if you only knew what his past is,, that hes trying to cover up...that's why he changed his name....
What's the deal with EPA phase 2
- Thread starter Landmark
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
windthrown
361 Junkie
Well, for those of you that think the EPA regs are actually gonna do anything...
For one: EPA does not cover masonry fireplaces, so they can smoke all they want and are exempt. Which is a joke.
For two: regarding the OP, I had a Central Boiler classic stove in southern Oregon, and it hardly smoked at all. I posted many photos of it on this site. My EPA II+ stove now smokes as much as that did. I burn 2 year dry wood here now, and we burned all kinds of dry and wet wood in the CB. We never had a complaints about that boiler smoking and we never had any problems with smoke there. FYI: all OWB and IWB stoves are banned in Oregon now, for new sales and all existing installs. All of them, EPA approved or otherwise.
For three: Earth Stoves are not all smoke dragons. I had a 705 model here and used it until last year. My EPA II+ stove (Englander 30, which meets WA std. and will most likely be EPA III soon) smokes about as much as that did as well. The Earth Stove had 2 secondary air injectors at the top of the firebox and a 3rd one that went up into the flue. That thing burned pretty clean, if an EPA II/WA stove to compare it to is any measure.
For four: I have visited several EPA testing stations here in the Portland, OR area, where over half of them are in North America. They test stoves and boilers using cribs of stacked wood, using methods that no homeowner would or will ever use in real world situations. So again, its a joke. EPA testing is a joke. At best.
For one: EPA does not cover masonry fireplaces, so they can smoke all they want and are exempt. Which is a joke.
For two: regarding the OP, I had a Central Boiler classic stove in southern Oregon, and it hardly smoked at all. I posted many photos of it on this site. My EPA II+ stove now smokes as much as that did. I burn 2 year dry wood here now, and we burned all kinds of dry and wet wood in the CB. We never had a complaints about that boiler smoking and we never had any problems with smoke there. FYI: all OWB and IWB stoves are banned in Oregon now, for new sales and all existing installs. All of them, EPA approved or otherwise.
For three: Earth Stoves are not all smoke dragons. I had a 705 model here and used it until last year. My EPA II+ stove (Englander 30, which meets WA std. and will most likely be EPA III soon) smokes about as much as that did as well. The Earth Stove had 2 secondary air injectors at the top of the firebox and a 3rd one that went up into the flue. That thing burned pretty clean, if an EPA II/WA stove to compare it to is any measure.
For four: I have visited several EPA testing stations here in the Portland, OR area, where over half of them are in North America. They test stoves and boilers using cribs of stacked wood, using methods that no homeowner would or will ever use in real world situations. So again, its a joke. EPA testing is a joke. At best.
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
I disagree. Your assumption is that since the fuel loading is unrealistic compared to what a typical fuel load would be that the test is a joke - but a test such as this first needs to be consistent, and that's not easy with a wood stove. They are looking for the lowest amount of particulate output, and I think it is a reasonable assumption that stove's relative performance on their contrived load will be reflected with a real cord wood loading. Not the same, but still a useful test.
A realistic load might well be poorly seasoned wood, plastic trash and aluminum beer cans. Should they test that?
I think that stoves that produce fewer particulates on their wood will also produce fewer particulates with seasoned cord wood.
windthrown
361 Junkie
Realistic? Not even. I am an engineer myself and I have seen these EPA tests done in person. The main problem is that the stove and boiler companies build the stoves specifically to pass the crib tests, not to burn clean under what would be considered anything close to normal use. That is common knowledge among engineers that I know that design them. The aspects of the crib tests also do not carry over to a typical stove heating a house in winter. The dynamics are just too varied and different. Burning green wood and tires aside (which is another reason that crib tests are pretty useless), if you burn only dry wood and damp the stove down, like 99% of the people that use them do, the numbers change drastically and there is no real correlation to the EPA testing. It is similar to the MPH tests that auto companies do. They accelerate so slow in the tests to get the numbers up that no one gets that kind of mileage in the real world.
That is true... and I agree the testing is somewhat silly for that reason.
But the new proposed regulations will change that... I'd have to look again, I believe at three years after they take affect (phase 2), testing will be done with cord wood. Also, the gathering of particulate emissions will change... the new testing will include a change of stack filter every hour, including the "start-up" hour. There's been a lot of claims that many existing stoves already meet the new regulation standards, but that's only a half-truth at best... they meet phase 1 of the new regulations, none have been tested by phase 2 methods.
