Once again, the folks in Fairbanks aren't trying to solve or combat climate change or global warming. They just want cleaner air in the winter time. All the discussions of CO, CO2, what maybe carbon neutral, clean coal, whether moon landing was staged, and grassy knolls do nothing to help or alleviate the problem of folks having to sit under an envelope of dirty air all winter.
EPA JUST A SNIFF AWAY IN ALASKA...NYT ARTICLE
- Thread starter Phoenix Hatchling
- 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
As an aside to the current path that the conversation has taken, and I am certainly both glad and surprised it has remained as civil as it's has, I would like to pose a quick observation/question.
My father just now was outside hanging some laundry and called me outside because of an off smell. The smell I detected was what I had found when my stove was burning hot and cleanly. Definitely chemical in nature. Never gave it much thought as to what it was I was smelling. He referred to it in German as being called Karbol. Said it was a very potent disinfectant and had to be careful with it. Trying to find a translation, I could only come up with phenol or carbolic acid. Is this a by-product of burning cycle of an EPA stove as the gases and particulates re-burn? Is THAT in and of itself dangerous/toxic?
My father just now was outside hanging some laundry and called me outside because of an off smell. The smell I detected was what I had found when my stove was burning hot and cleanly. Definitely chemical in nature. Never gave it much thought as to what it was I was smelling. He referred to it in German as being called Karbol. Said it was a very potent disinfectant and had to be careful with it. Trying to find a translation, I could only come up with phenol or carbolic acid. Is this a by-product of burning cycle of an EPA stove as the gases and particulates re-burn? Is THAT in and of itself dangerous/toxic?
jatoxico
Minister of Fire
VB, to say it's a non-existent issue contradicts a lot of what you later said about how much about the science about global climate remains unknown. IMO we're better to continue to try to limit green house gas emissions because we cannot wait to see if the theory of climate change turns out to be largely correct. In the meantime we will get cleaner air, water etc. I'm sure there will be waste and ridiculous programs along the way and someone will put some money in their pocket, same old same.
To the point of the thread, forest fires and others sources of particulate are bigger offenders than wood stoves here in the US and in other developed countries (not so everywhere). But even though many areas could have been affected they are having a problem in Fairbanks. So they want to take steps to limit those sources within their control and a poorly run wood stove can actually contribute to poor AQ on a small scale in an area prone to problems. To think that wood burning doesn't pose a risk is putting your head in the sand, just look at any populated area where the predominate source of heating/cooking is wood.
Temperature, as used by those who support the idea of global warming, is controlled by the sun. I want clean air and I want clean water. There are plenty of places we can do better with our environment, but they are the ones who targeted CO2 emissions, not me. CO2 does not make dirty air nor does it make dirty water, yet they have targeted it as a greenhouse gas and it is what we spend the most money on. Furthermore, global warming is just that - a global concept where we are told our actions here impact everyone on the globe and future generations. If our nation spends many billions of dollars to combat global warming here in the United States to "make the future better" for very minimal impact would we not be better off promoting basic projects (that would cost much less) in Africa or Asia to reduce CO2 or clean up the water in our oceans? How about a simple exercise - take the old scrubbers from our domestic coal plants that are replaced by newer (and better) scrubbers as required by our EPA and install them in a coal plant elsewhere? They would represent a drastic improvement in the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere versus what we require here in the U.S. (and other Western nations).
Again, if it is a global problem (their words - not mine), and CO2 is the culprit (their words - not mine), then let us help the third world with the basic steps to reduce it that we accomplished over a decade ago. Why not spend the "carbon credits" (a tax) that government in the West has levied on us all where it would be most effective - in the third world? Same for water. The idea that so many in the third world suffer disease and so many plants and animals are killed from water pollution (again, it is one planet) that is avoidable at minimal expense by our standards is illogical as their pollution impacts us all - not just them. Hypothetically, If we required a company to spend 25 million dollars for a reduction of CO2 output by 25 tons would we not be better off spending that same money to reduce carbon output at a coal plant in Asia by 250 tons or 2500 tons? CO2 is their argument not mine.
