So called EPA rated furnaces

[Fyrebug]

I asked yesterday to have our representative in government affairs to provide us with definitive data on the question: Is there such a thing as an EPA furnace?

I hope it finally put to rest this issue.

===

At the moment, there is no specific EPA test standard for measuring the emissions of solid-fuel burning central systems. It is possible to use the EPA wood stove test method. This method takes the average emissions of the unit over 4 burn categories (low, medium low, medium high, and high burn). So a furnace tested to the EPA standard with good results will generally burn much cleaner than a conventional furnace (or an uncertified one). There will be almost no visible smoke. It will normally provide a longer burn time since the EPA test method for wood stoves requires that the unit burns less than 1kg (2.2lbs) of wood per hour on its low setting.

The reason why we do not see more EPA-certified furnaces out there is due to the cost of engineering and testing those products (especially large ones). Since wood furnaces have never been regulated, most manufacturers in the industry are relatively small. The industry is still quite fragmented. In general, they do not have the engineering and/or financial resources to complete the full range of testing.

As for the excuse of not testing emissions due to the absence of a standard for large fireboxes, this is simply due to a lack of knowledge of what other test methods exist out there. It is true that the minimum burn rate requirement for EPA-certified furnaces limits the size of what can be tested. However, for larger units, a manufacturer can test to the CSAB415.1-10 Standard. The low output that must be achieved is set as a percentage of the high output. This therefore solves the problem of large fireboxes. We are starting to see a few large CSAB415.1-10 furnaces out there, like the Max Caddy from PSG.

Now, regarding efficiency, it is true that the EPA Standard is not an efficiency standard. It is an emissions standard. However, there again, there exists a recognized North American test method for measuring efficiency of solid-fuel burning central systems (i.e. boilers and furnaces). This method is contained in the CSAB415.1-10 Standard. As its number suggest, the CSAB415.1-10 Standard was revised in 2010. Some of the more advanced products out there were tested for efficiency under that standard. The Caddy line of EPA-furnaces from PSG is one of them.

Normally, the results are pretty impressive compared to conventional furnaces. This is due to their design. In order to burn cleaner, most EPA-certified furnaces have baffles that retain heat longer inside the unit and “force” gases through a longer path before they are released into the chimney. This is normally coupled with a sophisticated heat exchanger. The higher efficiency results we see out there for EPA-Certified furnaces is consistent with the validation testing that occurred during the CSAB415.1-10 standard review (I was personally a member of that technical committee). Intertek was mandated to conduct testing on a conventional furnace and a so-called “high-tech” furnace. The final report came in March 2009. Out of 14 test runs on the conventional furnace, the best emissions results were 38g/h with a stack loss efficiency of 67% (as a side note, the unit produced up to 122g/h). For the high-tech furnace (out of 17 runs), the best emissions results were 4.9g/h with a stack loss efficiency of 76%. Overall, the high-tech furnace was on average 85% cleaner than the conventional furnace and the efficiency was on average 10% higher.

On a last note, I would mention that EPA is currently reviewing its regulation and they will be regulating central systems. Chances are that EPA will use the test methodology contained in the CSAB415.1-10 Standard (for both emissions and efficiency). So for those people out there who still believe that EPA-certified furnaces are just a “scam”, I say: become a member of HPBA, get involved in your industry by participating in standard-setting committees, and educate yourself. Not only will you come out of this experience more knowledgeable, but if you work for a central system manufacturer, this will probably allow you to stay in business (and save your job!).

 

[CrappieKeith]

I guess I'llmake 1 more post on this thread..never say never I have heard...:bang:

To clarify...I have never named any product line or manufacture in this thread following the rules and wishes of management here at AS.

Now that PSG has made it's presence known here and that in fact I was referring to the Caddy in my postings.
I should say that in no way am I saying they do not build a fine product. In fact I am some what envious about how much money PSG has to test and market their product.
PSG is one of the big boys on the block to be true.

Being that they are Canadian made I also have no negative feelings in that regard.

However, I think that to advertise that the Caddy which is the only furnace PSG has on the approved stove list of the EPA as an EPA listed furnace is misleading. Not only misleading but in fact down right unfair in the marketing aspect here in the United States.

