Wood Heat Enemies

[branchburner]

The "Wood Heat Safety" thread started by AlexNY got me thinking: maybe it would be good to have an organization with a mission statement geared towards influencing public opinion and policy in support of wood burners. But I'd suggest a completely different angle. I do not think many of the issues mentioned by Alex, such as the inherent risks in splitting and stacking, are going to result in overreaching regulation. I don't see Mothers Against Sloppy Stacking anywhere on the horizon. But there are a lot of "smoke haters" that tend to lump EPA stoves and smoke dragons and fireplaces and OWBs all together. They want them all banned. We like to brag on this site about burning smoke free. But many, many organized groups are already making "progress" in foreign counties like Canada and Tasmania and California. Examples like these mean regulation could trickle down from urban areas to suburban to who knows where:

Montreal Council Approves Stove Ban
Excerpted from the Montreal Gazette April 29, 2009
It's finally official!There won’t be any installing of wood-burning stoves in any house in the city of Montreal.
Yesterday, the city council unanimously passed a controversial bylaw that outlaws the installation of new wood burning appliances such as stoves and fireplaces. They will still allow wood pellet, natural gas and electric stoves.
The ban aims to reduce wood smoke, which makes up a large portion of winter smog. Montreal had 45 smog days between Nov. 1 and March 31.

Tasmanian law:
PART 3 - Emission of Smoke from Heaters, Fireplaces, Barbecues &c.
9. Emission of smoke from heaters, fireplaces, barbecues &c.
(1) A person who is the occupier of a building or land is not to cause or allow to be emitted, from a heater, fireplace, barbecue, hot water heating appliance or cooking appliance, smoke that –
(a) is visible for a continuous period of 10 minutes or more; and
(b) during that continuous 10-minute period, is visible for a continuous period of 30 seconds or more –
(i) in the case of a heater, fireplace, barbecue, hot water heating appliance or cooking appliance in a building, at a distance of 10 metres or more from the point on the building where the smoke is emitted; or
(ii) in the case of a heater, fireplace, barbecue, hot water heating appliance or cooking appliance that is not in a building, at a distance of 10 metres or more from the point where the smoke is emitted.

Take Back The Air... a Minneapolis grassroots organization
WOOD SMOKE - Not just a nuisance, but a severe health hazard!
* Recent studies by Harvard University in 6 major American cities showed that during a 3-month experimental ban on wood burning, hospital death rates from respiratory disease and heart attacks went down dramatically.
* Wood smoke is vastly more concentrated than cigarette smoke.
* The higher the particulate pollution, the higher the death rates in the general population.
* London has banned wood and coal burning since 1957 when thousands of people died in a devastating high-particulate smog incident.
Wood smoke is implicated in:
* Asthma attacks
* Heart attacks
* Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)
* Birth defects
* Autism
* Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)

Yolo Clean Air (website excerpts)
Numerous municipalities (such as Seattle, Portland, and Reno in the Northwest) have enacted ordinances prohibiting wood-burning to various degrees on poor air quality days. In California, the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District and the Sacramento Air Quality Management District (AQMD) have similar rules in force and the Bay Area AQMD and the South Coast AQMD are also expected to implement similar rules in the near future.

While all of these efforts are admirable, they do very little to otherwise protect citizens from their neighbors' wood-burning pollution on the remaining days of the year when regional air quality is not expected to exceed threshold levels triggering restrictions. In as much as a single wood-burning fireplace can produce localized concentrations of particulate pollution that are far in excess of allowable Federal Standards, we believe an outright prohibition of wood-burning in urban areas is the only reasonable solution.

Wood-burning can produce particulate pollution in quantities thousands of times greater than cigarette smokers and it is completely unregulated for much of the year. There is not any other human residential activity that produces so much damaging pollution in which there is such little regulation governing such activities.

 

[Corriewf]

Thats a damn shame! Yeah maybe we need some type of advocate group. Seems everyone these days needs one. *rolls eyes* I just wish the government would understand that it's their to represent their constituents and not there to dictate how everyone should live their lives.

