and the moreso when the demoncraps are in power..........
Latest EPA Wood Stove News
- Thread starter huntindog1
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Dalmatian90,
You're reading into it what you want to read... not what it says.
I'm not gonna' quote from the regulations again (I've done that in several other threads). "Sale" is defined as any transfer of ownership or control... no attached exclusions or exemptions. Any and all appliances (certified and manufactured before a certain date) meeting current 1988 regulations can be sold (by manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or privately) until the certification expires. After the certification expires, any "sale" (see definition) is forbidden. All you've pointed out is the definition of a "commercial owner" and that the regulation requiring an owner's manual (by commercial owners of appliances manufactured after a certain date) does not apply to private "sale" (see definition). What that means is, if you buy an appliance meeting the new regulations when they become affective, you are not required to supply an owner's manual to transfer control privately. None of that says you, as a private citizen, can transfer control of an older appliance after the certification expires (or, in some cases, a certain time period, depending on when the certification was done).
Let me ask you... do the 1988 regulations require owner's manuals?? Hmmmmm......??
See... the "owner's manual" is part of the "new" regulations... it has nothing to do with the "old" regulations, or the older appliances.
But bury your head in the sand and believe whatever you like.
*
You're reading into it what you want to read... not what it says.
I'm not gonna' quote from the regulations again (I've done that in several other threads). "Sale" is defined as any transfer of ownership or control... no attached exclusions or exemptions. Any and all appliances (certified and manufactured before a certain date) meeting current 1988 regulations can be sold (by manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or privately) until the certification expires. After the certification expires, any "sale" (see definition) is forbidden. All you've pointed out is the definition of a "commercial owner" and that the regulation requiring an owner's manual (by commercial owners of appliances manufactured after a certain date) does not apply to private "sale" (see definition). What that means is, if you buy an appliance meeting the new regulations when they become affective, you are not required to supply an owner's manual to transfer control privately. None of that says you, as a private citizen, can transfer control of an older appliance after the certification expires (or, in some cases, a certain time period, depending on when the certification was done).
Let me ask you... do the 1988 regulations require owner's manuals?? Hmmmmm......??
See... the "owner's manual" is part of the "new" regulations... it has nothing to do with the "old" regulations, or the older appliances.
But bury your head in the sand and believe whatever you like.
*
I guess I will quote from the regs... table 2...
*
You really should read the whole document before stating what it says.
*
A geography lesson is needed. We westcoastians have the Cascade Range of mountains to deal with, and many river valleys which create inversions. We are not close to the Rockies. Oh, and the Californians also have the Sierras. I guess we are closer to the Rockies than say, Maine, or the East Coastians.
And do away with the EPA? Well, the West Virginians kind of did some of the limiting you speak of, then wondered where was the EPA after that spill of chemicals into their water supply. How will you regulate industries that are prone to doing evil things like that, and how will you stop pollution from one state flowing into and harming another state, if you only require states to regulate, or not?
I don't want to start up a name and hatred spewing political discussion, but there's always claims and complaints and very little in the way of productive conversation when pollution and the EPA is brought up. Got anything better than the current state of regulation? Unless the feds handle it, I can't see any good coming from states regulating because of differences in state corruption, power and understanding topography, weather, flooding and science. Most politicians are not science oriented.
This kinda says it.
And do away with the EPA? Well, the West Virginians kind of did some of the limiting you speak of, then wondered where was the EPA after that spill of chemicals into their water supply. How will you regulate industries that are prone to doing evil things like that, and how will you stop pollution from one state flowing into and harming another state, if you only require states to regulate, or not?
I don't want to start up a name and hatred spewing political discussion, but there's always claims and complaints and very little in the way of productive conversation when pollution and the EPA is brought up. Got anything better than the current state of regulation? Unless the feds handle it, I can't see any good coming from states regulating because of differences in state corruption, power and understanding topography, weather, flooding and science. Most politicians are not science oriented.
This kinda says it.
Oops, we also have the Olympic range of mountains on the peninsula, and lesser mountains in the Northeast part of our state. It aint easy to get around here.
fixit1960
Addicted to ArboristSite
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,161
- Reaction score
- 1,946
Whitespider, you reference "until certification expires" , when does a certification expire? I have a 1997 Heatmore wood fired boiler. I don't remember readings anything in the manual about the certification expiring after a period of time.
waaaaaahhhhhh,,lets keep the epa!!!! waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, I want the epa..its a another gov failure,,,controlled by no one,,not even the leftists that love it so.. to keep all their fairy tale bs..............maybe you can get a job there also?????? 
