Now this is interesting

[heaterman]

From the EPA's Phase II web page............

Please Note Energy efficiency numbers that have been calculated during the current test procedure are generating some numbers that do not represent actual efficiencies. As such, we have taken down the efficiency and heat input columns from the web site. Please bear with us while we review this issue.


DO YA THINK?????.............

Note to EPA.....I would be happy to assist with some real world experience in your testing protocol......

 

[woodsmaster]

About time. lol

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Maybe the EPA brass got tired of being laughed at when they walked into a conference. :lol:

 

[EffectaBoilerUser (USA)]

Sounds like the EPA should adopt the EN303-5 test procedure which includes boiler safety (UL), pressure vessel(ASME) and efficiency(EPA) all wrapped up in one.

Better yet, maybe they should get the building inspectors nationwide to accept the EN303-5 standard as its been around a long time and is very proven. To my knowledge, I know of no probelms in Europe with EN303-5 certified boilers doing bodily harm or polluting the environment.

I have a 10 page test report for my effecta lambda which really goes into alot of detail.

EBU

 

[henfruit]

I looked at my vigas and it complies with en 303-5 and a whole lot more.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Some advise, take it for what it's wort.

I would be very careful what we ask for in accepting these European standards.
I worked for around 15 years in the "business" of European product certification; 7+ for Apragaz Belgium, 6+ for TUV in the US and 2 for OMNI. My main expertise is in boilers and pressure vessels.

Any European standard by itself has no legal base in Europe. It is the European Product Directive for a certain product group that covers a particular EN-standard that is important.

Believe it or not but any European Product Directive accepts any international standard, ... as long as the manufacturer proves that the safety level of that standard is minimum what's called out for by that particular European Product Directive.

Also in Europe you have CE-marking and CE1234 marking, with the CE-marking being essentially self-certification and CE1234 having a third party inspection agency involved (called Notified Body)

Knowing this and knowing (or not) that there is basically no system in place that checks if a manufacturer applies the CE-marking correctly, you can imaging (or not) that a lot of bogus practices are going on.
Unless manufacturers sue each other over this topic, it will probably never sees daylight, till of course something "blows-up" in case of a boiler.
CE-marking of products is relatively new. It is only used for let's say 10 to 12 years. The system started in the late 60's, but it took till the EURO became a fact, that it started it's life.

The US at the other hand has beautiful systems also. In my opinion even better then Europe.
EPA - perfect approach with their level of particulate matter. Why all these European wood stove manufacturers need to adjust their products with secundairy airtubes to meet EPA specs. If you ask me, because they are not that clean burning in the first place. Wood gasification boilers don't have this issue you would think .... .
UL - nice system for product safety, similar to the European Product Directives and EN-standards, but with involvement of third party inspection agency
ASME boiler and pressure vessel code, it's a conservative code, I agree, but with a nice safety track. Widely used and accepted in Europe.

So, why are European wood boiler manufacturers not making the effort to comply with our codes and regulations? It's probably a money issue for them knowing the small amount of products sold in the US or maybe they their products simply don't meet our codes. It's kind of an unfair business practice versus the US companies I would say.

 

[steam man]

Good explanation.Thanks for taking the time to write it down.

 

[brad068]

Nice info...

But when I look at these units performance, build quality, and price, its not hard to believe they are bullet proof.

Another comparison is western Europe autos. They have cutting edge diesel engines and we run around in gas, don't quote me, but I thought I read some where that the epa says diesels are still to dirty? And no gas engine is as efficient as a diesel unless hybrid.

WWII, we didn't out tech. them just out produce them. 5 shermans to take out one tiger?

 

[henfruit]

My vw jetta TDI 40 plus miles per gallon was great till they say diesel cost more to refine BS. It is amazing after the stock market melt down that we need to be more energy efficent that all these cars are now getting great milage?It was there for a long time the big 3 said chit we better moving in the right direction or we will be out of work.You cant tell me the oil co. wernt in bed with the auto manufacturers. money talks and chit walks.

 

[ihookem]

I did an experiment with my eko 25. I figured btu for 24 hrs. I also weighed my wood to figure btus put in. It came to 80% efficiency. I have no storage. Also, forget 40 mpg with a diesel. We could make it get 60 mpg if we needed to. EPA is the problem. Example : a farmer down the road has a Duetz diesel tractor, it uses very little fuel, has no epa stuf and is air cooled so it runs very hot. We could do that if we wanted. Raise the compression, run it hot forget most of the epa junk.

