EPA approves new woodstove emissions standards

HDRock · Mar 10, 2015

They will grab at any straws to inflate the numbers , the way they want them to be

Flamestead · Mar 10, 2015

I went looking for the source of the 70%, without luck so far, but did find this very, very similar piece...
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/03/09/states-fight-to-keep-wood-fires-burning
and once again over here, ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/states-fight-wood-fires-burning-29481533

OK, this is more likely the root source...
http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/energyefficiency.html

Oldman47 · Mar 11, 2015

We all know that figures don't lie but liars do figure.

oldspark · Mar 11, 2015

The numbers are one thing but people's perception is another.

wfournier · Mar 11, 2015

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing, I like the idea of cleaner more efficient stoves but I'm not crazy about the additional "big brother" aspect of the EPA.

Interestingly I ran across this for the town next door: http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/18791

ranger bob · Nov 20, 2015

Oakman69 said: ↑

I hope u do realize that burning just wood isnt any different than letting it sit on the forest floor and rot away. Both emit th same carbons and materials than burning. Sound crazy.look it up. Burning does release it quicker into the carbon cycle tho. if they know its 0 sum pollutant why are they so stuck on making stoves super clean. Social engineering anyone?? If the greenies can drill it into ur head that burning wood is "pollutant"u will believe it and forget all about the carbon cycle. U see thats what these people are all about. They hate industry energy coal wood burners and that includes u brah!. I agree w u that we need to keep thw smoke down for our neighbors but to heck w them. Let them go to mars for all I care. They are environazies.
Click to expand...

Yup! The growing trees and plants take in the C02 and release pure 02 which we breathe. Just takes a few decades longer if the old tree just lies in the bush. Clean burning stoves with less than 2g/hr particulate just help us keep our lungs in working order. Some stove makers will prosper as a result of stiffer regs and the rest will fade away. There is not much new under the sun.

ranger bob · Nov 20, 2015

yooperdave said: ↑

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!
Click to expand...

Yup! It is sad but so true. Few people understand or appreciate that all trees either rot away and slowly release carbon back into the ground or into the air if burned. It in turn is used by plants (trees in this case) and they in turn release 02 back into the air we breathe. Lowering particulate in the air we breath helps keep our lungs functioning. So the new 2020 standards are good for all of us. Good stove makers will thrive as the not so good stoves and their makers drop to the wayside. I studied trees for many years (BSc.F) and still have a great love for our forests. A good, clean wood stove is our best friend.

Oakman69 · Dec 2, 2015

badbob said: ↑

I agree with Mike,good stuff.I disagree with any rebates,cash incentives from the government.As a general rule,in our country,they are failures,as are most gov. run programs.How about cash for clunkers??Was not that long ago.People that are poor burners(wet wood,etc) are the ones that will use it,and we will still have the same problems. Local gov. is much more responsible,has worked out here with the "bad" owb crowd,they are still legal,but you better burn it properly.Power needs to go back to the states and local level.
Click to expand...

Cannot agree more. I can't name one gv program that has ever worked effectively but can just point to private industry and say it works because it's based on what people need based on individual decisions. On what's best per family/ individual. With gvt it's the other way around.. collectivism and socialistic ideas never work for long. They always fail.

Oakman69 · Dec 2, 2015

Machria said: ↑

I'm guessing they were referring to a 70% reduction from the NEW stoves sold that meet the new standards, which would almost make sense. But it's obviously going to have NO affect on the older stoves which probably make up the bulk of the in use stoves as of today. So maybe they just left out a description of what the 70% really meant..., reported improperly by the writer who just herd the # "70" and repeated it.... Just my guess....
Click to expand...

Has any thing the fed done that makes any sense? ?

ranger bob · Dec 4, 2015

wfournier said: ↑

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing, I like the idea of cleaner more efficient stoves but I'm not crazy about the additional "big brother" aspect of the EPA.

Interestingly I ran across this for the town next door: http://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/18791
Click to expand...

Good link. Honestly, I think all the regs ARE needed or, let's face it, everything would be good already and we would not need them in the first place. Clean air/dirty air, chronic illnesses/healthy air to breathe, choices we can make or we can ignore. Mike in earlier posts explained it well.

Oakman69 · Dec 14, 2015

savemoney said: ↑

EPA approves new woodstove emissions standards
The rules, which will reduce new stove emissions by two-thirds in five years, get mixed reactions from stove manufacturers, including Maine-based Jotul North America.
By Tux Turkel Portland Press Herald
[email protected] | @TuxTurkel | 207-791-6462
Share

The federal Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday released long-awaited rules aimed at reducing air pollution from wood-burning heaters, including wood stoves, pellet stoves and both indoor and outdoor wood boilers.
The rules in general will require many stove makers to begin producing heaters that are less polluting beginning this year, and up to 70 percent cleaner by 2020. The new emission limits target fine particles and toxic compounds associated with smog and various health concerns.
Additional Images