Never was much good at a lot of geography- those classes were 50 years ago- information I do not use much, just remembered that the mountain ranges cause weather problems out there not really experienced else where to the same extent state side. I am aware of the mountain range down the south east side of the country as well. Surface just kinda undulates around here in comparison with a small spike or two sticking up a bit.
philoshop
Addicted to ArboristSite
If you don't like you're smoke, or your neighbor's smoke, then let's just get rid of everyone's smoke... Giant solution to an isolated problem, Slowp.
Very interesting omission IMHO is the total silence about fireplaces. I've seen some test results indicating emission rates around 40 times those of EPA stoves. There are many around me who feed huge amounts of wood through one- one neighbor has a prominent bucking & splitting "facility" for such in his front yard.
But the attention is focused on appliances that extract useful heat? See a problem with that picture?
But the attention is focused on appliances that extract useful heat?
See a problem with that picture?
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
I agree, although you can get some useful heat out of some fireplaces if you know how to use them. Still, as one who identifies as an environmentalist I think a lot of this is wrong-headed. No matter what you do to the stoves/appliances, wood burning will never be appropriate everywhere or for everyone. Heck, I can make my clean burning stoves pump out huge amounts of smoke if I'm boneheaded about it.Very interesting omission IMHO is the total silence about fireplaces. I've seen some test results indicating emission rates around 40 times those of EPA stoves. There are many around me who feed huge amounts of wood through one- one neighbor has a prominent bucking & splitting "facility" for such in his front yard.
But the attention is focused on appliances that extract useful heat?
But fireplaces use a lot of fuel - as the cost and availability of fossil fuels force people to other sources such as wood, there will be fewer who can afford to waste it in a fireplace. Wood was and will again be a valuable energy source.
The existing limits for stoves have driven the development and manufacture of very efficient stoves, but practically you can't just extrapolate that out indefinitely - it gets harder and harder to make improvements, and at some point becomes cost prohibitive. What is the goal - to make it so you can burn a woodstove in some big town and no one will be able to tell? That's not achievable or reasonable. Why not just apply what's been developed to OWB's and wood furnaces?
I'm not really concerned about these regulations though - as the fracking bubble/financial scam blows up, we're going to be dealing with another economic crisis combined with an energy crisis. These kinds of top down one-size-fits-all regulations will become unenforceable. People will be burning whatever they can get in whatever they can burn it in, and there will be no funds for enforcement. It would be better to have more good stoves of the present type out there, along with cleaner OWBs & furnaces - if there's time for that.
That's it in a proverbial nutshell. My experience is that what you feed a stove, and how you operate it, are more important than they are given credit/blame for. Given that we can't continue to treat the atmosphere as a limitless dump and need to preserve it for the benefit for all, and that some just won't "get it" on their own, maybe we need "poo sensors" at flues.
You then pay fed/state based on your poo produced. Obviously this would not work for many reasons, but procedures similar to auto emission-testing, where you sample the actual product, make more sense than focusing totally on design.
Seemingly trivial things, like how you light your fire (top/bottom) have large effect downwind. Systems approach? Too complicated.
Lots of "EPA-Exempt" stoves still listed in catalogs, like NT. WTF?
pennsywoodburnr
supreme scrounger
Very interesting omission IMHO is the total silence about fireplaces. I've seen some test results indicating emission rates around 40 times those of EPA stoves. There are many around me who feed huge amounts of wood through one- one neighbor has a prominent bucking & splitting "facility" for such in his front yard.
But the attention is focused on appliances that extract useful heat?
So pics of my firewood are finally starting to make their way onto the 'net??
I think part of the reason for that is because, just thinking out loud here, probably 99% of fireplace owners just burn for ambiance like when company is over, or maybe if there's a power outage. After that, I would think most of them go back to whatever nat gas/heating oil/propane/electric setup they use. Most fireplaces in a house are probably thought of as just a decoration or some such. I was forced to use mine full time after all the over time was cut at work, the wife became pregnant and had to leave the job, and all the subsequent repo's and outstanding bills became too much. One day we will upgrade to a stove, but it's just not in the cards right now. Still though, I'm happy I can keep the house warm on even the coldest days. I think I'd just get too lazy if all I had to do was turn up the thermostat. 
