So called EPA rated furnaces

[CrappieKeith]

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.

 

[Guido Salvage]

Knowledge is a great thing as it allows one to make an informed and educated decision. All to often people only hear (or know) a portion of what is available and thus end up making a poor choice.

 

[Fyrebug]

Hey Keith, How are your doing. May I remind you of the forum rule #20?

20. You are not permitted to post or insinuate false information about members as well as sponsors. If you have never owned or used (at great length) a product offered by one of the sponsors, you are not permitted to comment on the value, validity, or effectiveness of these products or services.

 

[CrappieKeith]

I have not mentioned any names and am only quoting conversations with industry professionals.

It is my goal to educate wood burners with true statements....I'm certainly sorry if you are offended....however I am not breaking any forum rules.

 

[Felman]

Kuuma volunteered for 3rd party testing?

Intertek? Seems to me this would be an objective evaluation & would save a lot of spin

 

[CrappieKeith]

further thoughts....volunteered testing...there is a provision of this with furnaces.
However you do not see any larger wood furnaces that have complied..why?

Well without getting to in depth or technical the testing method 28 and 5G that are listed in the EPA 40/60 subpart AAA would be unfair and truly impossible for the larger furnaces to pass such tests.
The fireboxes and load sizes are much to large to end up with a positive outcome.John at the EPA even made such a statement...

In truth it has been only the western states that called for stoves to have this test because of the smoke inversion normally found in the valleys that are common out west. They have also pushed the EPA to have a furnace set of testing criteria which is what is known as the New Source Performance Standard. This standard looks to be much more fair and designed for furnaces to be able to comply.

By the year 2014 all wood burning appliances will have to meet some level of particulates to be rates and even allowed to be sold in the US. It also looks like coal burners will also have a standard too.
Even fireplaces will be regulated.

So...there it is...I have other opinions on all of this but I'll hold on them for another thread.
In the mean time..as a consumer there are some things you should be aware of. Hopefully this thread has cleared up some confusion for you.

 

[M.Antonio]

EPA-Certified Furnaces Offer Real Benefits

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. Since wood furnaces have never been regulated, most manufacturers in the industry are relatively small. In general, they do not have the engineering and/or financial resources to complete the full range of testing. Now, regarding efficiency, it is true that the EPA Standard is not an efficiency standard. It is an emissions standard. However, 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, it was revised in 2010. There are more advanced products out there that 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 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%. 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!).

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.

 

[Felman]

further thoughts....volunteered testing...there is a provision of this with furnaces.
However you do not see any larger wood furnaces that have complied..why?

Well without getting to in depth or technical the testing method 28 and 5G that are listed in the EPA 40/60 subpart AAA would be unfair and truly impossible for the larger furnaces to pass such tests.
The fireboxes and load sizes are much to large to end up with a positive outcome.John at the EPA even made such a statement...

In truth it has been only the western states that called for stoves to have this test because of the smoke inversion normally found in the valleys that are common out west. They have also pushed the EPA to have a furnace set of testing criteria which is what is known as the New Source Performance Standard. This standard looks to be much more fair and designed for furnaces to be able to comply.

By the year 2014 all wood burning appliances will have to meet some level of particulates to be rates and even allowed to be sold in the US. It also looks like coal burners will also have a standard too.
Even fireplaces will be regulated.

So...there it is...I have other opinions on all of this but I'll hold on them for another thread.
In the mean time..as a consumer there are some things you should be aware of. Hopefully this thread has cleared up some confusion for you.

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?

 

[ziggo_2]

Hey Keith, How are your doing. May I remind you of the forum rule #20?

20. You are not permitted to post or insinuate false information about members as well as sponsors. If you have never owned or used (at great length) a product offered by one of the sponsors, you are not permitted to comment on the value, validity, or effectiveness of these products or services.

Publicly posting pictures of your customers shady installs and making fun of them probably isnt in the rules but it sure isnt helping your reputation.



I didnt see anybodys names put out. i didnt even see the name of his company in there. He was just passing on the conversation he had.



Anybody can sell a stove or furnace to someone. It the salesman that goes the extra mile to make sure the customer is getting the right product, getting it installed right. That keeps that customer coming back.

I personally talked to Keith on the phone. He helped me get my furnace working in tip top shape. I didnt buy a yukon furnace but he was willing to help anyway he could (time he couldve spent making a sale). Never once pressuring me into buying his product. I believe him to be a stand up guy.

 

[CrappieKeith]

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.

