EPA moves to regulate new wood stoves
Source: Washington Post
The Environmental Protection Agency moved Friday to curb emissions of particles and other gases from residential wood stoves and other wood-fired devices built after 2015 in an effort to combat pollutants that can present a significant health hazard in parts of the country.
The proposed new rules would require manufacturers of wood stoves, wood pellet stoves, forced-air wood furnaces, wood boilers, fireplace inserts and masonry heaters to build a generation of devices that burn 80 percent more cleanly than current models. The rules would go into effect in 2015 and become more strict after five years, though the EPA is asking whether they should be phased in over eight years instead.
The new rules do not apply to wood heaters already in use or to residential fireplaces, backyard fire containers or fire pits used by campers and beachgoers. Nor do they apply to smokers, other wood-fired barbecue devices or pizza ovens.
Particulate matter is a big health issue, said Alison Davis, an EPA senior adviser. It has been linked to heart attacks and strokes and can aggravate asthma. A number of studies have linked it to premature death among people who suffer from heart and lung disease, she said.
Read more: http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-moves-to-regulate-new-wood-stoves/2014/01/03/b08cb232-7484-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html?tid=HP_federal
jwirr
(39,215 posts)that thing.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Hopefully they will make new stoves in similar designs that will do the trick.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)You usually make these yourself. It comes as a kit with a door and a connection for the stove pipe, and you provide a 55 gallon oil drum.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)into our water supply and Fracking, hauling flammable crude and oil spills, first? I'm thinking those "other" issues have a Much greater impact on our health and environment than wood stove particulate--at this juncture.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)and still burning coal, and shipping coal to China while we buy their output and help them increase the amount of pollutant they put into the air...
and instead work on screwing with someone who can't afford to heat with natural gas.
If you were REALLY concerned, you would go after those with money. Stinking cowards.
OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)From October through April, even though I don't live in a cold area of Canada, I am constantly sucking in wood smoke. These stoves are a local pollution problem, different than coal in that the particulate matter stays near ground level in concentrated form, and in an urban area can definitely effect people's health.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)High-five cold weather runner buddy.
In the valley where I live, it smells lovely, but damn, it can't be good for my lungs, especially at a high rate of respiration.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)CA and can't believe the difference in the air quality here. You can BREATHE without breathing in all the poisons from all their oil drilling equipment, the Pacific Ocean looks like an oil field.
Here the air is beautiful, clean, fresh and I've never even noticed any fumes from wood stoves. There is far less traffic also so we don't get all those fumes from cars and trucks.
This is utterly ridiculous considering that they are trying to bring in fracking to this area, to which there is huge resistance and for good reason.
Seems as if people using their wood stoves more than ever now, might be a threat to the profits of the Oil Cartels. Funny, we were joking about it earlier this year, that if the people ever went off the grid, as many have here for the most part since they have kept their old wells, only use a minimum amount of oil and are able to save huge amounts of money by not using dirty oil heat and less electricity. Some have their own windmills and solar panels also, they would start finding ways to raise the cost of using alternative energy. I was hoping it would take a while but they don't miss a trick when it comes to THEIR profits.
I'll take this seriously when the same 'concerned' people start moving to ban fracking eg.
MADem
(135,425 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)So they aren't "screwing with people." People can keep using those for as long as they'd like.
If you buy a new stove in a few years, it will be one that is eighty percent more efficient.
I don't think this is a bad thing. A lot of people up in Northern Maine use wood as their first and sometimes only source of heat. Anything that makes a stove eighty percent more efficient means less cutting, hauling and stoking.
I'm just not understanding your fury about this.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)of years. And those were 80% more efficient. I know, because I threw the old one away when we bought our house and got this one, not because they made me, but because it was stupid to throw all that heat up the chimney.
My "fury?" (you mistake fury for derision ) is that the greatest pollution is coming from sources these gutless bastards won't confront, like China, and our energy corporations...