Alpha American Co. is a member of the HPBA and we are aware of what is coming down the pipe as to the New Source Performance Standard which will resemble the CSA B415.1
This standard is not law yet and has not yet been verified as such although it is out for final comment which means that the standard can still be changed or modified.
In a teleconference where all of the manufactures in the US were on I made the point that the standard should reflect the Canadian version for the simple point of having an even playing field between our 2 countries.

A few days ago I was in contact with John Dupree of the EPA who is the team leader for the wood heating division.
John confirmed that the Caddy was tested to the stove criteria and that it was not tested as a furnace nor did the approval list it as a furnace. It listed it as a room heater or stove.
I asked since the Caddy had the Canadian B415.1 ...he said it did not matter as to the US. We have no test for furnaces ...yet.
He also mentioned that it was almost impossible for our large furnace to pass the stove test.

So...herein lie my concern...we have a set of rules to follow made by government entities that are not engineers..like in the state of Washington.
As a matter of fact the EPA even looked to the furnace and stove manufactures to supply the data needed to produce a standard.
I believe the NSPS will be a good thing for consumers. It will in fact cost an enormous amount of money which will be reflected in our pricing as it comes to fruition.
Not only will the testing be done ,but if modification need to be made we will also have to go through all new safety testing with Underwritters labs.
When you look at that times 6 furnaces...yes it could get up to a half million dollars by the time it is all said and done.
I doubt it will be that being I've seen some primarily testing and our furnaces already show very little negatives. Depending on what the final grams per hour are we may need to do no mods what so ever.

I've always tried to play fair and make the playing field even no matter in a sales call or to being on the water fishing with a bet for the biggest and the most of our target species.

As with PSG..I am awaiting for a final response from the EPA in this matter.

 

[lampmfg]

Quote Originally Posted by Felman View Post
It seems to me that INTERTEK voluntary 3rd party evaluation provides an even playing field for all furnace evaluations so why don't you do the testing & simply publish the results?
I guess you didn't read....Intertek or any of the other Federally approved labs can do the test..like Omni for example ,but the criteria is for stoves......

Being you only have 4 posts I question who you really are...maybe hiding something....

A test is only about 8 grand...then multiple that times as many times as you want to retest...oh yes they will retest and they will tweak and twist to comply. Then multiply that times 6 furnaces.

We are a smaller company and we try to be competitive in pricing. Doing a bunch of testing to protocols for stoves which is unfair due to the sizes of fuel loads and large fireboxes...and then with another set of protocols for testing coming in another year forcing us to add much more to the pricing of the furnaces just does not make sense.


If your insinuating that Felman is us it's not and I have no clue who he is, but there is nothing wrong with what he says about the independent testing.

We are a small company as well and did spend a lot of time and money on this approach, which resulted in:
.45 Gr/Hr. Emmission
99.4% Combustion Efficiency
99% Smokeless Burns
84% Overall Efficiency

 

[046]

As a consumer I know that marketing of products can be twisted and very confusing. Just the terms we use in burning wood can be confusing..for example I hear the term wood stove which could mean anything burning wood.

In truth a wood stove is an appliance that does burn wood. It does not hook to ducting and are typically a smallish appliance made to heat a room or two. In some cases depending on how open the home is and how warm the climate is a stove could heat a home. It will have the main room awfully hot with the adjoining rooms coolish,but it will or can heat a home. They are marketed sometimes as zone heaters.

To have a more even heat and better control a wood furnace is the better option for most...not all.
A wood furnace typically hooks to ducting where you have a warm air supply and a cold air return.
Wood furnaces also have much more thermal mass ..well at least the better ones do and way more heat exchange surface area. For example a stove may have 8-10 square feet vs. a furnace that has 50-80 square feet like the Yukons.

Better wood furnaces and stoves have a way to burn off the smoke from the top of a fire. This process will make an extra 30%-40%of the available btu's in that lb of wood. Of coarse moisture contents will vary the solid mass...wood's ability to turn itself into a gas which is what actually is burning. The less water in the wood allows the gases to be made more easily.
The 3 processes are catalytic,up flow and down flow gasification.

Ok....without naming names...there's this smallish furnace being marketed as an EPA certified furnace. Talking to Mr. John Dupree of the EPA..he said this small furnace was tested to the stove test and that it was approved as a stove...not a furnace. As John admitted there is no test in the US for furnaces as of yet.

Talking to a few different engineers in the wood heating industry the topic of particulates which is what the
EPA tests for vs efficiency came up.All admitted that you can burn wood cleanly with a way to burn smoke and that if more air up to a point is added the emmisions really are cleaner...but that efficiencies suffer. They also admitted that if there is not enough heat exchange surface area even more heat is wasted with higher flue gas/stack temperatures being evident.

