nomatter your financial situation I will never agree with you burning tires or plastic trash in your fireplace every day because that was all you could afford. This is the argument you have to expect in response to your excuse that you have no choice but to heat with wood. The reasons and justification for wood burning must be better.

Could be that:

1) The house has this appliance that was legally installed to burn a legal product and you depended on that heat source when you made the house purchase.
2) The burning of wood is less polluting than the alternative whether that be due to carbon impacts or your moral objection to petroleum.

Wood is a free and renewable resource. I got creative. I went to FIVE different people's houses on local Facebook yard sale groups to remove read trees last year on top of the 5 cords I gathered from state land, totaling 10 cords for the winter. Heating wood is not for everyone. If you're not willing to work for it, then wood heat is not for you. It isn't easy and it's a chore. If you can't handle the chore, then I don't know what to tell you. I bought my house with the intention on using my wood furnace one day if it was serviceable to use. It's a questionable appliance given that it's 40 years old, but it's held its own all year and has kept my family warm. Next tax season, I'll be getting a new unit.

The units we have are not designed to burn garbage, they're designed to burn wood and coal. If you're burning stuff that isn't supposed to be burned in them and are polluting the air because you're not using the unit as designed, of course there should be consequences. The argument i'm seeing being made here is the exact same thing as punishing law abiding gun owners for criminal acts of gun violence. It does nothing to solve the problem, and only punishes law abiding gun owners.

If they want to punish people who use their units as incinerators rather than the wood burners they are, that's fine, and I'd encourage that behavior. Punishing all of us because 99% of us burn wood and don't mind the labor it brings though isn't kosher.

Not everyone has the ability to up and move. I am one of them. Cost is a factor, pride is a factor, convenience is a factor. I have homesteaded my home, and have invested thousands upon thousands of hours on my property, building a gun range for teaching concealed pistol license classes, have built a large chicken coop with run, etc. I moved there with the sole plan of heating with wood. I live in thousands of acres of forest, and bought a house with a wood heating apparatus. Getting spanked with $3500 last year in heating costs only reiterated what I already knew -- heating with LP gas isn't going to work for me.

Suddenly having the EPA tell me I can't because some idiot burns tires and pollutes the air isn't going to work for me either. I don't commit crimes and don't deserve punishment for crimes I didn't commit.

It's the approach here that I have a problem with, and punishing all of us because some idiot burns pine off the stump is not the solution.

Now we're getting somewhere. See, to the proban people, burning wood is the same thing as burning tires. A polluting and unnecessary thing. The things that make up woodsmoke are certainly toxic if you eat enough of it. So to a probanner how do you justify emitting wood pollution but not tire pollution? I think you can make a good argument about how buning wood is better than burning tires but your income level is NOT the argument.

I burn wood for 100% of my heat, have for many years. I want you to have a good argument so that you can help us.