There is, or there should be a tag or plate on your appliance with the certification date on it... certification is good for 5 years.
I'm not sure how that works if the manufacturer re-certifies the same, exact, unchanged model at the end of the 5 years... it may "grandfather" previously sold appliances. But that's a moot point... sooner or later (likely sooner than 5 years from now) your appliance no longer is "certified".
*
That's because you have liberal tunnel vision. Have you even givin' thought to the idea that "regulation" may not be the best solution?? Have you even givin' thought to the idea that "regulation" (and the corruption it breeds) may actually be the worst solution?? Complaining without proposing a solution may be whining... but simply proposing a solution doesn't automatically make that proposal a good idea. And a fine example of that is the mess that came from many of the "solutions" enacted by both Roosevelt administrations... Teddy's and FDR's.
How 'bout congress just pass laws making the things you mention illegal?? Make them federal offenses?? (By-the-way, that would be constitutional... "regulation" ain't). Perpetrators would then be arrested, charged with criminal offenses, tried in criminal court, and, if found guilty, justly penalized appropriately (which could include fines and clean-up costs). But to "regulate" someone, or something, before they/it has done anything wrong is crap... and is strictly forbidden by the constitution except for a couple narrowly defined, highly restricted, empowerment. The best example is the corrupted, bastardized and prostituted "Interstate Commerce" clause. It may do you some good to study and learn why that was written into the constitution... it was never intended to be used the way it is now. Before the constitution was written, states could charge a tariff, tax or toll on any goods shipped across their state (i.e. regulate interstate commerce)... effectively they could "starve out" a state on the far ends of the trade routes. The "Interstate Commerce" clause was never intended allow all the BS "regulation" the Feds justify under it (and you allow)... it was intended to remove that specific taxing (regulating) power from the states (the power of one state to tax another) so goods could travel freely amongst them, thereby strengthening the nation as a whole. It sure-in-hell did not give the Feds power to create the EPA... yet they managed to corrupt the clause by convincing the sheep they needed protection from themselves. Nixon didn't create the EPA because he cared, he saw an opportunity and created it to expand his power, and you friggin' tunnel visioned liberals cheered it... you were played, and fooled, and you still don't see it (because your tunnel vision sees it as a good thing... the "right" thing to do). It's one of the biggest scams ever played and you friggin' refuse to see it because of blind ideology... sad, so very sad.
Not at all that interesting... this ain't about emissions, it's about money and power.
Open fireplaces are typically "built" during home construction, they ain't an appliance proper... except for a few (very few) exceptions, you can't load an open fireplace in your pickup and haul it home. Ain't enough potential money and power in "regulating" open fireplaces... kind'a like taxing earth worms for crappin' in the dirt. Stop thinkin' the EPA is lookin' out for you.
*
man-o-man,,you just pissed in their Wheaties,,,WITH TRUTH!!!
and now,,they will have to get back at you,,and call you a liar and a racist!!!! and tell you you don't know what your talking about,,and are destroying their dream,,to destroy America,,and build their long sought after utopia,,run by them, of course its all about POWER and control!! they cant control their own sorry lives,,but they want to tell you how to run yours...
fixit1960
Addicted to ArboristSite
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,161
- Reaction score
- 1,946
man-o-man,,you just pissed in their Wheaties,,,WITH TRUTH!!!
I agree with Whitespider and Olyman. If you read the stats from the geological society, the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland and the resulting plume put more particulate and CO2 in the atmosphere in 2 days than all the regulations in the past 4 years supposedly gained us.. These "laws" in-acted by our wonderful EPA, (whom by the way were never given the power to enact legislation by our Constitution) . In the meantime how many of our businesses, power plants and jobs have left the economy and went overseas to Countries that have NO regulations and then the greenie Libtards rush to Wal Mart to purchase these "cheap" items over the more expensive American made products and then ***** because they have lead paint in them or are unsafe. The old saying you can't fix stupid is being played out right now in America....JMO. Sorry for the rant just getting fed up....
Similar threads