Another wood burning industry pro said to me that it is really misleading the public to get certification on one unit but adding their other product line to the same marketing ie...websites...signatures and printed materials.

My suggestion is that the buyer beware...it is vital to become educated when investing.

I've suggested many times that to look at the btu output and weight when comparing appliances.
Look at the heat exchange surface area.
A small furnace tested to stove standards may not actually do well heating a larger home in a colder climate. Sure it may be rated as a maximum to make 100,000 btu's ,but you have to ask yourself...what kind of burn times could I expect. Common sense should tell you that to max out anything the life of it will be shorter and the burn times will be less.

To end ...just because it may be low in particulates does not mean it is efficient nor does it mean it will heat your entire home. We all have different heating needs. Those that live in warmer climates may do well with this type of smaller furnace. Those that live in colder climates or those that have not so well insulated home may suffer short burn times.

excellent writeup and worth reading a few times, if one is in the market for a new wood stove. a LOT of info condensed above.

1. besides burning clean, which can be easily verified by the amount of smoke coming out (after stove reaches operating temps) one should see almost NO smoke if stove is burning clean. another long term benefit of clean burning wood stoves is almost no creosote is left inside pipe. one should still check at least once a season just to be safe.

2. one has to factor in typical burn times and what types of fuel and size of wood can stove tolerate. does the wood have to be under 18% moisture to burn correctly and under 15in to fit inside stove, etc. is the typical burn times 4-6 hours or 5-10 hours?

3. what is the efficiency of stove in terms of heat exchange? how many square feet of heat exchange area is available? matters not if most of your heat is going up pipe. ideally your exiting smoke should be lowest possible temps. which can contradict need to keep a HOT fire to burn clean. in other words, heat exchange should take place in such a manner as not to bring down fire's operating temps.

4. generally fireplace inserts are the hardest to spread heat about the house. a free standing stove can be more easily strategically placed to help spread heat. everyone's layout presents different problems in getting heat out to far ends of house.

technology for producing a super high efficient wood stove has been around for 100+ years in the form of Russian Wood Stoves. it meets all above criteria and still is one of the most efficient wood stove available.

main drawback with Russian wood stoves is due to massive amount of masonry needed. the most practical time to install is when house is built. If I ever build a house from scratch. without question a Russian wood stove will be part of plans.

for most of us a Russian wood stove is not an option. but recognizing how it works gives insight to what actually makes an efficient wood stove.

 

[Highbeam]

This idea that a stove can not heat a home seems to be crippling our minds here. If, as I, you realize that a stove is very capable of heating the majority of homes then it is not a large leap to apply the EPA stove tests to a furnace. A furnace is just a stove with the blower feeding a duct instead of just blowing into the room is it not?

I like yukons and appreciate the input from Keith. Most of his arguments assume that a stove is not a furnace, I think that is a fine line.

I live in WA and am unable to legally install a yukon.

 

[CrappieKeith]

This idea that a stove can not heat a home seems to be crippling our minds here. If, as I, you realize that a stove is very capable of heating the majority of homes then it is not a large leap to apply the EPA stove tests to a furnace. A furnace is just a stove with the blower feeding a duct instead of just blowing into the room is it not?

I like yukons and appreciate the input from Keith. Most of his arguments assume that a stove is not a furnace, I think that is a fine line.

I live in WA and am unable to legally install a yukon.

I can see how you might think. I know that when I started here I thought all homes needed heat like we do here in Mn. After my 1st sale to Georgia I had learned that our Polar that heats 4000 s/f does not do it very well...it was too big of a furnace. This is when I learned about what heat loads were.

I also learned that seasons run differently...heck just between us and Mpls for example..I'm still on the ice in April when all of the lakes 3 hours south are open.

In certain areas of the country a stove can heat a home...if the heat load is lighter of coarse. There are also different sizes of stoves for different size homes. I'm really not that dense..ok maybe a little.

Ya know...I've been reading threads for years...not only here but in other wood burning forums. I have seen many postings about ..how can I get the heat through my home with my stove and then come all of the weird answers...stick blowers in the wall...you name it on the suggestions.
Just today...
http://www.arboristsite.com/firewood-heating-wood-burning-equipment/182248.htm

I've also seen the how can I get longer burn times in my stove..and the top down burning suggestions come along with add a few pieces of green wood....again the suggestions are allover the place.