Oh, believe me... the new regs will do something.
You're gonna' see several models, as well as a few brands, disappear from the market. Your choices will become limited, and those remaining will increase in price. The appliances will become increasingly finicky, and dependent on constant user attention/adjustment. They're gonna' become an expensive PITA... by design. See, when you heat using an off-the-grid method such as wood, "they" can't tax you... it's bad business for "them". The goal here is to make burning wood so expensive, so time consuming, and such a plain PITA, it won't worth it... you'll just get with the program and buy your share of (taxable) gas, oil, or electricity.
Of course, the wood-fired appliance industry could try what wind and solar did... become huge campaign contributors. But look how that that turned out for them?? When ya' get in bed with government, ya' better be plannin' for more than a good night's sleep.
In a couple years we'll see the entrance of a new administration... that's when the real interesting "stuff" starts happening.
*
del will be along shortly,, to call you a liar right to your face...me thinks,, hes the gov epa rep on this site.. hes a rat fink,, and hed do it....its a fairy and gnome thing......lovers of he epa..will NEVER change their mind.........
YUP!!!! look what happened to the price of gas fired water heaters...tank type.....yesssireeeeeee,, gov hacks of this site unite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! communists...
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
Yes the tests are imperfect, unrealistic and the manufacturers design to the test, taking advantage of the loopholes. Same as with every test & standard, including auto fuel economy. And yet over time cars that get better fuel economy in those tests generally do better on the road, and having to meet them has raised the fleet fuel economy and driven technology development. The same for wood stoves.
I design to UL & IEC safety standards. I can assure you the particular standards we are under are imperfect, many UL engineers are incompetent, I know every loophole and at times use them. I can also tell you that any product that meets them will in general be pretty safe, and I would never buy something that didn't meet 3rd party testing to a standard.
Look at that stove Oly posted about recently with all the aluminum fins tacked on - people lack the ability to tell the difference between snake oil and actually viable designs. A performance test at least makes them prove it.
I wish there was also a standard test of heat energy output over time.
I call bu!!$h!t...
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we wouldn't have the same "fleet fuel economy" and "technology" without those standards... there are only assumptions. There ain't any way, unless you have some sort of magic crystal ball, you or anyone can know what we would, or would not have today without those regulations. For all you, or anyone knows, we might even have better fuel economy and technology... for all you, or anyone knows, those regulations have stifled advancement. That's the simple truth of it. And you can't use what did, or was happening in the 50's, 60's, or even the 70's as "evidence" either... you can only assume. Just because the technology didn't exist before the regulations, in no way means it (or even better) would've never existed without them. Heck, at one time tubeless tires were "magic".
Is it possible we'd be behind where we are today without those standards?? Absolutely it is... but it's just as possible we'd be way ahead.
Is it possible the technology would have been slower coming?? Absolutely it is... but it's just as possible it would have been cheaper, more reliable, and advanced at a greater rate once it came.
Most of us carry a pocket-sized device called a "smart phone" with many times over the computing power of the system that took man to the moon. So... tell me?? "Meeting" what government regulation or standard drove that development?? How about programmable microwave ovens the size of a bread box?? Flat screen TV's the size of a barn wall that weigh less than a 20-inch from the 80's?? Plastic firearms??
Taking credit, and actually deserving it... is two very different things.
Government does not create anything... except bureaucracy.
*
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
Proof is of course impossible, but evidence is not.
There was no evidence that auto manufacturers had any interest in investing in technologies to improve economy or reduce emissions.
Just as with chainsaws where the technology to make a fuel system with better fuel accuracy has existed for 50 years, and given how bad traditional saw carbs are major improvements would have been pathetically easy, absolutely nothing was done. When the regulations came out they rehashed cheap non-workable approaches that had failed in other industries multiple times, or showed how little investment they had been making in product development and simply went out of business like McCulloch. It took years to develop something workable - strong evidence that nothing was in development in spite of the foreseeable requirements.
All of this applies to safety standards too.
These things were not being developed because they would not help them make money in the short term.
But we will never agree on this.
firebrick43,
The space program took advantage of private sector developments... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development.
Jet engine powered aircraft was a German wartime invention, we simply responded... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development, aviation regulations came later.
Government funded R&D for mass production of antibiotics qualifies under Constitutional authority... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development, RX regulations came later.