 

[raybonz]

It is rediculous to punish the masses on something that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and uses a renewable resource like wood.. What could have been done instead was grandfather in old stoves for perhaps a 5 yr. period to update to an epa rated unit allowing those the time to research and then replace the smoke dragons with more efficient units.. Burning oil and gas also creates pollution it's just not as visible to the naked eye.. Some people insist on burning wet wood with old stoves and unfortunately woodburners as a whole pay the price.. A big step backwards in my opinion...

Ray

 

[cycloxer]

Montreal is a city. California is high density and has smog problems. Wood burning is not a good fit. I can understand restrictions there. A better solution would be to require an EPA stoves only.

Maine, VT, NH, actually a good part of New England, is very low density and we have tons of trees. Wood burning works well here.

I have an idea - require a law where you can only sell firewood that has been aged for 1 year. LOL, I'm j/k, I don't want any more freakin rules

 

[dave11]

I believe this is one of Alex's points in his post. Better to pre-emptively strike at this issue, than wait for some clean-air group to step in first.

My neighbor across the street burns a major smoke dragon--not sure if it's an old stove or a FP, but he clouds his neighbor's house and yard. It's only a matter of time till a complaint is filed, and rightly so. But will the town just ban wood-burning? And if they allow only EPA stoves, how are they going to enforce? Will we need permits and inspections?

 

[oconnor]

WoodHeat.org is just such an organisation. Check out their "Woodpile" page where they have posts covering a lot of the anti wood heat arguments, and how to properly refute them to ensure that responsable wood burners are able to heat their homes in the way they find rewarding and still respect neighbours and the environment.

Check them out at (broken link removed to http://www.woodheat.org/woodpile)

 

[myzamboni]

Montreal is a city. California is high density and has smog problems. Wood burning is not a good fit. I can understand restrictions there. A better solution would be to require an EPA stoves only.

Maine, VT, NH, actually a good part of New England, is very low density and we have tons of trees. Wood burning works well here.

I have an idea - require a law where you can only sell firewood that has been aged for 1 year. LOL, I'm j/k, I don't want any more freakin rules

I live in a town on Cali that say no new wood-burning appliances. I had to get petition the planning department for a variance. I did this by knowing more about EPA wood stove emisssions than they did. I am in a neighborhood with 6000 sqft lots and my neighbors only know I burn because they occasionally hear the chainsawand me splitting and hauling wood.

 

[branchburner]

WoodHeat.org is just such an organisation. Check out their "Woodpile" page where they have posts covering a lot of the anti wood heat arguments, and how to properly refute them to ensure that responsable wood burners are able to heat their homes in the way they find rewarding and still respect neighbours and the environment.

Check them out at (broken link removed to http://www.woodheat.org/woodpile)

Thanks for the link - I was unfamiliar with the new "Woodpile" section. I think of WHO as having a broader, more general mission statement but it seems the Woodpile is very focused along these lines. As they are based in Canada, maybe hearth.com could get industry sponsors to promote something similar in the States.

I'm thinking an organization with the sole mission of encouraging clean, responsible burning might be beneficial to wood burners and stove manufacturers alike. It would promote using EPA stoves, burning dry wood, etc. It could also promote something like an informal certification process for firewood dealers, and informational sessions at stove shops that would provide basic consumer education (as well as helping sell stoves!). But beyond that it would gather and present data that might refute opponents' data.

I recognize the need to monitor and control emissions in urban areas. I wonder though, is anyone from the U.S. pro-woodheat lobby questioning any of the claims made by the groups that are getting overly-stringent laws passed? Is wood smoke truly implicated in autism, ADD and SIDS?

 

[summit]

just wait till the US EPA passes more restrictions on woostove emissions next year... its gonna get tight:

 

[branchburner]

just wait till the US EPA passes more restrictions on woostove emissions next year... its gonna get tight:

I'll have to browse the 1200 or so pages of the cap and trade bill. Maybe they're giving us a 30% tax credit this year so they can tax our smoke next year.

 

[dougstove]

I try to burn cleanly, but my wife is involved in the lung association, and wood smoke is a big issue for them.
I am guessing that poor burning practice, followed by old stoves are most of the problem (like old junker cars releasing most emissions).
A guy in my neighbourhood burns garbage (or something) that creates a toxic layer over the whole street.