It appears to me many of these folks could really use a furnace. Some have no ducting or no room so adding a furnace does not work without some serious cash out lay for making adjustments. Ergo a stove..in some places/parts of the country...just what the doctor ordered.

That is not what we are talking about...and you may infer I'm splitting hairs. However rules are rules....
The wood heating market is huge and vary vast...when you look at OWB's,fireplaces,pellet burners,stoves,furnaces there are a ton of choices depending on what the customer wants or needs.

All I've asked is that there be a bit of truth in marketing...bait & switch is not anywhere close to that idealism. Then again many consumers have been deceived over the years..they seem to have been numbed to these tactics...used to them in fact.

Like I said..we will see what the EPA's legal dept say's about this issue. At least that's what I was told...I've since received intel that says nothing will change...there's too much money at stake.

Again it looks like politics rules......but we will see what the out come says.

 

[Encore]

Keith Ill preface this by saying you really do clearly know much much more than I do and I've found this thread very informative.

For myself it boiled down to cost. We have a ranch style, open floor plan 1600sq ft house with two bedrooms and 1.5bath.

Our VC stove heats our home very comfortably. We don't do the box fan stuff, we just run our stove.

When I looked at the furnaces, a couple of things popped out at me. For one, the cost was much more, the second was much higher cost in installation.

Another potential problem was we lose power probably 2-3 times a winter for extended periods of time (we live way out by the Amish, I think the power company figures you don't need power if you live out here lol)

So for us, a stove made a lot of sense? Sure there is a 2-5 degree difference between the living area/kitchen and our bedroom, but personally I like sleeping in a cooler room.

Sure the heat isn't as even as it'd be with a furnace, but for us the cost was right, relatively low maintance and no issues when the power goes out.

However, your opinions on wood furnaces sure do make sense. My only question is, if a person were going to go the furnace route, why not go for an OWB? For myself, in this area, I could get a hardy heater for just about the same price as a wood furnace.

 

[Fyrebug]

All I've asked is that there be a bit of truth in marketing...bait & switch is not anywhere close to that idealism. Then again many consumers have been deceived over the years..they seem to have been numbed to these tactics...used to them in fact.

Like I said..we will see what the EPA's legal dept say's about this issue. At least that's what I was told...I've since received intel that says nothing will change...there's too much money at stake.

Again it looks like politics rules......but we will see what the out come says.

So can we call a truce and get back to educate the folks here on AS rather than split hairs and bicker?

As a last favor, I would request you look at the definition of 'Bait-and-Switch'. Bait-and-switch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These comments in the past were directed toward those MFG who certified their furnaces with EPA. If that is the case, there is no ‘Bait’ since EPA.gov list all EPA furnaces that meet their test protocol as ‘EPA Certified’. They also get their approval from EPA. Therefore it is a legally truthful statement.

There is also no ‘switch’ since the customer gets the product as advertised.

Your statements therefore do not meet the legal or ‘real’ definition of ‘bait & switch’ or “false advertising”. I suggest you refrain from using such terminology regarding the status of other MFG's in the future.

 

[CrappieKeith]

So can we call a truce and get back to educate the folks here on AS rather than split hairs and bicker?

As a last favor, I would request you look at the definition of 'Bait-and-Switch'. Bait-and-switch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These comments in the past were directed toward those MFG who certified their furnaces with EPA. If that is the case, there is no ‘Bait’ since EPA.gov list all EPA furnaces that meet their test protocol as ‘EPA Certified’. They also get their approval from EPA. Therefore it is a legally truthful statement.

There is also no ‘switch’ since the customer gets the product as advertised.

Your statements therefore do not meet the legal or ‘real’ definition of ‘bait & switch’ or “false advertising”. I suggest you refrain from using such terminology regarding the status of other MFG's in the future.

I meant exactly what I said...the caddy was tested to stove standards...the EPA confirms this and they said to me..I'm not making this up..that the caddy is certified as a stove...not a furnace.

so to get a stove certification then market it as a furnace...they also said there was an issue here.

So yes to test as a stove and then claim a furnace certification...I call that bait and switch....then again I'm just some northern hick from a small town...I think I know what a dictionary is....I saw one in school once.