 

[goosegunner]

My vw jetta TDI 40 plus miles per gallon was great till they say diesel cost more to refine BS. It is amazing after the stock market melt down that we need to be more energy efficent that all these cars are now getting great milage?It was there for a long time the big 3 said chit we better moving in the right direction or we will be out of work.You cant tell me the oil co. wernt in bed with the auto manufacturers. money talks and chit walks.

I also have a Jetta TDi but it is a 2003 old school mechanical injection pump. I get 50mpg. The worst I have gotten is 47.


The Car manufacturers Made the most money on Big SUV's and Trucks. The small cars have a much smaller profit margin.

Transportation fuel is one of the hidden taxes that people don't even think about. Do you think the government would rather I pay fuel tax for a 12mpg car or 50mpg car

There are more twists and turns to the whole mess than anyone could imagine.

gg

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

I did an experiment with my eko 25. I figured btu for 24 hrs. I also weighed my wood to figure btus put in. It came to 80% efficiency. I have no storage. Also, forget 40 mpg with a diesel. We could make it get 60 mpg if we needed to. EPA is the problem. Example : a farmer down the road has a Duetz diesel tractor, it uses very little fuel, has no epa stuf and is air cooled so it runs very hot. We could do that if we wanted. Raise the compression, run it hot forget most of the epa junk.

Both last statements hold a lot of truth .... .

Although I'm not a socialist and don't like to much government oversight/intervention either, the problem in part is that we "humans" are kind of self destructive in most everything we do, ... except self-propagation.
We do need "something" that keeps us "alive" in a manner of speaking.
EPA's rule-making process is maybe questionable, but at least we have something to go by.
HEALTH is the most important given in someones live.
If we all would do the right thing to start out with there would be no problem.
This is something we definatetly could learn soemthing from the Germans, they seem to want to do things the write way in the first place. Must be in the geens ... .
EPA would not need to set particulite emissions standards if the wood-stove or wood boiler industries messed things up in the first place, to just mention our own "related" industry.
It looks like some people get it, most of them don't, never will. To bad.
In analogy with the statement on the big cars, the same is true for the "big" wood boilers. Probably more profits in making and selling big expensive systems.
Big efficient wood boilers are fine for commercial/industrial application, residential applications is another issue, and here we should take, in my "humble" opinion, the road of "smaller is smarter"
Or does history repeats itself?

I have seen very nice topics on this forum, especially the one on insulation and low energy housing. We, the members of this forum, are on the wright track.

Wow, when proof reading what I just wrote, this sounds very philosophical for this time of the day.
Good morning to everyone.
:lol:

 

[heaterman]

That is rather deep stuff for 6:15 in the morning. Go back to bed for a couple hours, wake up and try again.

 

[boilermanjr]

Mark at "Passion" makes some interesing points for sure. My sense is that the Europeans have more over-sight of their products than what he claims. There is third party inspection, but it is not on a per boiler basis. The manufacturers we represent pressure test every single boiler they make, but the inspector may come only 1X/yr. What happens to hot water boiler pressure vessels under 200,000 Btu that comply with ASME is that a single unit is pressure tested and thereafter an inspector examines each vessel for weld quality, etc. In many cases the ASME inspector is "rubber" stamping each boiler. We have studied this at length and find that the actual testing in both cases is adequate and yields similar results in the end. We have had, on rare occasions, brand new leaky ASME vessels from other manufacturers and we have, on rare occasions, our own EN303-5 certified, new leaky vessels. To say that one is better than the other is beyond most experts' capability to judge as a consensus.

As for emissions, the EPA adopted an ASTM standard, 2618, which is a consensus standard created by not only regulators, but by lab scientists and industry as well. We are still working on the details of this standard after 6 or more years have gone by. If the method worked to everyone's satisfaction, we wouldn't still be improving it. There are many variables and many calculations in the test method, which leads to inherently inaccurate results from test to test. There are also many "ranges" that can be used in the ASTM test. For instance, manufacturers can specify wood moisture between a range and can specify within parameters, how the boiler is connected to the testing apparatus. There is a lot of variability. I believe that the simpliciy of the EN303-5 test for emissions leads to more accurate results. If all boilers were tested by this method, which is well understood, we would at least have more accurate test numbers. We could then allow the EPA to set compliance numbers based on good science. More importantly, the public would have many fewer doubts about the performance numbers they were reading.