I am not snarky about it and I won't get nasty towards anyone. We are all entitled to our opinion, but the opinion should be based in science and logic. I am not advocating "doing nothing" to make air and water cleaner. I think we have made great strides here in our own nation and in the West in general in doing so, and the EPA has certainly led the way. I am only pointing out that we could have a far bigger impact around the world on the problem they call "the biggest crisis facing civilization". Would we not have a far bigger impact on the problem as they define it by cleaning up the coal stacks in the third world or donating our old scrubbers to plants there that would represent a huge leap forward for them measured by 10, 25, or 50% reduction versus mandating that customers here in the U.S. pay extra on their utility bills for a 1% reduction? Would that not make more sense and be more intellectually honest? In reality, we in the U.S. are being heavily taxed to fix the problem, yet they spend most of the money on other things. Why not help developing nations to make the huge strides we made decades ago in cleaner air and cleaner water if we are fighting a global problem (again, their own words)?
I am not advocating doing nothing for the environment. I am highly skeptical of "global warming" as it is presently defined and described, but I am not a skeptic about the need for clean air and clean water. I do not believe CO2, as they describe it, is a pollutant. "Ethyl-Methyl Bad Stuff" (to borrow the phrase in the hazmat business) are pollutants. I think we should be transparent about what we are spending money on and what the result is. I think we could look at the problem (clean air and clean water) differently and if we (taxpayers and utility users) want the bigger bang for the buck in making the Earth's environment better there are far better ways (and places) we could spend the money than fighting carbon emissions.
Again, if it is a global problem (their words - not mine), and CO2 is the culprit (their words - not mine), then let us help the third world with the basic steps to reduce it that we accomplished over a decade ago. Why not spend the "carbon credits" (a tax) that government in the West has levied on us all where it would be most effective - in the third world? Same for water. The idea that so many in the third world suffer disease and so many plants and animals are killed from water pollution (again, it is one planet) that is avoidable at minimal expense by our standards is illogical as their pollution impacts us all - not just them. Hypothetically, If we required a company to spend 25 million dollars for a reduction of CO2 output by 25 tons would we not be better off spending that same money to reduce carbon output at a coal plant in Asia by 250 tons or 2500 tons? CO2 is their argument not mine.
I am not snarky about it and I won't get nasty towards anyone. We are all entitled to our opinion, but the opinion should be based in science and logic. I am not advocating "doing nothing" to make air and water cleaner. I think we have made great strides here in our own nation and in the West in general in doing so, and the EPA has certainly led the way. I am only pointing out that we could have a far bigger impact around the world on the problem they call "the biggest crisis facing civilization". Would we not have a far bigger impact on the problem as they define it by cleaning up the coal stacks in the third world or donating our old scrubbers to plants there that would represent a huge leap forward for them measured by 10, 25, or 50% reduction versus mandating that customers here in the U.S. pay extra on their utility bills for a 1% reduction? Would that not make more sense and be more intellectually honest? In reality, we in the U.S. are being heavily taxed to fix the problem, yet they spend most of the money on other things. Why not help developing nations to make the huge strides we made decades ago in cleaner air and cleaner water if we are fighting a global problem (again, their own words)?
I am not advocating doing nothing for the environment. I am highly skeptical of "global warming" as it is presently defined and described, but I am not a skeptic about the need for clean air and clean water. I do not believe CO2, as they describe it, is a pollutant. "Ethyl-Methyl Bad Stuff" (to borrow the phrase in the hazmat business) are pollutants. I think we should be transparent about what we are spending money on and what the result is. I think we could look at the problem (clean air and clean water) differently and if we (taxpayers and utility users) want the bigger bang for the buck in making the Earth's environment better there are far better ways (and places) we could spend the money than fighting carbon emissions.
