EPA issue ban on wood stoves

[Sodo]

I actually read all of the regulations and they do limit ones ability to use a wood stove in near future. If you can not sell a used stove and the regulations are too strict for manufactures to MAKE a stove that is compliant then the wood heating will effectively be gone.

Not a chance in H***. It will likely be curtailed in populated areas, where the pollution becomes unacceptable. And under weather conditions that make it unacceptable. Wood heating will never go away in rural areas.

None of us will have to worry about that, you can leave that problem for the grandkids, like everything else.

Woodstoves are offered by all of the current mfrs and its a booming business.

 

[jbeenemd]

Visit this web site, learn some facts, look at the 20 pages of stoves (List of EPA certified stoves) that already meet the Phase 1 standard of (4.5/7.5 grams per hour) (catalytic/non-catalytic). You will also see a handful of mostly pellet stoves that already meet the five year Phase 2 (1.5 grams per hour) standard.

Types of Appliances | Burn Wise | US EPA

The Phase 2 1.5 grams per hour is a tough but not impossible standard. However, it has nothing to do with the stove you own now and forever, or the one you may buy up to five years from now.

The "fact" that decomposing wood or burning wood is carbon neutral is not relevant to particulate emissions. I've never seen smoke rising from a rotting log.

When wood rots it releases a good bit of methane which is worse for the greenhouse effect than co2

 

[RoyJackson]

This thread was started specifically to get underwears in wads and a lot of people took the bait. Most people who take bait like this don't wanna know that it's BS, they enjoy the bait. They're looking for it.

If you say "thats BS" then the response is: "its not as bad as: (some other BS)".

There is no desire for truth.

I'm the OP and you're quite wrong on all counts...
The EPA, like any bureaucracy, tends to be the proverbial "bull in the china shop" and makes regulations that don't always make sense.

If we took the air quality data from 1960 (an arbitrary year I selected...but before the EPA was established) and compared it to data collected yesterday, I expect we would find pollutants diminished well over 95%...probably greater then 95%, but I'm being conservative. This, of course, is pollutants we can control and not those pollutants wafting in from other countries.

I watched a new report in which the EPA estimated the "savings" by tighter controls on wood stoves. To me, their estimates were wildly exaggerated...again, something government agencies do frequently to justify their existence. As a percentage of the population, I expect people who burn wood (as a heat source) to be miniscule.

The wood stove industry isn't huge and the costs involved in developing new stoves isn't cheap. Maybe we can divert some of that Solyndra money into helping this industry...since wood burning is a proven and effective heat source rather then put another industry out of business (which the Obama administration is doing).

I expect you might be a government employee...perhaps working for the EPA...and perhaps one of the 93% who were laid off during the shutdown last year. And I wouldn't be surprised if your post is an attempt to mitigate the EPA's uselessness.

 

[chopped]

Bravo WELL said.. WELL SAID

I'm the OP and you're quite wrong on all counts...
The EPA, like any bureaucracy, tends to be the proverbial "bull in the china shop" and makes regulations that don't always make sense.

If we took the air quality data from 1960 (an arbitrary year I selected...but before the EPA was established) and compared it to data collected yesterday, I expect we would find pollutants diminished well over 95%...probably greater then 95%, but I'm being conservative. This, of course, is pollutants we can control and not those pollutants wafting in from other countries.

I watched a new report in which the EPA estimated the "savings" by tighter controls on wood stoves. To me, their estimates were wildly exaggerated...again, something government agencies do frequently to justify their existence. As a percentage of the population, I expect people who burn wood (as a heat source) to be miniscule.

The wood stove industry isn't huge and the costs involved in developing new stoves isn't cheap. Maybe we can divert some of that Solyndra money into helping this industry...since wood burning is a proven and effective heat source rather then put another industry out of business (which the Obama administration is doing).

I expect you might be a government employee...perhaps working for the EPA...and perhaps one of the 93% who were laid off during the shutdown last year. And I wouldn't be surprised if your post is an attempt to mitigate the EPA's uselessness.

 

[dave1949]

I'm the OP and you're quite wrong on all counts...
The EPA, like any bureaucracy, tends to be the proverbial "bull in the china shop" and makes regulations that don't always make sense.

If we took the air quality data from 1960 (an arbitrary year I selected...but before the EPA was established) and compared it to data collected yesterday, I expect we would find pollutants diminished well over 95%...probably greater then 95%, but I'm being conservative. This, of course, is pollutants we can control and not those pollutants wafting in from other countries.