Fortunately, EPA is involved with emissions. The wood burning industry, especially with regard to boilers, has risen and fallen on the backs of polluting appliances. As an industry are still falling due to over-stated capabilities, a lack of working standards, get rich quick salesmen, and industrial-like emissions from residential sized appliances. We can't talk about being a sustainable energy source if we are wasting half our energy up the stack and filling the air with toxic particles. I don't care what standard we use, but it should be accurate and we need it sooner rather than later.

By the way, EPA has said recently that as part of the residential NSPS for woodstoves, they will go with 4.5 g/hr., which is the Washington State standard. 85% of woodstoves already meet this standard. To say that the woodburning industry only reacts to regulation is a negative over-statement. The market and good conscience of company managers does play a role. Unfortunately, the boiler portion of the industry has never had any regulation and could use a little more cajoling in the right direction.

Sorry to be wordy, but I spend hours and hours on this. As an industry guy, I feel it is important to be open and clear about what we're up to and thinking about. I have attached a pressure vessel study to this posting if anybody would like to read it. I think that most EN303-5 certified boilers will have similar characteristics to the boilers we import.

 

[heaterman]

I think that Marc was referring mainly to wood boilers originating mainly in former Eastern Bloc countries that may or may not have the CE certification that is common in Europe.

 

[boilermanjr]

I guess Mark should clear that up because that is not at all what I read in his first posting.

 

[heaterman]

The issue is not so much a debate on semantics or who does what and where, but rather the need for clear and realistic standards which are applied uniformly throughout the world. Now THAT would level the playing field for all involved and give consumers an accurate picture of what they are buying.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

I guess Mark should clear that up because that is not at all what I read in his first posting.

I will get back to you, probably latest by Sunday morning.
I love this forum, but I have a job to do also.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Mark at "Passion" makes some interesing points for sure. My sense is that the Europeans have more over-sight of their products than what he claims. There is third party inspection, but it is not on a per boiler basis. The manufacturers we represent pressure test every single boiler they make, but the inspector may come only 1X/yr. What happens to hot water boiler pressure vessels under 200,000 Btu that comply with ASME is that a single unit is pressure tested and thereafter an inspector examines each vessel for weld quality, etc. In many cases the ASME inspector is "rubber" stamping each boiler. We have studied this at length and find that the actual testing in both cases is adequate and yields similar results in the end. We have had, on rare occasions, brand new leaky ASME vessels from other manufacturers and we have, on rare occasions, our own EN303-5 certified, new leaky vessels. To say that one is better than the other is beyond most experts' capability to judge as a consensus.

As for emissions, the EPA adopted an ASTM standard, 2618, which is a consensus standard created by not only regulators, but by lab scientists and industry as well. We are still working on the details of this standard after 6 or more years have gone by. If the method worked to everyone's satisfaction, we wouldn't still be improving it. There are many variables and many calculations in the test method, which leads to inherently inaccurate results from test to test. There are also many "ranges" that can be used in the ASTM test. For instance, manufacturers can specify wood moisture between a range and can specify within parameters, how the boiler is connected to the testing apparatus. There is a lot of variability. I believe that the simpliciy of the EN303-5 test for emissions leads to more accurate results. If all boilers were tested by this method, which is well understood, we would at least have more accurate test numbers. We could then allow the EPA to set compliance numbers based on good science. More importantly, the public would have many fewer doubts about the performance numbers they were reading.

Fortunately, EPA is involved with emissions. The wood burning industry, especially with regard to boilers, has risen and fallen on the backs of polluting appliances. As an industry are still falling due to over-stated capabilities, a lack of working standards, get rich quick salesmen, and industrial-like emissions from residential sized appliances. We can't talk about being a sustainable energy source if we are wasting half our energy up the stack and filling the air with toxic particles. I don't care what standard we use, but it should be accurate and we need it sooner rather than later.

By the way, EPA has said recently that as part of the residential NSPS for woodstoves, they will go with 4.5 g/hr., which is the Washington State standard. 85% of woodstoves already meet this standard. To say that the woodburning industry only reacts to regulation is a negative over-statement. The market and good conscience of company managers does play a role. Unfortunately, the boiler portion of the industry has never had any regulation and could use a little more cajoling in the right direction.

Sorry to be wordy, but I spend hours and hours on this. As an industry guy, I feel it is important to be open and clear about what we're up to and thinking about. I have attached a pressure vessel study to this posting if anybody would like to read it. I think that most EN303-5 certified boilers will have similar characteristics to the boilers we import.