We already know that we make a very efficient furnace and have been a manufacture that 1st came up with the secondary hot air for gasification that others have copied after the patent expired. We proved that by taking 80% of the air for combustion under and through a fire it produced 60% of the btu's in a lb of wood...then by taking the other 20% of the combustion air and super heating it ...then to bring that air just above the fire we proved out that we could make the other 30%-40% of the btu's available by burning off that smoke. We did need to add dense firebrick to maintain a very hot environment to aid in that process.
We then added many square feet of heat exchange surface area to draw out that heat. We had to or face the option of letting the heat escape out the flue like so many of out competitors. Flue temps are at a low 300-400 degrees and at normal operating cycles no smoke visible out the flue.


This thread is not about Yukon....this thread is about customers getting the correct intel about the false claims of a small furnace getting EPA certified as a stove only then marketing all of their products EPA certified furnaces.
Buyer Beware....

Just use your common sense...if a lb.of wood that is seasoned can make about 6800-8000 btus and a small firebox can only handle a few cubic feet of wood it is physically impossibleto make say 100,000 btu's per hour with heat loads that are very heavy like below 0 and do that all night like for 8-10 hours.
Then again some guys can freeze water when they cool it to 50 degrees.LOL..yup...it's physics folks and you just can't do the math to get those far stretched conclusions...this is where marketing goes awry...
this point may be lost..to repeat...EPA is only concerned with particulates.
THEY DO NOT TEST FOR EFFICIENCY.
There is no real correlation between a clean burner and a burner that can transmit "all" not some ...ALL OF THE HEAT LESS WHAT IS NEEDED TO CREATE THE LOWEST DRAFT POSSIBLE thereby sending out the smallest amount of heat and keeping the most in the home.

...almost forgot..thanks Ziggo...nice to have you speak up.
I hope everything continues to go well for you and if you need any more advice you can call me toll free..

 

[Hedgerow]

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?

Psshhh.... Then there are those of us who don't care what they have to say... Marketing is marketing... Whether you pay a lab to do it for you, or pay a salesman. Particulates? Honestly? I could care less. All the stove and furnace builders on this site can make for a warm house if you heed their advise... Just sayin...
:amazed:

 

[Felman]

Being in the market for a wood furnace, I have to rely on objective third party testing. I'm not an engineer but 'UNBURNED PARTICULATES" SOUNDS LIKE CREOSOTE IN THE CHIMNEY which I wish to avoid.

 

[Hedgerow]

Being in the market for a wood furnace, I have to rely on objective third party testing. I'm not an engineer but 'UNBURNED PARTICULATES" SOUNDS LIKE CREOSOTE IN THE CHIMNEY which I wish to avoid.

I think in this case, "Unburned Particulates" would be referring to "Smoke"... I agree though... Creosote is "BAD"... But if it ain't cool, it don't stick... :msp_wink:

 

[slowp]

I've had or been around a few woodstoves. In addition to national EPA rules, Washington State put on tougher standards.

I now live in what is considered to be a mild climate. I have a new house, which is well insulated. I have noticed that the new woodstove does not seem to hold a fire all night like the old ones did. However, I don't want it to keep it burning all night, I like a cold bedroom, and there is no danger of pipes freezing. If I put a lot of wood in it, the house gets too warm. Usually a fire in the morning, and maybe one later keeps things just right. I do go through a lot of kindling.

My friend who got a new stove says his will have coals in it in the morning. He likes a warm house all night.

So, maybe it is me instead of the stove? We both like our stoves. The latter is most important.

Like Keith said, wood furnaces are rare west of the Rockies. My friend's house and mine both have stoves in the center of the house. They do the job.

 

[CrappieKeith]

Being in the market for a wood furnace, I have to rely on objective third party testing. I'm not an engineer but 'UNBURNED PARTICULATES" SOUNDS LIKE CREOSOTE IN THE CHIMNEY which I wish to avoid.

I'll say it again......third party testing tests to the method 28 & 5G..a stove set of protocols.
There are no furnaces that comply with the test in the US.
EPA does not have a test for furnaces.

Not being an engineer you should rely on the pros. To keep reiterating yourself after I've explained...creosote can be formed any times flue gases drop below 250 degrees. Air itself can turn to liquid and it doesn't have particulates at all from wood. Natural gas or propane emmisions will condense to liquid hence condensing gas furnaces with drain hoses and condensate pans. Oil furnaces can condense by lowering draft speeds below.02" of water column.

The key is all about flue gas temps. when we talk about flue gases condensing.

Our furnaces stay above that level and do not creosote up....unless the user burns wet wood and there's no furnace or stove that is efficient that will not load up with wet wood.
Flue not insulated are also creosote makers. So are over sized masonry flues or installs were there are too many bends in the flue or too much length in the horizontal pipe or lack of make up combustion air...there are many thing that can cause creosote...and they all have to do with flue gas temps.