2013 Press Herald File Photo\John Ewing New rules in general will require many stove makers to begin producing heaters that are less polluting beginning this year, and up to 70 percent cleaner by 2020.
The new standards update existing emissions levels set in 1988. Since then, new technology has made it possible to build wood heaters that are more efficient and less polluting, the agency says.
The new rules don’t cover stoves or heaters already in people’s homes, nor do they extend to indoor fireplaces.
The EPA rules also allow time for stores to sell stoves that meet the 1988 levels, through the end of 2015.
Heating with wood is a cherished and thrifty tradition in Maine. A greater percentage of homes use wood as their primary heat source – 14 percent – than any state other than Vermont, according to U.S. Census figures. An estimated 50 percent of Maine homes also use wood as a supplemental heat source.
The wood-heating trend is good for cutting energy bills, but not for air quality. Older wood stoves, especially, churn out more of the pollution that aggravates asthma and other respiratory conditions than the oil and gas heating systems they’re meant to supplement or replace.
The new rules are based on thousands of comments, a public hearing and months of input from businesses. They have been of intense interest to Maine’s only wood-stove manufacturer, Jotul North America in Gorham.
Bret Watson, the company’s president, said Wednesday that the new rules won’t have an impact right away, because all Jotul stoves now burn an average of 4.5 grams of emissions an hour – much cleaner than the 1988 standards for noncatalytic stoves of 7.5 grams per hour. But the EPA is calling for emissions to be cut to 2 grams per hour in 2020, and Jotul opposes that.
“Step two, if upheld, will be a game changer,” Watson told the Press Herald.
To achieve 2 grams, he said, the company would need to add catalytic combustors to all its 14 models, which would cost more than $1 million overall. He estimated that adding the technology to Jotul’s most-popular model, the F 500, would add 15 percent, or $375, to the cost of that stove for a buyer.
Watson predicted a legal battle over the standards between his trade organization and various environmental and clean-air advocates. He called the more-stringent standard a “look good, feel good” regulation that wouldn’t be effective.
The trade group, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association, had a mixed reaction. It applauded the EPA’s decision to phase in standards for warm-air wood furnaces and give manufacturers time to develop and test cleaner models.
“Conversely,” the group said in a statement, “we believe the agency missed the mark in other areas. For example, some of the future standards proposed for wood-burning appliances do not meet the government’s duty to set standards based on data that shows both a tangible benefit to consumers and cost-effectiveness.”
The association added: “Our industry does not oppose new emission standards. We simply want to ensure that these future standards produce a real clean-air benefit that consumers can afford. We will continue to work with EPA and other stakeholders to address our remaining concerns.”
The new wood-burning rules were generally embraced, however, by an advocacy group in Bethesda, Maryland, that promotes cleaner-burning technologies.
“Overall, we think the EPA did a good job and released a fair rule that includes many compromises between industry and air quality agencies,” said John Ackerly, president of the Alliance for Green Heat. “We think these rules are good for consumers and will not drive prices up hardly at all, but will result in more efficient appliances that will save consumers time and money.”
Ackerly called the 2-gram-an-hour standard for stoves in 2020 “fair and reasonable,” and likely to lead to more and improved catalytic stoves.
“We think delaying the standards for warm air furnaces for one to two years was a mistake,” he said.
Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or
[email protected]
Twitter@TuxTurkel
Click to expand...

The gvt loves to tell us all about how wood burning is so bad for air Quality. Why do you think they wanted Healthcare control so bad....notice they say, emissions are good for cutting bills but bad for asthma and other illnesses. Of course raising costs for tax payers
So, epa will respond by taking more freedoms and rights away in Little increments called regs.. I know there is a place for regs and we do need some of them but I see the road the epa wants to take us down. I do agree that efficient stoves are good and do save time and money but, we need to keep a close eye on them and pressure our representatives to understand that freedom loving Americans are watching their azzez...

chris · Dec 15, 2015

Unfortunately the EPA is an UN-regulated dept of the federal Govt.- their is no Congressional over sight or control of their endeavors. It is completely free to do what ever it likes. When they issue new regs for any thing they are instantly law- frankly imo that is just wrong. The only part I agree with is the owb/furnace units needing to be brought into the compliance circle as it currently stands.

Flamestead · Dec 15, 2015

Lots of reasons to form a federal government...

Interstate highways?
Interstate commerce laws?
Internet?
Land Grant Colleges?
Homestead Act?
GI Bill?
National Parks?

Some of us downwind of other states are often glad to see air pollution in general addressed, even if imperfectly.

Oakman69 · Dec 23, 2015

chris said: ↑

Unfortunately the EPA is an UN-regulated dept of the federal Govt.- their is no Congressional over sight or control of their endeavors. It is completely free to do what ever it likes. When they issue new regs for any thing they are instantly law- frankly imo that is just wrong. The only part I agree with is the owb/furnace units needing to be brought into the compliance circle as it currently stands.
Click to expand...

Oh yea
We are for clean air but not in exchange for freedoms.... we need oversight.. but... the new donald trump needs to weeded out if elected...

boettg33 · Dec 23, 2015

How do oil or propane furnaces/forced hot water systems compare?

Oakman69 · Dec 23, 2015

boettg33 said: ↑

How do oil or propane furnaces/forced hot water systems compare?
Click to expand...

Well oil prices have come down recently thanks to opec dropping prices of their oil they sell on the open world mrkt to drive fackers out business here in the states. But it's sure to go back up.. propane is very expensive.. oil I think is pound for pound the best way to get good heat Depending where u live. Owb forced water systems are good. Need alot of wood for em. They aren't as efficient however as say a wood furnace i think, which is inside a warm house and is more manageable and don't use as much fuel..
Regulatory are not aimed at so much owb or oil propane but at wood stoves w themselves..

ranger bob · Dec 23, 2015

boettg33 said: ↑

How do oil or propane furnaces/forced hot water systems compare?
Click to expand...

A clean, low emission wood stove is greener than natural gas furnaces, oil furnaces, and in many cases electric heat, as some of the electricity comes from carbon emitting sources. A good wood stove is carbon neutral as it burns carbon trapped as the tree being burned grows and a new tree replaces it and takes in the carbon emitted over it's life cycle. The end result is net zero. The air quality is the kicker. If all wood burning emitted less than 2g/hr particulate it would be one of the best sources of heat bar none. I think this is a message all of us have to become familiar with and get out there. The EPA is not the enemy - like Pogo once said "we has met the enemy - and it is us." Please do not be offended but we all have a job to do. Saving money by burning wood is great but the bigger issue is saving our planet.