Good morning All,
Good morning Boilermanjr, ... did not know you were on this forum, hope to see you soon.

First of all, I just got up, but I posted already 2 replies to some topics, .... so I'm kind of "fiered-up".
2nd, It is not my intention to "personaly" attack anybody on this forum or any specific products in specific.
3rd, I intentionally do express myself in a hopefully very funny way, maybe a little bit sarcastic, but it's a good way to address rather boring stuff

I will make an effort and dedicate significant time the next comming days to address the followings topics, with the knowledge I have.
It will give others with similar or more knowledge or inside information the chance to comment or express their point of view.

Topics:
- wood burming industry and regulations and standards and "will history repeat itself"
- EN303-5
- CE-marking
- "TUV"
- ASME

 

[steam man]

I am looking forward to it. Perhaps the webmaster would consider making the pertinent parts of this discussion a "sticky" for permanent reference.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Mark at "Passion" makes some interesing points for sure. My sense is that the Europeans have more over-sight of their products than what he claims. There is third party inspection, but it is not on a per boiler basis. The manufacturers we represent pressure test every single boiler they make, but the inspector may come only 1X/yr. What happens to hot water boiler pressure vessels under 200,000 Btu that comply with ASME is that a single unit is pressure tested and thereafter an inspector examines each vessel for weld quality, etc. In many cases the ASME inspector is "rubber" stamping each boiler. We have studied this at length and find that the actual testing in both cases is adequate and yields similar results in the end. We have had, on rare occasions, brand new leaky ASME vessels from other manufacturers and we have, on rare occasions, our own EN303-5 certified, new leaky vessels. To say that one is better than the other is beyond most experts' capability to judge as a consensus.

As for emissions, the EPA adopted an ASTM standard, 2618, which is a consensus standard created by not only regulators, but by lab scientists and industry as well. We are still working on the details of this standard after 6 or more years have gone by. If the method worked to everyone's satisfaction, we wouldn't still be improving it. There are many variables and many calculations in the test method, which leads to inherently inaccurate results from test to test. There are also many "ranges" that can be used in the ASTM test. For instance, manufacturers can specify wood moisture between a range and can specify within parameters, how the boiler is connected to the testing apparatus. There is a lot of variability. I believe that the simpliciy of the EN303-5 test for emissions leads to more accurate results. If all boilers were tested by this method, which is well understood, we would at least have more accurate test numbers. We could then allow the EPA to set compliance numbers based on good science. More importantly, the public would have many fewer doubts about the performance numbers they were reading.

Fortunately, EPA is involved with emissions. The wood burning industry, especially with regard to boilers, has risen and fallen on the backs of polluting appliances. As an industry are still falling due to over-stated capabilities, a lack of working standards, get rich quick salesmen, and industrial-like emissions from residential sized appliances. We can't talk about being a sustainable energy source if we are wasting half our energy up the stack and filling the air with toxic particles. I don't care what standard we use, but it should be accurate and we need it sooner rather than later.

By the way, EPA has said recently that as part of the residential NSPS for woodstoves, they will go with 4.5 g/hr., which is the Washington State standard. 85% of woodstoves already meet this standard. To say that the woodburning industry only reacts to regulation is a negative over-statement. The market and good conscience of company managers does play a role. Unfortunately, the boiler portion of the industry has never had any regulation and could use a little more cajoling in the right direction.

Sorry to be wordy, but I spend hours and hours on this. As an industry guy, I feel it is important to be open and clear about what we're up to and thinking about. I have attached a pressure vessel study to this posting if anybody would like to read it. I think that most EN303-5 certified boilers will have similar characteristics to the boilers we import.

Good morning All,
Good morning Boilermanjr, ... did not know you were on this forum, hope to see you soon.

First of all, I just got up, but I posted already 2 replies to some topics, .... so I'm kind of "fired-up".
2nd, It is not my intention to "personally" attack anybody on this forum or any specific products in specific.
3rd, I intentionally do express myself in a hopefully very funny way, maybe a little bit sarcastic, but it's a good way to address rather boring stuff

I will make an effort and dedicate significant time the next coming days to address the followings topics, with the knowledge I have.
It will give others with similar or more knowledge or inside information the chance to comment or express their point of view.

Topics:
- wood burning industry and regulations and standards and "will history repeat itself"
- EN303-5
- CE-marking
- "TUV"
- ASME

The wood burning industry and regulations and standards and “will history repeat itselfâ€

Read "more specific the wood boiler industry"

The wood boiler industry in the US/Canada is in absolute need of leveling the field.