I watched a new report in which the EPA estimated the "savings" by tighter controls on wood stoves. To me, their estimates were wildly exaggerated...again, something government agencies do frequently to justify their existence. As a percentage of the population, I expect people who burn wood (as a heat source) to be miniscule.

The wood stove industry isn't huge and the costs involved in developing new stoves isn't cheap. Maybe we can divert some of that Solyndra money into helping this industry...since wood burning is a proven and effective heat source rather then put another industry out of business (which the Obama administration is doing).

I expect you might be a government employee...perhaps working for the EPA...and perhaps one of the 93% who were laid off during the shutdown last year. And I wouldn't be surprised if your post is an attempt to mitigate the EPA's uselessness.

You are not the OP Roy. You are the poster who called everyone who doesn't agree with what you think, a lefty idiot.

 

[Egon]

Wondering if this will be affecting the supply of charcoal and charred oak barrels for the Spirits Industry.

Them's in the back hills probably just carry on as normal with Grandpa stoking the fire while the boys do the heavy work part? Gotta have some place to get them young fellows ready for the big track!:thumbsup:

 

[Sodo]

and some folks want to just bury their head in the sand

I just can't imagine what motivates a guy to consider opposing those who want to reduce air pollution. Do you think pollution will just kill off all the bad polluters, (and not you or your grandkids?). Are you completely unaware that China let it go for too long and they are choking NOW?

"Head in sand" is appropriate metaphor, watch out sand will fall off your head into your keyboard. :laughing:

The notion that gov't should not protect our air, water etc is kind of ludicrous. Here's a pic where a gov't waited too long, China. It's too late now, and the people are choking. They will choke for YEARS, until the gov't finally gets their act together (as the USA is trying to do).

Gov't HAS to do the things that the people won't do. Its entire reason for existence should be, to look farther ahead than the people will look, and preserve a quality of life for the next generations. But that's just my point of view. A lot of people think the gov't should simply enrich them (And do it NOW!).

I don't see what benefit you're trying to get, by opposing efforts to keep the air clean while the rest of us are yearning to breathe free.

Woodstove pollution is a city problem, for city people. If you live in a rural area, wood heat will NEVER go away. City problems often spill over and affect rural people, but not this. This is just a silly attempt of city people trying prevent changes to their lifestyle by scaring rural people.

And if rural people are actually being scared, it's either because you're NOT rural, or you ARE gullible.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

....The EPA doesn't want to get rid of woodburning stoves - it wants to make them environmentally less damaging - something we should support in the interest of continued wood burning.

And what is the TOTAL cost of energy and contaminates from the ore in the ground to the disposal of the used up unit?

 

[Sodo]

Nothing if it's in the ground.

More likely the iron will be shipped to China as they are the major purchaser of scrap iron. I bet a lot of their air pollution is from burning up scrap iron. A stove doesn't have much pollutants, not like burning the steel out of a cubed automobile.

 

[therealmjfox]

I just can't imagine what motivates a guy to consider opposing those who want to reduce air pollution. Do you think pollution will just kill off all the bad polluters, (and not you or your grandkids?). Are you completely unaware that China let it go for too long and they are choking NOW?

"Head in sand" is appropriate metaphor, watch out sand will fall off your head into your keyboard. :laughing:

The notion that gov't should not protect our air, water etc is kind of ludicrous. Here's a pic where a gov't waited too long, China. It's too late now, and the people are choking. They will choke for YEARS, until the gov't finally gets their act together (as the USA is trying to do).

Gov't HAS to do the things that the people won't do. Its entire reason for existence should be, to look farther ahead than the people will look, and preserve a quality of life for the next generations. But that's just my point of view. A lot of people think the gov't should simply enrich them (And do it NOW!).

I don't see what benefit you're trying to get, by opposing efforts to keep the air clean while the rest of us are yearning to breathe free.

Woodstove pollution is a city problem, for city people. If you live in a rural area, wood heat will NEVER go away. City problems often spill over and affect rural people, but not this. This is just a silly attempt of city people trying prevent changes to their lifestyle by scaring rural people.

And if rural people are actually being scared, it's either because you're NOT rural, or you ARE gullible.

You don't have to go to China to find bad pollution. Caused by wood stoves, even: Fairbanks chokes on wood stove pollution in battle to stay warm - Los Angeles Times

Making wood stoves burn cleaner is simply a no-brainer.