I edited elk's message. There were a few times where i guessed what was intended but i noted that by putting a comment in brackets like this [ ].
It sounds like some of the folks doing the most complaining about wood burning have never had a power outage in the winter. If they wish to experience sitting in a house that has lost its heat because the electricity cut out, and it's below freezing, good on them. I have enough character and don't need to build more through an experience like that!
here's the edited copy.
megan
************************************************************************************************
They’re quoting pollutants to mice from uncertified stoves for their argument base, at GPH amounts off the charts Exposing to 300 GPH is not scientific, not indicative of modern stoves they emit, .7 GPH. Quoting from an 1986 study? Do you think technology has advanced a bit? Are you typing on an 8086 processor computer? Have you heard of Auto Cad, where 3-D viewing of combustions chambers are rendered? Do you know anything about the horizontal burn process? Where the smoke path is directed down across the hot bed of coals where smoke particulates are being burned off, being super heated and channeled into a secondary combustion chamber? Fresh super heated air is also introduced into the chamber resulting in a super hot gasification combustion. Temperatures reach 1700 degrees burning just about any residual particulates. That is how the 1 GPH barrier has been broken. I challenge you to plug that statistic into your formulas. Thousands of these stoves equipped with this technology are residing in homes today.
I find your arguments are flawed. At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. I have witnessed the testing procedures; I have seen the particulates collected in the filters. All stoves are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA.
I take this group to be ecologically responsible but again I’m viewing mixed messages. Some here are suggesting portable electric [you put ‘electic’ but I thought that a typo] heater alternatives. Recently 8 people died in a NY fire caused by an electric heater. Before one plugs one of those units in better check the amperage draw and the current draw on the circuit. It surprises me you would make that suggestion. Ever experience black outs, brown outs? Our grid is overtaxed to begin with, yet you suggest adding to that condition? Never mind that 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and much of that is coal, low-grade, sulfur-laden coal to boot but that’s ok?
Many here suggest oil burning for heat. Do we have to rehash the real cost of oil?
Here is a little tidbit, you never factored in the modern oil burners test to be in the low 80’s efficiencies. Most tests are done when they are first installed. Before the firing head gets gunked up and the flue become carbonized. That initial testing is the only time that burner runs that efficient; from there performance drops off. I know—I inspect them every day. Did you know, that .7 GPH stove has obtained 82.5% efficiencies, burning cleaner than the average oil burner? I find it ironic you promote a technology that is not renewable that burns less efficiently.
The next fuel alternative you suggest is gas. Again, let’s not rehash the real cost of imported gas from the Middle East. For the uninformed gas lines do not service every home. You mention medical cost of smoke what about factoring the cost of gas explosions?
We agree renewable alternatives are needed. Dependency upon fossil fuel is not working.
Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal are viable alternatives for some, economically beyond most individual home owners. You make very little mention of conserving the energy we produce: better windows, more insulation, better draft prevention, buttoning up our homes.
A complete ban on burning is not going to happen. You have no argument for the use of wood heat during power outages. Many of you arguments are flawed and can be easily invalidated. Referencing your own prior statement is unscientific as are the words can, might, may, or seems.
I’m asking you, are you willing to support cleaner responsible burning? Supporting technology such as I described? These modern stoves are not your old polluting beasts of yesteryear. I mean we are talking about .7 GPH this is not some small manufacturer but the largest one in North America employing the new everburn technology.
Are you willing to use this site to educate responsible burning? Are you willing to promote swap out programs? Are you willing to promote continued research for cleaner burning? You are not winning the battle; 500,000 more stoves were sold this year on top of 500,000 [or should this be 50,000? You typed 500,00] last year. People are still going to burn them. Life is full of compromises. Better to direct them and improve them than to stand by helplessly, unable to do anything constructive about it. One must take baby steps before giant ones. I am asking you to support clean, responsible burning and to promote replacing older stoves with super efficient new ones.
PS I do not think they will take the bait nor do I think they will support anything to do with burning and smoke. No I’m not selling out. Just measuring their ignorance.
![[Hearth.com] Burning issues burning up w/hearth.com users](/talk/data/attachments/3/3390-140327dc9941ee78508c98942734cc74.jpg?hash=aeoBSnM5z6)