FIRST
We got to the point that we have a particulate emissions level, set by EPA.
This is good, but it would be a better approach if the industry would be proactive in this respect.
Instead of waiting for EPA, why "we" or each individual company that's considering itself an "industry advocate and front runner" don't set own goals, and have this tested and backed-up by an North American Testing Lab or if the company in question has an accredited test lab for North America, just publish it's own results (European style of testing).
I always assume that wood gasifiers have no problem at all with staying within EPA limits.
So, please publish these values and make it clear that your company policy is aiming for much better then the minimum required.

SECOND
The same for applicable codes & safety standards UL, ASTM, ASME, CSA, ... .
A minimum, in my opinion, is to address the North American standards even if they are not 100% applicable to your product, but we need to start somewhere.

By not doing the above proposed this is my prediction:
EPA emissions requirements are somewhat addressed by the industry and we are slowly working on cleaning-up our very bad name
Not using American Standards and regulations will result in an exponential growth of "crap" like this below when the oil goes to $4, $5 .. and it looks we are on the way.

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Statements like “our boiler has been independently tested and has been certified to conform to ISO9001, TUV and CE†or similar statements make no sense at all and just tell me something is “really fishyâ€
3 errors or pieces of misleading word choice, intentional or unintentional.
Just browse the web or even this forum and you will easily come across.

Why?

First of all a products can NOT be ISO9001 certified, a company that manufacturers this product can be a ISO9001 certified company.
The company’s ISO9001 registrar should at least have this statement removed when they do their periodical audits, or maybe they don’t audit or the company is not certified at all.
Have seen this before and probably will see it again.

Been certified to conform to TUV
First of all there is nothing like TUV certified.
Second, there is no TUV, there are around 15 or 16 TUV’s and they are very fierce competitors backed by big insurance companies.
I will clarify this at a later time.

Been certified to conform to CE
Not sure what or how to respond to this one yet. Maybe I come up with something, … or maybe not. LOL

Statements like this are very MISLEADING to the customer. A European customer maybe is familiar how the CE-marking works, has less knowledge on ISO9000 and does know the word TUV and will most likely associate it with government. A French and a UK consumer will not like it at all.
A North American consumer has no idea at all.

Who's gone pay the price?
First the consumer will pay the price, because a lot of unit's will be sold to a lot of people that have no capacity in operating them because of lack of knowledge, training, correct information given by the sales guy and go on and on. They are just sold on the idea that it will save them tons of money by burning wood or pellets.
Our industry is next, because code officials will get involved and at a later stage government, and the ball is rolling again, again against us.

We ALL do need to do it wright this time.
There is nothing as a "free lunch" .... .

 

[WoodChoppa]

This is some deep stuff when you start to examine it and it really has implications today and in the future with the downturn and the destruction of America's industrial economy. Somewhere along the line American manufacturers turned their focus to making money first and a quality product second.... or in the case of making a "quick buck" not at all. Because of our market size, tremendous resources and a big ocean to keep competitors at bay a lot of our standards and products were developed in a virtual vaccum with collusion but without competition. Good or bad they made buckets of money and wasted resources as if they were endless. Politics, lobby groups and tariffs were introduced to sustain this shell game as long as possible.

IMHO this is a big reason that European companies are not anxious to play on our field or by our rules. Our citizens have been programmed to think that Walmart is actually a good thing and readily accept the "lowest price" as the first consideration in purchasing something. You try to sell to that mob with an explanation of quality and you're on the fast road to "going outta business" Charlie. To put it mildly our priorities are f*cked!

Who came up with the concept of planned obsolescence??? It was the lawyers, accountants and thieves that came out of our finest Ivy league colleges and moved up to Wall Street. I should include marketing agents in that group as well. These "managers" took manufacturing out of the hands of "blue collar thinkers" like Henry Ford and spun it on it's ear. The Germans, Danes or Swedes keep these people locked away in corner offices to perform the specific tasks they're trained for not to run (ruin?) their companies. European products have emerged from a pressure cooker of competing tribes and nations to create products that are sincerely designed to be "the best they can be". This includes taking to account engineering, research and development balanced against material consumption and final reasonable cost. My grandfather was German and he had so many lexicons for quality and integrity built into his culture and his thinking that it really creeped us out!

Anyway this is pretty disjointed already, I won't even get started on the Japanese philosophy of production!