The Interstate Highway System also qualifies under Constitutional authority, although the "reason" for building it did not... but, "regulation" by government is not what built it, highway regulations came later (and most are state regulations, not federal).
Each state has it's own gasoline standard for octane... that ain't a federal thing; the requirement for oxygenated gasoline is, which, by-the-way, reduces fuel mileage, so how does that save you fuel??
And you're flat-azz wrong about ethanol in Iowa... we had "gasohol" before there was any sort of government incentive, including from the state level.
*
The space program took advantage of private sector developments... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development.
Jet engine powered aircraft was a German wartime invention, we simply responded... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development, aviation regulations came later.
Government funded R&D for mass production of antibiotics qualifies under Constitutional authority... but, "regulation" by government is not what drove the development, RX regulations came later.
The Interstate Highway System also qualifies under Constitutional authority, although the "reason" for building it did not... but, "regulation" by government is not what built it, highway regulations came later (and most are state regulations, not federal).
Each state has it's own gasoline standard for octane... that ain't a federal thing; the requirement for oxygenated gasoline is, which, by-the-way, reduces fuel mileage, so how does that save you fuel??
And you're flat-azz wrong about ethanol in Iowa... we had "gasohol" before there was any sort of government incentive, including from the state level.
*
firebrick43
Life is all about big saws
Spidey you have a lot of your facts wr....
Never mind....
I am done. Somewhere a Brick wall is calling my forehead
I failed. Daddy always said, "never get in an argument with an idiot, they will just drag you down with to their level and beat you with experience."
And so it is.
Never mind....
I am done. Somewhere a Brick wall is calling my forehead
I failed. Daddy always said, "never get in an argument with an idiot, they will just drag you down with to their level and beat you with experience."
And so it is.
Yeah?? Really?? Hmmmmmm.....
That's just more BS.
Really?? No evidence?? No interest??
General Motors was working on the catalytic converter during the 60's, but leaded fuel caused a problem... they were working with oil companies to produce unleaded fuel before the regulations.
Ford, GM and AMC all began R&D into sub-compact, 4-cyl/6-cyl cars in the mid-60's, all three unveiled them in 1970... well before CAFE regulations.
The American made Nash offered seat belts as a option in 1949, Ford in 1955... and by 1960 most American made auto were fitted with them as standard equipment.
GM came out with their Air Cushion Restraint System during the 1970's... "regulation" didn't require air bags until 1989.
Chrysler was first with their "safety dashboard"... 1937‼
No evidence my azz...
*
they think,, if your old,, you have a dengenerate brain,, and because your a conservative,, you know nothing...............so much for that...what about the tucker??? waaayayyyyyyy ahead of its time,, but the big three, made sure it never came to fruition.......and two of those big three,,took gov bailouts,,which the American taxpayer paid for,, so the money could end up getting management of both places wayyy higher wages.....
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
Yes, in response to the higher fuel prices brought about by the peak in US oil production of the early 1970's Ford and GM panicked and rushed some real crap little cars to market. Chrysler did nothing, and AMC already had little(r) cars that nobody wanted and had no money to invest in something more competitive in a short time. This was a market Ford and GM had been totally ignoring previously.
And all of their belated fuel economy investments would have ceased as soon as we reached agreement to protect the Saudi royals in return for them pumping flat out (to juice the US economy and sink that of the USSR), which crashed the oil price again.
The purpose of the regulations was to create an incentive to continue the technology and product development outside of market forces.
That's just so wrong... it wasn't in response to 70's oil prices. The Vega, Pinto and Gremlin were all conceived, developed, tested and built during the 60's. In 1959 the price of a barrel of oil was $3.00, in 1970 when these cars were introduced it was $3.39... but adjusting for inflation the price of oil had gotten cheaper during that period ($24.07 / $20.43).
Oil prices had absolutely nothing with the making of those cars... NOTHING‼ That's some sort of urban myth... or flat plain propaganda.
It was nothing but competition and market share that drove the production of those cars... first there was the VW, but Toyota and Datsun both announce they'd be entering the US market during the 60's (Toyota appeared in '68, Datsun in '70).
The oil crisis of '73-'74 had an impact on the 1976 model year... but it wasn't even a a dream before that.
*
zogger
Tree Freak
Friend of mine had a datsun roadster in 69. First japanese car I ever saw.
you gots to stop destroying the leftists myths in their brain...............their "facts" get just a bit askew......
Similar threads
