EPA approves new woodstove emissions standards

Feels like it sometimes!! Try paying taxes in NY! I'm not even sure I'm aloud to have a scrotum!


of course you are , if you didnt have one they couldnt tax you for it

 

LOL! Good point, and the sad thing is, your probably right.

 

They have 5 years to find another 0.5. I suspect it will get there.

I don't think the EPA is way off the mark here. But I am very disappointed that it's a "chase the manufacturers, technology solves all problems" focus. As with it's corollary "people are too stupid to learn so let's spend their money on mandated technology that makes their stupidity irrelevant". We are obviously not all stupid and lazy.

Biobricks are a great idea. Those without seasoned firewood should use them instead of green wood. Those with seasoned firewood have no reason to stop responsible harvesting and switch to Biobricks of course.

The bigger problem of poor burning practices needs to be addressed. The EPA has some cute blurbs on their website but green wood burning needs to be banned. It's easy to figure out what's green wood and what's dry wood so the regulations definitely need to support it. The knowledge will spread quickly.

 

I disagree!

 

Speak for yourself.......

 

I am in the not much good comes from the government mandating everything camp........ Usually one mandate doesn't solve it so maybe two will..... O wait two mandates want enough let's make it three ..... Hmmm that still didn't solve it let's try 4...... It becomes a never ending vicious cycle. The cost of firewood will increase exponentially if you need firewood inspectors for any wood that's sold. Then that wouldn't be enough and they would be at your home inspecting things. I don't see those options working well as their doesn't seem to be a good cure for stupidity.

Don't get me wrong I totally agree people shouldn't be burning green wood and I think the intentions of what you are saying are great I just don't know how it would work.

 

And taxes go up to pay the inspectors wages

 

I'm throwing the BS flag on this one. Wood decaying on a forest floor does not produce particulate emissions. We have yet another conspiracy theorist on our hands. Yey! Yey!

 

No particulate but yes it does carbon....

 

I believe the burn vs. natural decay is the same regarding carbon dioxide but only if the wood is burned cleanly. It always rots down cleanly regarding particulates. I am not sure about other pollutants or chemical by- products of combustion vs. rotting. But I agree with your basic point, especially if comparing something like burning wood with burning coal, which is where most electricity in the US is generated; coal is really a pretty poor fuel, ecology- wise, and that is after it is burned as efficiently as possible and gone through some very expensive and sophisticated scrubbers.

Brian

 

"Firewood inspectors" for all sold wood is not what I had in mind. Although dumbsh*t regulators might go so far as to suggest something impractical like that. If we step back and pretend regulation isn't coming, bad ideas will gain momentum and become law.

I was thinking that if there are local complaints about smoke, that the wood burner be investigated to see if they're burning seasoned / dry wood. The smoke dragons would not last long with that around. The regulation would not be to "prevent smoke" it would be to promote best practices and a proper process.

 

Well if the weather keeps staying warm out here we will have "particulate matter" in the air for 2 months from all the beetle kill fires,might be as bad as yellowstone fires 88.

 

Not really taking a side in this discussion but I think this might be the best idea. Let us police ourselves. There is a system going on somewhere (Australia maybe?) that basically produces a fine for making too much smoke for too long. It is actually enforced by ordinary people with documented evidence including photos, notes documenting time,date, etc. There is a chart that basically measures smoke opacity and has I think five levels, from very light to opaque (solid). So the way it works is that a person(s) has to document some level of smoke for some level of time that goes beyond the limits set by law (say level 5 for 10 minutes, or level 3 for 30 minutes just as an example). The municipality then fines the offender for the smoke, not the woodburning or the wood burner or any regulation violation. In other words, they police the deed of making smoke, not the devices used that <may> or may not produce smoke.

Before anyone jumps on this, I know it is not a perfect solution and of course would be subject to abuse, etc. But it is an interesting idea that targets the actual cause of the problem, sort of like ticketing speeders rather than to make sure no cars can possible go above the speed limit.