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Been certified to conform to TUV

First of all there is nothing like TUV certified.
Second, there is no TUV, there are around 15 or 16 TUV’s and they are very fierce competitors backed by big insurance companies.

Explanation & History.
150, 200 years ago Germany put in place the so called Technischer Uberwachungs Vereins (TUV)
Free translation: Technical inspection agency that oversees specific aspects of safety.
Because there are around 15 or 16 states in Germany there were equal amount of TUV's. Each state had his own TUV.

Why these TUV's were created? Because likewise to the USA with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessels, some small/big steam boilers blew up and killed people.
So they started to put in place technical specs how these things needed to be build, operated and periodically inspected.
This did not only happened in Germany, also France and GB and most other countries came up with similar inspection systems.

This "safety approach" continued till around 1999 when the Euro was implemented and the Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/ECC was implemented and CE-marking became somewhat a normal thing for European consumers. Before 1999 each country had his own codes and regulations, and yes if a German pressure vessels was to be installed in France or Belgium it had to be "blessed" by the French or Belgian inspection authority that had the authority to do so. This authority was given by their respective government.
So, i would say not so much different of what we know here in the US.

With the implementation of the CE-marking things changed a little bit, not so much for the big tree (Germany, France and GB) but more for the smaller countries with less resources. There is still a process of consensus, but given that the bigger countries have more voting power and influence most likely EN-standards are changed like they want it.

On top of this came that around the same timeframe, 1999, a lot of these European Testing agencies, including TUV were transformed from a "goverment status" to a "private company" status with all the implications. (I will stick with TUV from know-on) All of a sudden all these TUV's became kind of a for-profit company. They had balance sheets that were in need to show good results. The bigger TUV's started to buy the small one. An world-wide they very became fierce competitors.You can see a list of TUV's here: (broken link removed to http://www.ceoc.com/memberslist.aspx) under Germany.

So, a particular TUV can be involved in the certification of a wood boiler by means of monitoring the manufacturers quality system or maybe more specific.
All depends which route the manufacturer picks to CE-mark his product.
There is not one way that can lead to CE-marking, there are, good or bad, several ways a product can be CE-marked.
A manufacturer with deep pockets, reputation and intentions will most likely choose the involvement of a specific TUV or other inspection agency the correct way.
A manufacturer with not so deep pockets, less reputation and not so good intentions will look for alternatives to be able to CE-mark its products.

This brings us to the following:
Let's take a non-German wood boiler manufacturer that does not use a particular TUV to overview it's so called quality system.
Well if this wood boiler ends up in Germany it will most likely not be an easy task to bring it in service by the customer.
It may have a CE-mark on it but there may be some questionable paperwork (manual, declaration of conformity, ... ) that is coming with that specific wood boiler.
Now the ball starts to roll and it will take some significant efforts from the homeowner to get all this squared out.
Result: home owners Germany will be very reluctant to buy non TUV "conforming" products, meaning they will most likely endup with a German, Swiss or Austria brand.

Another way or kind of manipulating the market is this.
EN303-5 has class 1, 2 and 3 level wood boilers. They are reviewing this and will now have also a class 4 and 5 in the upcoming new revision of this EN303-5.
Class 4 and 5 are for much cleaner burning wood boiler, like emissions 100ppm CO and lower, likewise for particulate matter.
The review process is very good, the wood boiler industry takes the lead.
In combination with this they enforce other product labels like "der Blauwe Engel" (the bleu Angle) for wood boilers that really are veryyyyyyyyyyy clean burning.
So, all this leads to wood boilers and .... wood boilers.
Similar to Mercedes, BMW, ... Skoda, Warburg, Trabant, Fiat, Lancia, Peugot, Renault

The next BIG question is where will all these other "NO Blue Angel" wood boilers end-up ... ? Not in Germany is my guess.

Again, I'm not putting certain brands or countries in a negative situation, i'm just explaining how European CE-marking is working.
It's a beautiful system on paper, as long as there are no real people involved and as long it is not used in North America or anywhere else besides Europe.
Don't believe it's all roses and moon shine ... .

We do need implementation and enforcement of our North American codes and regulations, it's the only way to now what's going on and not to "let history repeat itself".

 

[Como]

I would add that it is my understanding is that most if not all not current wood boilers sold in Germany already meet Class 5.

And for the others, well effectively it become compulsory for them as well, same way making a Car that you could not sell in Germany would make no sense. And also the need for storage, I do not believe Class 5 can be met without storage.

There is a reason there are no Euro OWB's.