Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EPA Makes Most Wood Stoves Illegal

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the free-nuclear-stoves-available dept.

Earth 1143

First time accepted submitter Jody Bruchon writes "The Environment Protection Agency has lowered the amount of fine-particle matter per cubic meter that new wood stoves are allowed to release into the atmosphere by 20%. Most wood stoves in use today are of the type that is now illegal to manufacture or sell, and old stoves traded in for credit towards new ones must be scrapped out. This shouldn't be much of a surprise since more and more local governments are banning wood-burning stoves and fireplaces entirely, citing smog and air pollution concerns."

cancel ×

1143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380373)

And unfortunately for the epa its one of the Easiest stoves known to man to make...........

Good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380381)

You only see useless old people using those horrible things.

Re: Good (5, Interesting)

Kyle Wormwood (3426275) | about a year ago | (#45380403)

Or maybe you see huge swaths of people in the northern states use them just to stay warm. Get out of you bubble much?

Re: Good (5, Funny)

murdocj (543661) | about a year ago | (#45380423)

Apparently not. He doesn't know that I can pay $1,000 for a tank of oil... or $200 for a cord of wood. And the cord of wood heats better. Turn the heat down? Yeah, I tried that... and the guy who came to repair my pipes pointed out that up north, water freezes when it gets below 32F.

Re: Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380465)

Actually water freezes everywhere when it gets below 32F.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380497)

Whooooosh.

Re: Good (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380647)

Nope, its pressure and impurity dependent. For one example, see oceans. Troll better.

Re: Good (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#45380611)


up north, water freezes when it gets below 32F.

Come to Canada, this far north water freezes at 0C!

Re:Good (4, Informative)

glueball (232492) | about a year ago | (#45380431)

I burn 6-8 cord of wood per year and have a very, very small natural gas bill. The stove at the moment is burning three or four logs and the house is nice and warm--it stays warm at night until about -15C if the wind is up or -20C if calm and is fed about every 4 hours.

I'm not old and burning wood efficiently is not horrible.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year ago | (#45380599)

How efficiently? I'm burning wood right now too, but I don't have any delusions that it doesn't cause pollution. I'd have difficulty quantifying how much exactly, but that's what the EPA is for. Apparently, it's too much. If they really want to make a difference, they're going to have to crack down on coal burning stoves too: wood stoves are designed to burn hot, to make the fire more efficient and less polluting, but since coal doesn't have that problem you can get a coal burning stove that will happily maintain a very low fire. And there's no reason you can't just put your wood in there...

Re:Good (5, Informative)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about a year ago | (#45380609)

That's just it... burning wood for heat is fine, so long as it is a clean heating unit that burns wood at the right temp so that it doesn't release as much into the air and actually uses most of the heat for the home.

But isn't that what the EPA is saying? You can have your wood burning stove, so long as it isn't a crappy one.

Just like 10 SEER AC units used to be legal, now they are not, 13 is the minimum. Frankly it should be higher, the cost to go from a 13 SEER to a 16 SEER isn't that much, this past summer our downstairs AC unit went out, compressor failed. We replaced both units (upstairs and downstairs) with new 16 SEER dual stage units and our AC bill went down 30%.

The price difference between the 13 and 16 SEER units? Total of about $4000, that will be paid back in less than 2 years with the power savings (our old units were 13 SEER models).

Re:Good (2)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#45380447)

I guess power's never gone out at your place, eh? You should get out of your basement more often.

[John]

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380527)

You only see useless old people using those horrible things.

When they're not going to church, playing bingo, collecting social security, or hassling service employees and asking where something is that they're fucking standing right in front of because they're too proud to admit how starved for attention they are.

Common Sense to Old People, A Bulletin: the service clerk doesn't want to be your friend, and random strangers you met five seconds ago don't care what your grandchildren are up to. Get some friends. There's so many other old people around eating up resources, running up national debt, destroying the healthcare system for the last 6 months of their lives, and voting themselves into my wallet that you have PLENTY of likeminded company available. Stop being so fucking pathetic and get a little dignity, even a tiny bit would be a drastic improvement. Then maybe, just maybe, you can stop wondering why the youth don't respect you and actually be respectable and find out for yourself how that really works.

Fuck the EPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380385)

What they don't know doesn't hurt them.

Which company bought this 'new' rule? (5, Insightful)

Bomarc (306716) | about a year ago | (#45380387)

I would love to know which gas / propane / electric company bought this rule....

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (5, Insightful)

blankinthefill (665181) | about a year ago | (#45380435)

Honestly, I don't think is was bought. Wood burning stoves are a huge, huge source of dangerous particulate pollutions in many states in the north, where there is not the option to use gas, and oil is too expensive for many families. Fairbanks, AK, a community of about 100,000k people, has some of the worst particulate pollution in the developed world because of the amount of woodburning that goes on there during the winter.

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380507)

where there is not the option to use gas, and oil is too expensive for many families.

Fuck the poor, they should freeze to death in the winter. The old liberal mantra, demand people live your way of die off quickly.