I agree. The EPA has broad rules about wood emissions from devices. They further have criteria for something called a "non-attainment area" that despite the emissions regulations for new stoves, the air in those areas is measured to still be too dirty. The EPA then brings down a hammer on local areas by fining them and removing their eligibility for all kinds of federal funds. So the local guys get a chance to clean up those areas and some pretty crazy things can happen. I live near one of these non-attainment areas (that recently reattained "Clean" status) and the local air control authorities have tried some pretty wild stuff. The biggest one was passing a law that no non-EPA stoves are allowed anymore, no grandfathering in, you just can't burn it. Other things are extremely arbitrary and stupid burn bans, wood stove changeout programs, and actual enforcement of current laws regarding smoke emissions. Masonry fireplaces are still allowed
States can also invent their own wood stove emissions rules that are stricter than the EPA. My state requires even more stringent particulate emissions ratings than the EPA and outright bans all wood boilers.
None of us want our neighbors to suffer because of our wood burning. Unfortunately, the local air guys get desperate and dumb when trying to meet EPA clean air regulations. We wood burners are not well represented or protected politically so we are quickly thumped.
jatoxico
Minister of Fire
It's true you can caught between a bureaucratic decision made from 20,000 ft and one vocal citizen at the local town meeting. Hopefully reason prevails but there's no guarantee. If that started happening here by me there would be no chance for a granular look at who was really causing a problem vs who was following good practices and running clean. They would just ban. From Poindexters post it sounds like in AK they are at least trying to ID the worst offenders first.
Silly or maybe not so silly but do they have natural gas available or am I wrong in assuming where there is oil there is natural gas to be had as well?
I don't know about up there, but here in CT natural gas isn't available. Propane yes, but pricey.
jatoxico
Minister of Fire
From the article;
Residents are also trapped, he said, by economics. Natural gas, a much cleaner fuel source, is not widely available in this part of Alaska, and heating oil can be very expensive. Oil also produces particulate pollution, though less than wood. A study for the borough last year said residents here spent, on average, almost four times the national average in annual heating costs.
Residents are also trapped, he said, by economics. Natural gas, a much cleaner fuel source, is not widely available in this part of Alaska, and heating oil can be very expensive. Oil also produces particulate pollution, though less than wood. A study for the borough last year said residents here spent, on average, almost four times the national average in annual heating costs.
The locals in SE CT are trying to block a NG pipeline that will be underground and won't even know it is there beyond a line on a map. They claim to be environmental opponents of the plan and skip over the part of how clean it burns and how much money it could save. I would love to have NG in my house for heating and cooking rather than oil and propane now. I have coal now rather than wood as it is just too much work and frustration dealing with wood sellers here and just plain surrendered. A good coal stove is no more dirty than wood in any way. They have had secondary air since around 1910 and you can see the blue flames come off the coal fire burning gas and particulates and just like a wood stove that is when you run them hard enough to get into their so called sweet spot. Idling just an orange glow in fire pot.
Wish I had the option of NG. Clean as can be as so efficient. Had it in White Plains all my life and to be hamstringed with oil now sucks. I do enjoy the wood and pellets though!
Poindexter
Minister of Fire
There is lots of NG at the oil wells on the north slope. There is no ng pipeline. It is cheaper in anchorage ak to buy ng from the phillipines by the tanker ship load rather than from the north slope one tractor trailer load at a time.
We've been fighting the EPA in Fairbanks for 25 years. The impacted area is in the bottom of a bowl surrounded by hills on 3 sides. When it gets -40 below a very strong temperature inversion traps the air in the bottom of the valley.
The EPA started with carbon monoxide from idling vehicles in 1991 creating a multi million dollar emission testing program. EFI technology advances on vehicles fixed the CO problem so the local bureaucrats took on PM 2.5 to save their jobs. Now all the former vehicle inspectors are wood stove cops.