I'm all about educating the consumer....that's what this thread has been all about.
..and again Fryebug....I started this thread without naming names.
You are the one who came on this thread and brought your name into it....for what I do not know.

So to call a truce...I've never been at war...just stating facts.

By the by ...in that pm...warning me to not burn bridges and that I may need a job.....that was great...I needed a chuckle.

I've also been busy on facebook and our forum educating others.
I should add all calls here are recorded..so I have proof of what the EPA said and if they recant and give the caddy a pass then I'll also be big enough to come out and say just what they said.
Don't you just love these David vs Goliath scenarios...and your pal you had pm me...spoke to him too....he didn't sway me either.

So to end this I'm going to try to leave this lay until such time the the EPA gets back to me with their response from their legal dept.

I feel bad that my initial intentions of just making that single post could not be what it was and how it morphed into what it has turned into.

 

[Fyrebug]

Now that the air is starting to clear out on the matter maybe we can put things in context for educational purpose.

I was not around for the first round of EPA legislation regarding wood stoves back in the 80's. But one thing is certain, the amount of hand wringing on the part of MFG's, dealers, users were far greater than it is about this little thread on wood furnace.

The reason there is not a huge outcry (outside of this thread) regarding new EPA legislation is we now have 25 years to look back on to see what has been achieved. Had the legislation been a bad thing over that period for MFG, Dealers, Users and the environment you bet your bottom dollar the industry represented by HPBA would have fought tooth and nails against the upcoming changes. Instead, The environment benefited (less pollution), the users most definitely benefited (less cordwood, less chimney fires, more efficiencies and more choice), MFG who embraced it also saw it as an opportunity rather than a threat. Those willing to move with the times got a bigger piece of the pie.

So it seems this is not so much a thread about 'furnaces' per se, but rather a willingness to embrace opportunities.

Look... a 1958 Cadillac is a nice car. It weights a couple tons, the engine comes with specs such as Horsepower, torque etc... We are not driving 1950's car anymore. Why? because technology has allowed us to have the same or greater horsepower while using less gasoline and less pollution. It has also allowed us to drive with greater safety and more comfort. Some of these changes were mandated by the free market, EPA, DOT, DOE and other bodies.

I have an older house with a medium efficiency natural gas furnace. It is quite big but works ok. I was at a trade show recently and was amazed on how small the new gas furnaces are. They have multiple graduated pulsing stage input (whatever that is) up to 98% efficient, DC Drive motors (can work on a battery), very compact exchange area, more BTU than mine and I mean it's not much bigger than a coffee table. If mine breaks down that's what I want.

The same can apply to many other examples you can think of where either through free market and/or government intervention technology has made things better for us the consumer.

The same principles applies to wood furnaces. They too need to catch up with new technologies. They are getting smaller because they are more efficient. But how is a consumer to determine 'what is what' when making purchases? With cars, fridges, stoves, gas furnaces etc... it's easy. You look at the government labels to see HP, mileage, efficiencies etc.. While not perfect you are fairly confident as a consumer every one of those MFG were on the same level ground when it came to testing and make an educated choice accordingly. You don't really have to put up with the marketing BS since the government has done it's own independent testing.

Wouldn't be nice for Joe Consumer to have the same luxury of knowing their biomass furnace meet some sort of efficiency & emission standards verified by a third party? How could that be a bad thing? Then you could compare and really exercise your free market choice. This is what the new EPA legislation seek to establish. And frankly its not an easy task for any MFG since they have to bear the cost of implementing these things. But if not now, it will never happen on its own and the consumer, the environment and yes even the MFG will miss out on a great opportunity.

 

[Whiteash]

Quote Originally Posted by Felman View Post
It seems to me that INTERTEK voluntary 3rd party evaluation provides an even playing field for all furnace evaluations so why don't you do the testing & simply publish the results?
I guess you didn't read....Intertek or any of the other Federally approved labs can do the test..like Omni for example ,but the criteria is for stoves......

Being you only have 4 posts I question who you really are...maybe hiding something....

A test is only about 8 grand...then multiple that times as many times as you want to retest...oh yes they will retest and they will tweak and twist to comply. Then multiply that times 6 furnaces.

We are a smaller company and we try to be competitive in pricing. Doing a bunch of testing to protocols for stoves which is unfair due to the sizes of fuel loads and large fireboxes...and then with another set of protocols for testing coming in another year forcing us to add much more to the pricing of the furnaces just does not make sense.