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#45380437)

Or perhaps it was an established stove company that can meet the new guidelines, but doesn't want new competitors.

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380475)

I'm not entirely against this rule, but I think it should be a local law not a national one. Someone in the middle of the city burning things is a pretty big asshole; someone living in a cabin in the woods isn't causing local problems and could possibly have circumstances that make the usage more understandable -- e.g., using wood that otherwise would go to waste, or using it as a back-up fuel source in case something goes wrong in the middle of winter.
 
Not to mention that the fairest thing would be to judge each person's energy usage rather than ban particular uses of energy. Piecemeal laws like this are why we end up with absurdities such as the government often giving "green" incentives to wasteful people because they waste through sheer mass of usage (e.g., having a gigantic home) while each particular element in the massive waste is efficient.

Re:Which company bought this 'new' rule? (2)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#45380639)

I would love to know which gas / propane / electric company bought this rule....

My money's on the American Lung Association.

When are they going to weigh-in on (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about a year ago | (#45380389)

barbecue grills that burn charcoal? I love my Q!

Re:When are they going to weigh-in on (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380407)

Google "charcoal grills banned"

The EPA need not do anything because liberal fascists in power everywhere are jumping on that one.

Re:When are they going to weigh-in on (3, Insightful)

Zcar (756484) | about a year ago | (#45380505)

Just about everything I find on that are temporary bans due to wildfire hazards. Hardly think that counts as liberal fascism.

Re:When are they going to weigh-in on (-1, Offtopic)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a year ago | (#45380587)

"liberal fascists". Utter language abuse.

Oh slashdot, between climate denialism and nutty glen beckisms, when did this site jump the shark?

Re:When are they going to weigh-in on (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380633)

Well, ordinarily the word Fascist would be enough to connote the utter subservience of the individual to the state and should be in stark contrast to the old meaning of Liberal. But in America, Libtards need a few extra adjectives to help them understand the consequences of their own line of sad reasoning. There's nothing liberal about Liberalism.

Fuck Obama (0, Flamebait)

WCMI92 (592436) | about a year ago | (#45380391)

He and his clique of fascists will soon be against the wall when the Revolution comes.

Re:Fuck Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380409)

fffffffag.

Re:Fuck Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380441)

Republicans are the fascists, Democrats are the socialists
. You really should learn to shut your ignorant lie hole. Then we wouldn't know how stupid you are.

Horrible for the rural poor (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380395)

I live in rural South Carolina where wood stoves are the only source of heat for many many people. There is no gas infrastructure here, and many people can't afford a $10K electric heating system that will cost them HUNDREDS per month to heat their homes in the winter. At ~$4/gallon, Propane and Oil are similarly prohibitive for the rural poor.

The busybodies in our government have no problem throwing the poor under the bus to achieve some feel-good goal so they can go home to their mansions at night and feel good about themselves. They're hurting real people.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about a year ago | (#45380449)

And even if they do use central heating, it's going to be electric (re: your comment about no gas infrastructure) which is likely powered by... burning coal? Yeah, that's much better.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380555)

And even if they do use central heating, it's going to be electric (re: your comment about no gas infrastructure) which is likely powered by... burning coal? Yeah, that's much better.

Actually, you are correct, burning coal in a modern power plant IS much
better than nearly all wood stoves which exist. A power plant is regulated and
monitored and attended by professional engineers, and the emissions from
such plants are far cleaner per BTU than any wood stove.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (2, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#45380557)

Assuming it meets the new regulations on coal fired plants, then yes it is.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380459)

Every house I drive by in the rural south has a propane tank in the yard.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (4, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#45380469)

The presence of a propane tank does not imply there is propane in it.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380539)

Stop stalking my house!

Re: Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380473)

"Sustainability" and "environmentalism" are causes espoused by the rich as part of the philanthropic side of conspicuous consumption. The poor couldn't give a rat's ass how many polar bears drown this year. So long as the rich are few and the poor many, environmentalism cannot succeed because the masses will pollute regardless of the wishes of the wealthy: see China's air and Japan's reaction when it wafts o'er the isles of an example of this in play. CO2 and particulate levels worldwide will not decrease so long as their are poor nations and poor people with access to shit to burn to make money somehow or to keep warm. In the end, environmentalism is an economic problem.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380503)

How, by phasing out an old design as possible? Not really there, tea partier.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (3, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#45380537)

The busybodies in gov't also have no problem subsidizing their energy costs, but that gets blocked in favor of 'deficit reduction' despite the fact that it's not even a drop in a the swimming pool much less the bucket. There's a reason why Red States get more tax dollars than Blue ones. The Blue ones are full of busy bodies trying to help.

OTOH, the wealthy living in rural areas because they left the rotting cities don't much like the poors dirtying up the air. Read some of the other posts. Wood burning stoves in reasonably well populated areas put out a lot more particulate than you think.

So the next time you blame a liberal busy body stop and think about what's really going on and who really benefits...