Brian

 

Actually local areas(gov) had to do that out here,because of inversions in winter.When the bans start they go by visible smoke,hefty fines!Happens in towns between mts--butte,missoula,etc.

 

the amazing thing about this topic is the sad state of education of potential wood burners in the "science" of wood burning and how much people are willing to learn about it.

few weeks ago I was in my local grocery store and heard a couple guys talking about woodstoves, so I sidle over and listen a bit one fellow was lamenting how his new woodstove just didn't want to burn, the second guy asked him how long ago his wood had been cut and split, first guy say, well I cut it this summer, its dry, second guy says, yeah it should be by now , you don't want it to get too dry. I had to say something.

so I asked him first what kind of stove he had, he told me (a non cat) I said that wood that hasn't fully seasoned simply will not perform in that type of stove. his reply was well it worked in my old fisher. I said , yeah it would , to an extent, but you were wasting as much heat as you were making.

anyway, long story short, I ended up explaining how a modern woodstove works in relation to an old stove, and why it was so important to have fully seasoned wood. sad thing is when I looked away from these fellows I had literally been giving a lecture on the physics of woodburning to I see I've got a group of people who were just standing there listening, liked to have never got out of there.

so IMHO its a dark cloud, but it does have a silver lining. what I learned is that we the woodburning community need to be as proactive on educating our neighbors as we can! most will listen, some probably wont, trust me I've had those conversations over ad over with people who tell me they have bee burning wood since I was in diapers. what usually wins them over is explanations about wet wood versus dry that they can wrap their head around.

for instance , try this one day in the summer; pick up a dead dried out leaf from the ground, if you light a match and hold it to it , the leaf if not sodden with moisture from the ground or rain, will burn readily though they are so low I potential that they usually will not burn completely down to ash without the match staying there.
Now , pick a green leaf off a tree and try to light it the same way, wont happen or will not until you exhaust several matches, why? because its full of moisture which has to boil off before the leaf can burn.

wood is the same way

 

Mike, around these parts, you could make a public speaking tour form grocery store to grocery store!! But remember this, the good thing about people with the old beliefs buying the new stoves is just this. The stove will be sold (at a low price) for not being able to burn wood come spring!

 

The government should have spent their money on something that would have given them more bang for their buck. Instead of passing new regulations the should have upped the incentives to like 500 bucks a stove to get more smoke dragons out of comission.

 

As I see it the new EPA requirements for OWBs do address the ignorance to a degree. You can find them here http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woo...y-requirements-wood-fired-forced-air-furnaces I found nothing similar in the new stove requirements though.
Let's quote a piece of that- the underline is mine
"The EPA’s final rule establishes requirements for wood-burning forced air furnaces over a five-year period.

• Beginning on the effective date of the rule (expected to be the spring of 2015), manufacturers of these heaters will have to meet new work practice and operational standards, including providing information on best operating practices in the owners’ manuals provided with each furnace and ensuring their distributors are trained in best-burn practices. This step will allow manufacturers of wood-burning forced air furnaces, which previously have not been subject to regulation or covered by an EPA voluntary program, time to update their model lines and have emissions from their different models tested by qualified laboratories.
  
• After the first year, furnaces will have to meet emissions limits in two steps: The Step 1 particle pollution (PM) emissions limit will become effective in 2016 for small forced air furnaces, and 2017 for larger furnaces. All forced air furnaces will have to meet the Step 2 limit in 2020."

 

There was a $300 tax credit (not a deduction) for purchasing high efficiency wood and pellet stoves which expired 12/31/2014. It remains to be seen if Congress will extend the credit for 2015.

 

Yes but I think that rebate would be more of an impact on getting people to upgrade stoves if it was $500 instead of $300.
And go a step further if you make under a certain amount and I will throw a number out there, if you make less than 40k a year
then you can get like $1000 tax credit.