If your insinuating that Felman is us it's not and I have no clue who he is, but there is nothing wrong with what he says about the independent testing.

We are a small company as well and did spend a lot of time and money on this approach, which resulted in:
.45 Gr/Hr. Emmission
99.4% Combustion Efficiency
99% Smokeless Burns
84% Overall Efficiency

Can you please do me a favor? Will you explain to me how the overall efficiency of your furnace is 84% when to exceed 83% requires a condensing furnace? Is your furnace a condensing furnace with a hose dripping water into a drain? Thank You

 

[CrappieKeith]

Now your talking Fryebug...great post!

Whiteash...I saw that ,but decided to walk by it...WTG!

 

[Stove Geek]

Whatever people say...

I was reading the thread and I find it sad to read about the comments on the EPA certified furnaces. One of my customer used to burn a conventional wood furnace and was counting the wood consumption by 'pick up loads'. He was using one pick up load a week with his old NON-EPA furnace. He has been burning his EPA furnace for two winters now, and he reported that his 'pick up load' now lasts 3 weeks. So he is saving 66% on wood with his EPA furnace. So whether this is a stove standard or not, the fact is that the EPA furnaces burn cleaner and more efficiently. We've sold numerous furnaces in our area and I do not know anyone that would go back to NON-EPA units. Just like none of us would go back to black and white TVs...Crappie Keith: Once you discover EPA fireboxes, your will understand it. You sound like a smart person; make yourself a favor and burn an EPA furnace and see it for yourself. That's what we did!

 

[Whitespider]

Well, thank you CrappieKieth… Great information.
I’m guilty… I always call my wood burning appliance a stove, when it’s actually a furnace.

I’ve been slammed several times here on the board because of my comments referring to EPA certification, or the so-called EPA stoves. As usual, when the government gets involved things involving personal liberty or fair trade it gets screwed-up, abused, or just flat corrupt. Not that the motivations aren’t well-intentioned… just that it rarely works out as intended.

I’ve said al along that EPA certification does not automatically mean the appliance is clean and/or efficient… just as non-certification does not automatically mean the appliance is dirty and/or inefficient. Non-certification does not necessarily mean the appliance failed, or will fail the tests… maybe they just haven’t been tested. Very, very clean-burning and efficient wood-burning appliances were being built before the EPA was a twinkling in Carter’s eye… but there were also cheap crappy appliances. I remember way back when many people around here were building double-barrel stoves (I built two and heated my home with one for a few years)… one barrel over the other with the upper (sometimes smaller) barrel used as a secondary burn chamber, complete with baffles with its own air intake control. When the lower barrel got hot enough to ignite the smoke in that upper barrel the amount of heat thrown off was amazing, and the chimney showed only heat waves. That was in the early 70’s, and I know of two still being used in shops… made from 30-gallon barrels (rather than 55-gallon) and extremely clean burning and efficient, home-made wood-burning appliances. Rather than fire-brick, they use an internal “false-wall” with the space filled with a layer of sand.

You are correct… buyer beware.

 

[CrappieKeith]

 

[Whiteash]

I was reading the thread and I find it sad to read about the comments on the EPA certified furnaces. One of my customer used to burn a conventional wood furnace and was counting the wood consumption by 'pick up loads'. He was using one pick up load a week with his old NON-EPA furnace. He has been burning his EPA furnace for two winters now, and he reported that his 'pick up load' now lasts 3 weeks. So he is saving 66% on wood with his EPA furnace. So whether this is a stove standard or not, the fact is that the EPA furnaces burn cleaner and more efficiently. We've sold numerous furnaces in our area and I do not know anyone that would go back to NON-EPA units. Just like none of us would go back to black and white TVs...Crappie Keith: Once you discover EPA fireboxes, your will understand it. You sound like a smart person; make yourself a favor and burn an EPA furnace and see it for yourself. That's what we did!

Thing is I dont think the issue at hand here is the quality of the unit at all. The issue is that the "furnace" is being marketed here in the US as an EPA certified furnace and the truth is there is no such test therefore no such thing. I imagine an EPA "stove" not hooked to duct work and sitting in my den would meet the EPA standard for emmissions so that is not an issue. But now I've got it hooked to my duct work and its working 10 times as hard as it was sitting in my den because the house is 10 times larger than the den. Thats 10 times the heat, ten times the emmissions, etc etc etc.
Marketing an EPA wood stove as a whole house furnace is like the time I got 45 mpg with my 3/4 ton suburban coming back from washington to billings MT. True story, I fillled it just across the border and then again in Billings and 45 mpg was what I got. But then if anyone knows I-90 through there coming east they know that I spend 100 miles with the truck in neutral, my foot off the gas riding the brake down the mountain, and still doing well over 70 miles an hour.