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/18-made-in-china-our-toxic-imported-air-pollution#.UsdVlvjyOsR
...who blow their pollution around the earth with abandon. That is exacerbated by our nation's policies which allow for a trade deficit, meaning that those products can be created in a place without our environmental regulation so we have no chance to mitigate it. It also means the jobs which would be here are somewhere else, another way our policies further the unemployment we are supposed to be correcting.
I'm sure that these busybodies cracking down on beach fires will result in bluer skies for all of us. Wouldn't be the first blue sky promise from this administration.
MADem
(135,425 posts)MY point is that no one is forcing anyone to give up their existing stoves. Even if they are quite old.
It's fine to be mad about "other stuff," --I certainly agree that most major cities in China are a frigging pit when it comes to pollution, they make LA look pristine---but that's not what this thread is about.
The EPA isn't cracking down on "beach fires" either. That sort of thing is regulated at the local level. Most places I know, you go to the "public safety" building and get a permit and pay a small fee.
If you want to crab about their policies, there's no fee imposed to start your own thread and persuade others to participate and agree with your concerns. It's far preferable than interjecting unrelated gripes into this one--which is about wood stoves.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)dried wood - if you have ever seen a properly prepared wood fire in a stove, there is virtually no visible exhaust at the stack. And if they aren't going to fix the old ones, the biggest effect is going to be to raise the cost of new stoves, without affecting much of anything else.
Still not going after the biggest sources of pollution, the ones that harm everyone on a daily basis, the purveyors of mercury that turns babies into zombies and leave them drooling with heartbroken parents who should be mad as hell at the gutless policy makers that spend their time doing the least effective things to the least powerful people. But I guess that can be overlooked if one is cold-blooded enough.
btw, when I see ignorance sometimes I say something. Not really interested in your opinion of whether I should or not. But, similar to what you noted, there's no fee for wanna-be nannies trying to tell other people what to post either.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Many people are poor and can't afford a new stove, so they will make do with their old one.
I think requiring new stoves to be better built is a great thing. It's like catalytic converters on cars; some people whined and said "What's the use?" but they have made a difference.
I think thread derailment is rude. This is a fairly interesting subject, for those who have wood stoves, those who want to upgrade their wood stove, and those who have wanted to buy one but hesitated because of the environmental impact.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)certified stove isn't because there are no EPA certified stoves . Hell, they can buy mine, with the EPA plate on the back, and I will go get another, if they can't find one of the thousands that are already out there.
And many people wouldn't need to be poor if we weren't paying banks $1.4 trillion every year while trying to shave bits and pieces from their food stamps and social security. Instead we have a bunch of busybodies doing what has already been done, to avoid taking on the people that are big enough to fight back. Which is nothing more than bullying.
I don't think I'm the off the rails here. An OP was posted on a discussion board, we are discussing the issue. Except for the two times now that you have tried to turn this into a personal attack because, apparently, you would rather hear the choir singing the same song to each other. But from what I've seen, that's pretty typical. Such an attack is also rude, but to have any real impact, your target needs to care. And I have found nothing you've said persuasive. Again. So I don't.
That has made it a waste of time, however. but there is a remedy for that sort of behavior. Wait right here, I'll show you...(man, I hope you can take a hint)
MADem
(135,425 posts)paleotn
(17,960 posts)...lets go after the relatively small wood stove manufacturers. They don't have near the cash to wine and dine law makers as Peabody, Arch Coal, Exxon Mobile or the Koch brothers, making them a much softer target.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)Go chase something like fracking.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)no long ago.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Usually when we need it most (power out) weather conditions are frozen and stagnant, so smoke is a huge deal in our valley.
JonGeb
(9 posts)My father has been using a stove he bought about 5 years ago and it has a re-burner that removes much of the PM.
Wood burning is actually a renewable resource and is a net-zero CO2 emission source.
Owl
(3,643 posts)My two neighbors heat their entire fairly large homes with the damn smoking polluting things. Won't help me but it's a definite step in the right direction.
Munificence
(493 posts)burning power plant that produces the electric that is delivered to your house is better?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)What say ye, 'Particulate Matter Health Danger Deniers' at DU?
