Page 1 of 1

Can you help?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:02 pm
by W_Osburner
Quoting pollutants in labs directed at mice from uncertified stoves as a base, at GPH amounts off the charts Exposing to 300 GPH is not reasonable current scientific method, not indicative of modern stoves they emit, .7 GPH. Quoting from an 1986 study? Technology has advanced quite a bit. All manufactures today Have Cad systems for design similar to automobile mfgs, where 3-D viewing of combustions chambers are rendered? Stoves today use the horizontal burn process, are you familiar with this? Where the smoke path is directed down across the hot bed of coals where smoke particulates are being burned off, being super heated and channeled into a secondary combustion chamber? Fresh super heated air is also introduced into the chamber resulting in a super hot gasification combustion. Temperatures reach 1700 degrees burning just about any residual particulates. That is how the 1 GPH barrier has been broken. I challenge you to plug that statistic into your formulas. Thousands of these stoves equipped with this technology are residing in homes today.

At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. Please explain. All stoves approved for installation in homes today are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA. (Not true of OWB’s though, so clearly OWB’s need to be improved)

I take this group to be ecologically responsible but again I’m viewing mixed messages. Some here are suggesting portable electric heater alternatives. Recently 8 people died in a NY fire caused by an electric heater. Before one plugs one of those units in better check the amperage draw and the current draw on the circuit. It surprises me you would make that suggestion. Ever experience black outs, brown outs? Our grid is overtaxed to begin with, yet you suggest adding to that condition? Never mind that 60% of our electricity comes from fossil fuel and much of that is coal, low-grade, sulfur-laden coal. This really needs to be addressed long before EPA wood stoves.

Many here suggest oil burning for heat. Do we have to rehash the real cost of oil?
Here is a little tidbit, you never factored in the modern oil burners test to be in the low 80’s efficiencies. Most tests are done when they are first installed. Before the firing head gets gunked up and the flue become carbonized. That initial testing is the only time that burner runs that efficient; from there performance drops off. I know a person who is an inspector who inspects them every day. Did you know, that .7 GPH stove has obtained 82.5% efficiencies, burning cleaner than the average oil burner? I find it ironic you promote a technology that is not renewable that burns less efficiently.

The next fuel alternative you suggest is gas (Propane?). Again, let’s not rehash the real cost of imported gas (Propane) from the Middle East. Natural gas lines do not service every home. You mention medical cost of smoke what about factoring the cost of gas explosions?

We agree renewable alternatives are needed. Dependency upon fossil fuel is not working.
Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal are viable alternatives for some, economically beyond most individual home owners. You make very little mention of conserving the energy we produce: better windows, more insulation, better draft prevention, buttoning up our homes, not to mention lights on all night at walmarts, overly air conditioned malls, open freezers in grocery stores, and lower mpg standards for trucks. Did you know there’s a guy who’s managed to 3x the mpg of a semi? Did you know that Chrysler developed a large sedan that gets 70mpg, No incentive to bring it to market.

A complete ban on burning is not going to happen. You have no argument for the use of wood heat during power outages. Many of you arguments are flawed and can be easily invalidated. Using your own prior statements does not make for good science and the words can, might, may, or seems are not enough to convince.

I’m asking you, are you willing to support cleaner responsible burning? Supporting technology such as I described? These modern stoves are not your old polluting beasts of yesteryear. I mean we are talking about .7 GPH this is not some small manufacturer but the largest one in North America employing the latest technology. Another avenue to support is clean burning compressed logs. Even cleaner than cord wood.

My hope here would be to see if you would be willing to help by using this site to educate the public to encourage responsible burning. Would you be willing to help promote swap out programs? (old for new) Would you be willing to promote continued research for cleaner burning? You are not winning the battle; 50,000 more stoves were sold this year on top of 50,000 last year. People are still going to burn them. Life is full of compromises. Better to direct them and improve them than to stand by. One must take baby steps before giant ones. I am asking you to help support clean, responsible burning and to promote replacing older stoves with super efficient new ones.

epa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:48 pm
by bodhi
its the library closures and the document destruction that concerns me.

Re: epa

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:35 am
by W_Osburner
bodhi wrote:its the library closures and the document destruction that concerns me.


Huh? This is not in my post. What are you referencing, and what rule are you suggesting I violated?

Re: Can you help?

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:18 am
by bodhi
W_Osburner wrote:At one point you are quoting from the EPA and other times you are discrediting the EPA. Please explain. All stoves approved for installation in homes today are tested for particulate matter and certified by the EPA. (Not true of OWB’s though, so clearly OWB’s need to be improved)

i was saying that i am concerned about the epa library closings and document destruction. they have been a great resource. its too bad they are dumping important works. (check out the union of concerned scientists for more info. i had the link but cannot find it just now)

the link on the bottom of my posts is just my signature. not specifically directed at you.

Can you help

PostPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:42 am
by W_Osburner
Ahhh, I got it. Thanks for the explanation.