Would it be right of me to slap a for sale sign on it in Billings and tell potential buyers I get 45 mpg with it?

 

[Fyrebug]

The issue is that the "furnace" is being marketed here in the US as an EPA certified furnace and the truth is there is no such test therefore no such thing.

I think there is a lot of semantic and playing with words here. Your points have been answered in this thread a few times. But for educational purpose i'll re-iterate.

Anyone, including Yukon can take their furnace and submit it for EPA emission testing which was designed for wood stoves. If you pass... EPA will issue you certification paper after their own inspector verifies the results in a independent lab. You are then legally free to use the 'EPA Certified' logo in your marketing material and along your other certification info in your manual (UL, CSA, ASTM).

Does this mean that now you've passed an EPA wood stove emission test your furnace is no longer a furnace but a wood stove? That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

As a matter of fact, it quite admirable that a full fledged forced air furnace could pass EPA emission testing. Think about it, its passing the same tests as a small wood stove (rating of below 7.6 g/hr). The bigger the firebox the more difficult it is to pass. It's like asking a dump truck to get the same gas mileage as a ford focus. So frankly, hats off to any wood furnace manufacturers out there who have passed this test. It is very, very difficult and requires the implementation of new technology, engineering & design to make the furnace burn cleaner and more efficiently. Ask Kuuma what is involved with these tests.

What does this mean to Joe Consumer? I'll repeat what a gentleman with HPBA said in a previous post in this thread "At the moment, there is no specific EPA test standard for measuring the emissions of solid-fuel burning central systems. It is possible to use the EPA wood stove test method. This method takes the average emissions of the unit over 4 burn categories (low, medium low, medium high, and high burn). So a furnace tested to the EPA standard with good results will generally burn much cleaner than a conventional furnace (or an uncertified one). There will be almost no visible smoke. It will normally provide a longer burn time since the EPA test method for wood stoves requires that the unit burns less than 1kg (2.2lbs) of wood per hour on its low setting."

In January of this year, EPA plans to announce a testing certification protocol for Biomass Furnace. This will take into account the size of the firebox and will include efficiency testing. Then every MFG will be on the same footing and the consumer will be able to have more info when making a purchasing decision.

 

[lampmfg]

Can you please do me a favor? Will you explain to me how the overall efficiency of your furnace is 84% when to exceed 83% requires a condensing furnace? Is your furnace a condensing furnace with a hose dripping water into a drain? Thank You

How about I just post the independent test results instead :biggrin::

Kuuma VaporFire 100 Test Date 8/5/10 LHV 83.5% http://www.lamppakuuma.com/Lamppa%20MFG/Test%20Results-Intertek/Vapor%20Fire%20100%20signed.pdf

Kuuma VaporFire 200 Test Date7/27/10 Medium Burn LHV 84.4%, Low Burn LHV 86.3% http://www.lamppakuuma.com/Lamppa%20MFG/Test%20Results-Intertek/Vapor%20Fire%20200%201,2%20signed.pdf

 

[Whiteash]

How about a just post the independent test results instead :biggrin::

Kuuma VaporFire 100 Test Date 8/5/10 LHV 83.5% http://www.lamppakuuma.com/Lamppa%20MFG/Test%20Results-Intertek/Vapor%20Fire%20100%20signed.pdf

Kuuma VaporFire 200 Test Date7/27/10 Medium Burn LHV 84.4%, Low Burn LHV 86.3% http://www.lamppakuuma.com/Lamppa%20MFG/Test%20Results-Intertek/Vapor%20Fire%20200%201,2%20signed.pdf

Thank you for doing that, very informative.
Those percentages are using the lower heating value which makes sence how you can have those numbers without being condensing.

 

[Coldfront]

It seems to me when ever politics and government regulations come in play nothing good ever comes from it, just higher prices. New technology competition and more efficient stoves/furnaces meaning more heat and burn less wood will be popular and in demand, and a byproduct of heating a home better and using less wood will be cleaner exhaust emissions. I just wish the politics and government regulations would stay out of it.