Wood burning stoves and heaters banned!

[49er]

This has been coming for awhile now.

We had to convert from a wood stove to gas several years ago because they declare so many no burn days here during the winter that we were freezing to death. It's only a matter of time before our local air board outlaws all wood burning devices.

They haven't quite figured out how to enforce it yet but they even tell us when we're not supposed to use charcoal BBQ's in the summer.


http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_...ing-heating-devices-to-be-banned-in-new-homes

 

[begreen]

It sounds like a draconian move. No pellet stoves, really? Of course no acknowledging that cars and trucks are the real issue. How about some facts before these decisions instead of "estimates".

 

[zig]

The Peoples Republic of California strikes again.

 

[49er]

In California we don't like to let a little thing like facts get in the way of our agenda. Our bullet train to nowhere is a perfect example.
The problem is that all too often it seems like the rest of the country wants to follow CA's lead.

 

[Wisneaky]

I've said it a thousand times. I'm glad I don't live in California. I don't know why anyone stays living there.

 

[begreen]

I like northern CA. It's a beautiful state with a great climate.

 

[49er]

@begreen, I could not agree more. The climate and natural beauty of the state is spectacular and that is a large part of the problem.
There are just so many people here now that the bureaucrats feel compelled to pass more and more regulations to control every aspect of our behavior and lives.

 

[bwells794]

The only, if any, enforcement of this new "law" I see will be against people burning incorrectly with loads of smoke billowing from their chimney. And from what I gathered in the article, it only applies to new homes built going forward. Loophole? If you drove past my house, you'd never know I was burning. There's no visible evidence from the street.

Edit: just re-read the article. Yup, it's only banning the wood burning devices in new construction. The easy solution is to just not buy a new house. Buy an older one and spend the difference on a complete remodel and burn away!

 

[49er]

No, you can't just burn away even in older existing homes.

When the air board declares a no burn day it is illegal to have a fire for the next 24 hours and it is not uncommon for them to declare several no burn days in a row. It's usually during the coldest days of the winter and you can almost make book that Christmas and New Years will be no burn days.

The first fine is $100, the second is $500 and it goes up from there.

 

[Highbeam]

No, you can't just burn away even in older existing homes.

When the air board declares a no burn day it is illegal to have a fire for the next 24 hours and it is not uncommon for them to declare several no burn days in a row. It's usually during the coldest days of the winter and you can almost make book that Christmas and New Years will be no burn days.

The first fine is $100, the second is $500 and it goes up from there.

You're lucky, our idiot clean air agency declares burn bans and the fine is 1000$. Also usually during the coldest days. Face it, wood burners are a minority, an easy target.

 

[bobby magee]

wow...thats almost unbelieveable to hear of no burn days, i think if that were enacted here in eastern canada there would be a civil war. everyone that i know has a woodburner of some sort

 

[Shaggyant]

So... If you burn fossil fuels then you are expanding your "evil" carbon footprint. If you burn carbon neutral wood then you are ruining the air. If you use electric heat then you are helping those evil nuke plants creating radioactive waste.
Sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Michael6268]

Will never get me. I burn anthracite coal. You'll never see smoke coming out of my chimney. The only way to get me is if they come in with a search warrant! Lol

 

[bholler]

If you burn carbon neutral wood then you are ruining the air.

Not carbon neutral It is not that bad but it is definitely not neutral.

 

[kennyp2339]

So... If you burn fossil fuels then you are expanding your "evil" carbon footprint. If you burn carbon neutral wood then you are ruining the air. If you use electric heat then you are helping those evil nuke plants creating radioactive waste.
Sounds like a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Exactly - because people can sometimes see and smell smoke they quickly jump the gun and say all the health problems are because of this. Like my grandpa always said "its what you don't see that ends up getting you."

 

[Shaggyant]

Not carbon neutral It is not that bad but it is definitely not neutral.

How do you figure that? The tree absorbs carbon during its life and then releases it when it's burned or rots.

 

[billb3]

How do you figure that? The tree absorbs carbon during its life and then releases it when it's burned or rots.

It's only carbon neutral when you replace the removed biomass at the same rate that you remove it.
That's not the case any more. Loblolly and southern white pine grow at a fairly fast rate and if we were only foresting fast rate of growth pine then the loss and gain is balanced. But we're not. We are now removing slow growing hardwood trees in southern states at a rate faster than they are being replaced. This is a carbon deficit that can't be sustained.

 

[Shaggyant]

It's only carbon neutral when you replace the removed biomass at the same rate that you remove it.
That's not the case any more. Loblolly and southern white pine grow at a fairly fast rate and if we were only foresting fast rate of growth pine then the loss and gain is balanced. But we're not. We are now removing slow growing hardwood trees in southern states at a rate faster than they are being replaced. This is a carbon deficit that can't be sustained.

What's this we stuff?
I can't be responsible for what all those other people are doing. If you harvest only dead standing timber then there is no imbalance because the dead timber has already stopped gaining carbon and is releasing it anyway.

 

[bholler]

What's this we stuff?
I can't be responsible for what all those other people are doing. If you harvest only dead standing timber then there is no imbalance because the dead timber has already stopped gaining carbon and is releasing it anyway.

True but burning wood releases more carbon into the environment than natural decay. And btw i am not saying i agree with the ban or that i see any problem with burning responsibly. But it is not carbon neutral unless like billb said you replace what you take

 

[Shaggyant]

True but burning wood releases more carbon into the environment than natural decay. And btw i am not saying i agree with the ban or that i see any problem with burning responsibly. But it is not carbon neutral unless like billb said you replace what you take

Ok, you got me. Firewood is the devil.
I guess it's back to using electricity from the hydro electric dam that kills fish or the windmills that kill birds.
I don't think that some people understand that there is no free lunch here. Energy is a dirty business and there is no way around it. Just look at that giant ball of nuclear fusion up in the sky. That thing just keeps bombarding us with cancer causing rays.
Someone ought to pass a law banning it

 

[bholler]

Ok, you got me. Firewood is the devil.

did i ever say that?

I don't think that some people understand that there is no free lunch here. Energy is a dirty business and there is no way around it.

Agreed that is why i said i don't see anything wrong with burning wood and that it was not carbon neutral but not all that bad either.

 

[branchburner]

The article says:
"Wood smoke accounts for about 39 percent of the fine particulates in low-lying air in the Bay Area on cold winter days, the air district estimates."

I find this hard to believe. If true, it needs to be addressed. But what percentage comes from properly used EPA stoves? I'd bet only a tiny fraction.

The whole point of an EPA stove is that it BURNS wood smoke and particulate! If regulators would acknowledge this, they would be doing a great service to the public at large, as a tax/ban on open fireplaces could help fund a subsidy program for wood stove change-outs to get more people burning cleanly. I'll be that would realize greater particulate reduction than this outright ban.

As with much well-intentioned regulation, it is also quite regressive, as rich folks always find a way to simply pay for the privilege to pollute. If they want a fireplace, or to burn during a ban, they can pay the fines and do as they like.

 

[begreen]

The article says:
"Wood smoke accounts for about 39 percent of the fine particulates in low-lying air in the Bay Area on cold winter days, the air district estimates."

The "estimates" is what I challenge. This does not correlate with what Salt Lake City reported when they were considering a wood stove ban. Also, the approach is unbalanced when the vast majority of smoke issues are from old stove and fireplaces.