Must be part of that 'Global Warming' mythology.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)if you can build one in your house or cabin, they are awesome. make the 'efficiency' of a wood stove look like childs play
MADem
(135,425 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The ones I found were REALLY ugly. Can you provide a link to something less, well, oil barrelly? At some point we're going to have to upgrade, even though inserts are REALLY expensive ($4,000 +).
MADem
(135,425 posts)yourmovemonkey
(267 posts)Most burn wood, and in rural and poor areas they are often home made. I even heard about a guy who built an outdoor furnace that burns those big round hay bales! I was told one bale will heat his home and hot water for about 2 weeks during normal winter conditions. Not like we're having right now. Damn it's cold out there!
I know another farmer who heats his garage and shop with a home made outdoor furnace that burns dried field corn kernels instead of pellets.
I've heard the outdoor furnaces are much safer too. Anyway, my main concern with this is that it "locks up" the industry and excludes people from devising and building their own furnaces. Regulations like this force the little guy to buy a commercially manufactured stove when he might be capable of designing and building something better all on his own. I'm sure the certification process is financially burdensome for an individual who only wants to build one unit.
We used to be able to register "home built" cars too. There are a lot of good ingenious ideas that come out of people's backyard shops.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)but in Central California, the citrus farmers burn piles of almond hulls during a freeze to keep the citrus fruit from freezing on the trees. It's interesting what types of alternate fuels can be used.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
So if manufacturers build like crazy in 2014 . . . . .
hmmmmm
Also - from the article at the link:
"EPA laboratory testing does not reflect the way wood stoves and heaters are used by consumers. Most particle pollution occurs because the majority of wood stoves are old and because consumers do not use wood that has been sufficiently dried"
I agree - I look at my smokestack, and never see smoke - moisture on the coldest days, just vapors most of the time, because my wood is super dry, and I burn it in the "hot" zone - use a special thermometer to keep an eye on the woodstove burning temperature to keep it above the creosote level and below the overfiring zones. I do not underfire my stove to save wood - I want my stove and pipes safe, so if it get's too warm in the house, I will open some windows rather than underfire the stove.
I see most of the stoves burning around here way too cold, or way too hot - too cold (or wood too wet) indicated by constant blue smoke - too hot, indicated by the stainless steel insulated pipes turning blue (yep, the steel itself) from burning too hot.
Outside wood furnaces are the worst offenders for pollution - many people throw unsplit/undried wood in there, as well as garbage or anything else that will burn.
Insurance companies may come into play here for inside wood stoves. I see nothing to prevent the insurance companies from requiring the homeowner to upgrade to the newer stoves or face higher premiums to continue using their present stove, not that insurance companies would take advantage or anything . . .
I do not know about in the USA, but here if you have a woodstove in your house, it must be approved by the insurance company OR THEY WILL NOT INSURE YOUR HOUSE FOR ANYTHING!
I know some people get around that by not claiming their wood stove as their source of heat - instead reporting electric/oil/gas on the paperwork. But file a claim, and the insurance company discovers otherwise . . . .
Back to outside woodstoves for a moment - because they burn so slowly, they STINK! Some municipalities ban them within town limits. Recently the township I used to live in increased the minimum size of building lots to 2 acres from one acre - I suspect wood smoke was part of this reason.
Anyhoo, I'm warm and toasty with my 8 year old "Super 27" doing it's thing.
CC
Owl
(3,643 posts)Huge outdoor burners using large chunks of un-split wet wood ("piss-wood" admittedly by neighbors) are a problem that needs to be addressed.
Like all of us they're doing what they can to get by, but the smell and massive particulates are a health hazard, and it stinks and bothers allergies.
You're Super 27 is lovely!
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)If efficiency can be improved 80% that is wonderful (though one wonders with such an established technology and if so what must be done to do it) but how would anyone even have time and resources to even consider focusing on such a small bore footprint with so many huge and dangerous problems in an era of crazy budget restraints and high levels of distrust. It is a commercial for ridiculous priorities and reeks of solutions looking for problems that also says "sorry your water is on fire but look forward to a much better (and probably much more expensive) wood burning stove when you need a new one".