The funny thing is that the air is cleaner now then it ever was growing up. There are a few neighborhoods that are worse but overall most areas don't have any issues at all. Of course all the government air quality testers were located at the worst possible areas to make it look worse in order to obtain more and more funding.
Most residents are against the programs and we have voted down numerous regulations through citizens initiatives.
http://old.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/AQNearRealTime.aspx
Hah! Sounds like a program for energy efficiency initiative we HAD to implement in the school district I work in. All walkin fridges and freezers were put on monitors which cycled and regulate the new fan motors, condensers and door defrosters dependent on ambient air temp, humidity, etc. Since its installation, we have had numerous failures, and complications which required service. In addition, in order to demonstrate its efficacy, they used a two week period IN THE SUMMER, when school was not in session, to gather data to back up their assertion of energy savings.
yes the heat is created by the sun you are correct but the amount of heat allowed in and the amount of heat held in is dictated by the makeup of our atmosphere.
The vehicle emission program was a complete waste of money. It was $100 a year for the shop to plug into the OBD port and check any engine diagnosis codes. They weren't even doing tailpipe measurements towards the end.
The wood stove regulations which immediately replaced the outgoing vehicle program bought out a bunch of outdoor boilers and provided rebates for new stoves but have not really had much impact. The change is that 30 years ago everyone burned wood and coal and now most burn heating oil. No one pays any attention to the unenforced burn bans which include even the newest most efficient pellet stoves in the same group as a barrel stove.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
The wood stove regulations which immediately replaced the outgoing vehicle program bought out a bunch of outdoor boilers and provided rebates for new stoves but have not really had much impact. The change is that 30 years ago everyone burned wood and coal and now most burn heating oil. No one pays any attention to the unenforced burn bans which include even the newest most efficient pellet stoves in the same group as a barrel stove.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Funny how wood smoke suddenly became a big problem when 30 government employees no longer had a job.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
do you have any data to back up the claim that the clean air initiative did not cause the improvements?
There are no bad air days when there is no temperature inversion. It is insane to consider they are sending millions of dollars to attack wood burning based on exceeding a made up pollution number a couple times annually.
The only thing that changed is that the EPA lowered the bar on PM 2.5 twice. Once in 2006 and again in 2012. In 2005 it was not even an issue that was being looked at. Notice the summertime levels from forest fires.
The only thing that changed is that the EPA lowered the bar on PM 2.5 twice. Once in 2006 and again in 2012. In 2005 it was not even an issue that was being looked at. Notice the summertime levels from forest fires.
Poindexter
Minister of Fire
There are very few EPA air cops in this region. Most regulation is at the state and regional level. Locally it's the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
http://www.pscleanair.org/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.pscleanair.org/Pages/default.aspx
No, they see it as a feather in their cap. The local clean air agency lumped the whole county together with this non-attainment area (Tacoma) with regards to burn bans. Our counties are huge and this local clean air agency has jurisdiction over several counties including Seattle's county and Everett's county. It's hard to say what caused the change in attainment status but it is a good thing and I hope this causes them to be more reasonable about how/when they ban burning.
I still think with cheap fossil fuel, young folks not wanting to put forth effort for wood heat, much cleaner burning automobiles, and gradual removal of pre-EPA woodstoves, that it was just a matter of time before average air quality improved.
Remember the school busses when we were kids? Every time they accelerated they would blast out an enormous cloud of soot. Same with all diesels. They don't do that anymore. You can't even park a modern car in the garage with the door closed to kill yourself anymore, they burn too cleanly.
So it appears that each of the bars on the graph is approximately 180 days. Hard to tell but maybe 1/3 of the days from Oct to Apr are exceeding. Sitting in poor air quality for 60 days doesn't sound to fun. But, how do you fix those 60 days? Burn bans, better stoves? I don't have the answer but it seems that the local folks are trying to find one. But as you stated "no one pays attention to the enforced burn bans" . So there's a rule, which is not enforced, and folks are upset when a bigger hammer is suggested? If they won't police themselves someone will be along to do it for them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