Take any EPA stove and hook it up to a cold flue or have any of the conditions I've just mentioned and it will load up with creosote.

Particulates......do not equate fully to massive creosote buildups or efficiency levels.

EPA certified wood furnaces.....no such animal ..wood furnace tested to wood stove for the purpose of a stove and then marketed as a furnace...oh yes.

I call that bait and switch....soon we will see the new marketing once the legal branch of the EPA drafts the letter to those that offend the certification.

 

[laynes69]

Who cares, it meets EPA's emission levels to be certified and it's a furnace. I don't care if it's called a thingy ma jig. The EPA lists the certified units as appliances, it's all in the wording. To be technical, how can a manufacturer claim tax credits when the units are listed as wood/coal. Coal is not a biomass fuel which biomass is what the credit was for. I did 3 years worth of research before I purchased what I did. Why? I didn't need a salesman from a company to tell me about them, that's what the web is for. There are many forums, and I spoke with many users.
I have seen the many benefits, as well as others from the EPA.

 

[Fyrebug]

I'll say it again......third party testing tests to the method 28 & 5G..a stove set of protocols.
There are no furnaces that comply with the test in the US.

EPA does not have a test for furnaces.

EPA certified wood furnaces.....no such animal ..wood furnace tested to wood stove for the purpose of a stove and then marketed as a furnace...oh yes.

I call that bait and switch....soon we will see the new marketing once the legal branch of the EPA drafts the letter to those that offend the certification.

Perhaps you should complain to the State of Washington, which requires furnaces and boilers to be EPA-certified!

Don’t you find it funny that a State would require a specific standard to be met for furnaces if that standard could not be applied to the appliance?

The bottom line is this: a furnace can be tested to the stove standard for emissions. The standard provides a very good indication of the unit’s performance with regards to emissions. We will save a special thought for you every time we sell a furnace in Washington State.

 

[Hedgerow]

Who cares, it meets EPA's emission levels to be certified and it's a furnace. I don't care if it's called a thingy ma jig. The EPA lists the certified units as appliances, it's all in the wording. To be technical, how can a manufacturer claim tax credits when the units are listed as wood/coal. Coal is not a biomass fuel which biomass is what the credit was for. I did 3 years worth of research before I purchased what I did. Why? I didn't need a salesman from a company to tell me about them, that's what the web is for. There are many forums, and I spoke with many users.
I have seen the many benefits, as well as others from the EPA.

What the hell gives the government the right to give someone my tax dollar for purchasing ANYTHING??? If they want to give it away, they can just give it back!!! I'll put it to better use...:msp_sneaky:

 

[CrappieKeith]

I can no longer post on this thread. I have been warned to stay away from battling with competition by mngt.I have held true to not saying a company name yet the competitor finds themselves in a position to defend their false marketing practices.

So to stay to the high road I am done with this thread...New information will be provided when the EPA responds back with their legal dept. opinion on this matter.
Until then...buyer beware and be educated.

I will reiterate a small furnace can get away with testing as a stove which is what was done and verified by the EPA in this case...the EPA does not think to then advertise that the furnace is EPA certified is proper.
Like I said bait and switch ...and they don't deny it.

 

[Fyrebug]

Hi guys, I also hope this is the last post on this topic for a while. The subject has been beaten to death and doesn’t deserve the amount of fuss it has received. :deadhorse:

Part of the reason might be there are 3 sponsors on this forum who manufacture furnaces. As you know sponsors are the lifeblood of any forums since they provide the necessary funds to keep these topics going. However, they are not neutral or unbiased – myself included. We are here to educate but also to a certain extent promote.

Having said that, all three sponsors on this forum make excellent product. You would have a hard time finding anyone who says anything bad about a Yukon/Eagle furnace. As you can tell, Keith is passionate about his product and is a firm believer in good old fashioned service. Kuuma is a prime example of what American know-how and ingenuity is all about. Despite being a smaller MFG they are able to produce a highly efficient and clean burning furnace with the numbers to prove it. I have no doubt they will be able to certify their furnace to the new EPA standards once it gets released.

We are not the only ones who make EPA certified furnaces. There are at least 3 to my knowledge. Promoting a furnace as EPA certified is not ‘false advertising’. EPA issues the certification and list certified appliance on their web site. (We are listed under SBI, PSG, Caddy) http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf

Now if this is all confusing for you and you don’t necessarily trust what the sponsors has to say on this topic you can also educate yourself at the following links:

Official EPA web site: Burn Wise | US EPA

HPBA Hearth Patio & BBQ Association: Official Association for the Hearth Industry: Government Affairs — Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association

Woodheat – organization that promotes accurate information on all things wood burning: The Wood Heat Organization - A Non Commercial Service In Support Of Woodheat