EPA stoves and did they really know?

[Bill]

I have had a number of older style stoves many years ago and two new EPA stoves the past 5 years. I often wondered when the EPA decided to limit the emissions if they thought there would be any side effects. Did they realise you would burn less wood? Did they realise the fire would last longer. Did they realise you would get hotter fires from less wood? Did they realise the chimney would stay cleaner?

My own personal belief is they were just interested in emissions and air quality, what do you think?

 

[Custerstove]

Yep, I gotta agree with you. This is America, not much concern for conserving and efficiency, until the last year or two. However, air pollution seemed to be on America's mind ever since smoggy cities was a problem.

On a side note, seems like the first EPA stoves had catalytic converters, does anybody know why manufactures are now producing more secondary burn stoves instead? Perhaps, the high price of rare metals found in these cats?

 

[bayshorecs]

A lot of major innovations come by accident. I think they were focused on limiting emissions and the longer lasting burn times was a nice side effect.

 

[Todd]

Did they realize how much these improvements would drive up the prices and put many smaller manufactures out of business? I think all they were worried about were the emissions.

 

[ozarkjeep]

It was one of those rare times when they wanted better emissions, and cleaner output, and the research to meet those goals ended up with a better burning, better heating stoves for us.

 

[BrotherBart]

The cats were used because they didn't have much time to get clean burners up and running when the rules first came about. As to the side effects the way I have always heard it is that people just started noticing that they were using less wood and sweeps started reporting less crap in the chimneys. Nothing I have seen about development or implementation of the regs anticipated any other benefits other than reduced pollution.

Craig can address it best. Back then all I wanted was something that would toast trees and heat the house. Come to think of it, that is still all I want. :cheese: He was paying the mortgage selling'em.

 

[begreen]

Tom Oyen worked a bit with the regulators and testers in WA state. I suspect he may have demonstrated a Kent-Tile to them and already knew the benefits. But whether they were interested outside of pollution?? I doubt it, they can't really regulate consumption. But maybe that would depend if they burned wood themselves.

(broken link removed to http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoarticl.htm)

 

[kenny chaos]

Cynic me believes that if they knew there would be so many positives for us little guys, we'd still be burning the old ones. :-/

 

[gpcollen1]

Yep, I gotta agree with you. This is America, not much concern for conserving and efficiency, until the last year or two. However, air pollution seemed to be on America's mind ever since smoggy cities was a problem.

That is BS - Conservation and efficiency just has not been on the news and the government has done nothing to be proactive about forcing folks to do it. That does not mean the movement was not there.

 

[EddyKilowatt]

Did they know that by cleaning up car exhaust, we'd get to the point 30 years later where engines start first time every time, are just getting broken in at 100k miles, and have only had one tune-up in that time? Those are all direct benefits of catalytic converters, lead-free fuel, and computerized closed-loop fuel injection/engine management systems.

Eddy

 

[BrotherBart]

Did they know that by cleaning up car exhaust, we'd get to the point 30 years later where engines start first time every time, are just getting broken in at 100k miles, and have only had one tune-up in that time?

Eddy

If they had they would have put a tax on it. Oh and you left out "And not have to replace the muffler and tailpipe at least every two years.".

 

[jjhof0306]

What gets me is the Feds can tell us what kind of stove we need to buy, but they can't make us use them correctly. Thus, the guy across the street who has managed to turn a perfectly good Lopi Liberty into a smoke belching demon stove. I couldn't believe the pall over the neighborhood this morning. I'm guessing his emissions are not very low...

My stove, on the other hand, had a full load and was cruising along at 575* when I left, and nary a wisp from the chimney. ;-)

 

[humpin iron]

I was and still am involved as a liaison between the EPA and the hearth industry. EPA is only about the emissions, thats there job. All the other stuff was just a side effect

 

[Ken45]

Cynic me believes that if they knew there would be so many positives for us little guys, we'd still be burning the old ones. :-/

Yeah, they were only interested in creating mounds of paperwork. What does a bureaucracy do when it sees the light at the end of the tunnel? Build more tunnel! ;-)

Ken, the other cynic

 

[RedRanger]

The new epa stoves are also a product that came about NOT because of a side-effect in improving military hardware. Kind of a rare occurence these days ;-P

 

[michiganwinters]

I too wondered if they knew that it was really going to be a win win with the EPA. But my question is they have these emission standards on woodstove smoke....why dont they have it on outdoor boilers??? Every other house around here has one and they smoke like mad. Why isnt there any standards for all of the smoke they put into the air. Why not have one with a secondary burn system...it would use less wood, cleaner...I dont get it?

 

[Dill]

NH and I believe VT are outlawing the sale of new non-epa outdoor boilers starting in January.

 

[Highbeam]

It is quite the opposite in the diesel truck world. Extremely strict emissions requirements have led to huge reductions in fuel economy and larger engines to get the same HP. We're talking huge here like going from 20 MPG to 12.

 

[Custerstove]

Yep, I gotta agree with you. This is America, not much concern for conserving and efficiency, until the last year or two. However, air pollution seemed to be on America's mind ever since smoggy cities was a problem.

That is BS - Conservation and efficiency just has not been on the news and the government has done nothing to be proactive about forcing folks to do it. That does not mean the movement was not there.

Well, I agree the movement was there, just look at the hippies in the late 60's. But in general, American businesses and consumers are often trying to make things bigger and better - just look at the popularity of SUV's and the Hummer. The fact remains, Americans use a lot of resources per capita. Current economic woes seems to have more and more people trying to find ways to conserve - I guess I'm just trying to say, it seems to be a popular trend recently to conserve.

 

[EddyKilowatt]

It is quite the opposite in the diesel truck world. Extremely strict emissions requirements have led to huge reductions in fuel economy and larger engines to get the same HP. We're talking huge here like going from 20 MPG to 12.

Despite my earlier comment regarding the net-positive outcome of reducing car emissions... the cars made in the '70s while the new technology was being figured out suffered the same problem and were pretty awful. Anybody remember "thermal reactors" which were basically non-catalytic secondary burn systems (that glowed red) bolted directly to the cylinder head?

I drive a diesel myself so I'm seeing the same tumult in the industry as you, and I agree it ain't pretty. Some of my favorite diesel cars are showing up in the USA with multi-thousand-dollar exhaust aftertreatment systems that require yearly shots of Blue Goo to keep running. It only makes it slightly easier to swallow if you take the long -- decades-long -- view, and take heart from what happened with gas engine technology.

In all likelihood the guys in the white lab coats will get the diesel technology sorted out, and in twenty years Car and Driver will dub whatever they come up with one of the Top Ten Achievements in automotive history... just like they did for the three-way gas engine catalyst with EFI, back in about 1990.

Eddy

 

[myzamboni]

I was and still am involved as a liaison between the EPA and the hearth industry. EPA is only about the emissions, thats there job. All the other stuff was just a side effect

Another classic side-effect example: Toyota Prius. It was designed to produce low/zero emissions. The good gas mileage was a side benefit.

 

[humpin iron]

PS: To my earlier post, everyone at the EPA is very positive on the side effects of clean burn. Please understand that their job is the emissions side of things. But everyone has always been positive about all the other stuff