I also agree that wood heat is probably best suited to low density, high wood areas. Otherwise, the energy advantages are offset by transport and pollution issues.

I have libertarian ideals, but if my foolish neighbour is poisoning my children, I want a mechanism to deal with it. In fact, I would much rather the RCMP spend some time tracking down rampant pollution than worrying about people's local botanicals...

 

[ICY99]

California is high density and has smog problems. Wood burning is not a good fit.

Most states have areas which are very overpopulated, unfortunately. And with the people come draconian regulations and loss of freedoms.

 

[oconnor]

I try to burn cleanly, but my wife is involved in the lung association, and wood smoke is a big issue for them.
I am guessing that poor burning practice, followed by old stoves are most of the problem (like old junker cars releasing most emissions).
A guy in my neighbourhood burns garbage (or something) that creates a toxic layer over the whole street.

I also agree that wood heat is probably best suited to low density, high wood areas. Otherwise, the energy advantages are offset by transport and pollution issues. ...snip

I live in a subdivision in a small town in Nova Scotia. My guess is that the transportation and pollution issues associated with oil and electricity delivery to the home for use for heat are way worse than those for wood. In Nova Scotia, electric system heating (cradle to grave, from coal fired plant to BTUs in the house) is less than 33% efficient, and I would like to find, but haven't yet, the stats for oil when you take into account the entire system from pumping it out of the ground to refinery to trucking it to the home for burning. It is likely just as low.

It ends up being a "Not in My Backyard" issue, and the best we can to is burn smoke free, to keep it out of others backyards. I am actively waiting for the wood smoke debate to start around here, and am getting well educated (well armed) so that the right answer can be arrived at, one that doesn't end up in banning wood heat.

 

[Rockey]

I try to burn cleanly, but my wife is involved in the lung association, and wood smoke is a big issue for them.
I am guessing that poor burning practice, followed by old stoves are most of the problem (like old junker cars releasing most emissions).
A guy in my neighbourhood burns garbage (or something) that creates a toxic layer over the whole street.

I also agree that wood heat is probably best suited to low density, high wood areas. Otherwise, the energy advantages are offset by transport and pollution issues. ...snip

I live in a subdivision in a small town in Nova Scotia. My guess is that the transportation and pollution issues associated with oil and electricity delivery to the home for use for heat are way worse than those for wood. In Nova Scotia, electric system heating (cradle to grave, from coal fired plant to BTUs in the house) is less than 33% efficient, and I would like to find, but haven't yet, the stats for oil when you take into account the entire system from pumping it out of the ground to refinery to trucking it to the home for burning. It is likely just as low.

It ends up being a "Not in My Backyard" issue, and the best we can to is burn smoke free, to keep it out of others backyards. I am actively waiting for the wood smoke debate to start around here, and am getting well educated (well armed) so that the right answer can be arrived at, one that doesn't end up in banning wood heat.

That is a very valid point you make about the efficiency from cradle to grave with the alternative heating methods. One thing that I can see that an anti wood burner would make is that the pollution from transportation and electric generation is not as harmful as that of wood smoke.

I never knew that wood smoke was implicated in so many health anomolies. I personally would not mind upgrading to an even more stringent wood burner if it were available - something in the sub 1.0 particulate range if and only if it can be proven that my current setup produces more harmful emissions than that of an alternative heating method. I would hate to think that the byproducts of my stove would be creating more health problems for my family and my neighbors than an alternative heating method.

I think we need more data. More testing to see the true implications and results of us responsible wood burners with epa stoves.

 

[dougstove]

Good points about full cycle energy efficiency.
I read recently, to my surprise, that even natural gas generation plants often run at much less than quoted efficiencies, since they are used in variable/swing production mode rather than steadily at the point of maximum efficiency.

Anyway, I really love watching the flame, and thinking about warming up from old sunlight energy, temporarily stored in wood and atmospheric oxygen. I can see the annual rings and think about the wood accumulating energy year to year. I think it is good for kids as well to see that energy is not something that comes from a magic switch.