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380567)

As a poor rural Hoosier, I call bullshit on your whole argument. It will not cost HUNDREDS per month to heat your home, nor is it outside the reach of the poor to pay for their heating. Gas-infrastructure not being there is precisely *BECAUSE* so many people burn wood. The whole "go home to their mansions" argument would be better leveled against those who actually live in mansions.

Honestly, your pathethic ass "feel-good goal" nonsense is why the US used to have river fires. If you want to pollute the air, fine. Just don't pollute *my* air. Build yourself a biodome to live. And if the EPA involves itself at that point, you have reason to complain. Until then, you fucking up my air because you're "[too] poor" is utter bullshit.

The only thing that'll go from burning wood to burning whatever else is (a) as much pollution in the air, (b) less money to waste on your booze, expensive food, toys, or whatever else, and (c) keeping your house warmer than it really needs to be. But, then, God forbid that the poor (a) realize they have a shitty lot and life and (b) that they can't heat their house like they were a rich mansion owner.

Re:Horrible for the rural poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380575)

More like the gas and oil companies have no problem bribing red-state Republican leadership who will fuck over their own constituents for a buck.

This is definitely not a case of meddling liberals. It's a business scheme between the power players in the energy industry and their best friends, the Republicans.

I love... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380399)

...watching slasdotters get bent over, raped, and then say, "thank you sir, can I have some more".

Harder on people, easier on corps (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380401)

Meanwhile, Diesel trucking rumbles on.

I don't know how to feel about this. (5, Interesting)

blankinthefill (665181) | about a year ago | (#45380413)

I have lived in Fairbanks, Alaska, which has roughly 100,000 people in and around it, and is basically isolated other than that. During the winter, particulate pollution is insanely bad, and even worse when you consider how small the city is. This is due, mainly, to the amount of wood burning stoves that are used to heat houses. Now, it's exacerbated by the valley that the town is in and the extreme cold, but most of it's terribleness comes from the wood burning in the area. After seeing that, I want to support stronger regulations or even bans on wood burning. On the other hand, many of the people in Fairbanks that burn wood do so because it's the cheapest method they can use to heat their houses, and they can't afford other methods (natural gas is not available in Fairbanks for heating, or at least not cheaply). I don't know what they're supposed to do if these regulations increase the cost associated with wood burning very much... not heating your house when it's -50 out is just not an option.

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (5, Insightful)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380453)

That's one major reason I wanted to bring this story here. Poor choices regarding the regulation of wood stoves can (as those regulations squeeze the availability of these stoves) result in deaths, especially since manufacturing repair parts for "illegal" stoves is a consequence of "you can't manufacture these stoves."

It's not like people use wood stoves to drive the kids to school; they're mostly used to avoid the hazards of freezing temperatures in the winter. Frostbite and hypothermia aren't commonly seen as positive outcomes of government regulations.

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380601)

Poor choices regarding the regulation of wood stoves can (as those regulations squeeze the availability of these stoves) result in deaths, especially since manufacturing repair parts for "illegal" stoves is a consequence of "you can't manufacture these stoves."

Oh, bullshit. Cite a reg on woodstove pollution that's resulted in deaths since, oh, the '70s. You're peddling fear and resentment.

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (1)

itsphilip (934602) | about a year ago | (#45380455)

they can just die for all the government cares

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380597)

I'm sure the government could offer tax rebates or energy subsidies to those that need them - oh wait, that would socialist.

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380553)

1) This rule applies to new stoves, so existing stoves are unaffected until resold.
2) Do you really think we can't figure out a way to filter an extra 20% of particulates out of a woodstove's exhaust?

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (-1, Flamebait)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#45380629)

On the other hand, many of the people in Fairbanks that burn wood do so because it's the cheapest method they can use to heat their houses, and they can't afford other methods

Wood stoves are still legal, of course. Any NEW stoves sold need to be much more efficient gasifer-style. The kind that have been around since the 19th century.

We're only talking about a one-time $700 item, rather than whatever ancient piece of junk they would have purchased otherwise. And over time, should save people lots of money thanks to burning 1/3rd less wood for the same amount of heat.

http://www.epa.gov/burnwise/woodstoves.html [epa.gov]

Re:I don't know how to feel about this. (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about a year ago | (#45380649)

It's bad in Fairbanks, and North Pole. China has been getting a lot of attention lately for air quality, but it's not uncommon for Fairbanks to have days that are twice as bad as Beijing's due to wood burning.

And yes, everyone. You read that correctly. Fairbanks can get twice as bad as Beijing.

-40 does that to hot things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380653)

I worked on the railway in the Rogers Pass -- half way between Revelstoke & Golden. At a camp that helped push the trains over the big grade. Had two sets of 6 locomotives either sitting at idle in camp or pushing trains up the hill. Around 30 to 40 below, the trains, at idle, created a massive cloud that socked in the whole area. No doubt mostly steam. Just as wood burning probably leads to mostly steam. And that steam turns into a big nasty cloud when it is cold. Maybe we should outlaw clouds next.

How about wood heat? (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year ago | (#45380421)

I live in rural Wisconsin, out here there's not a lot of money. I would say about 30% of the people around here have converted to wood heat since other fuels have gotten so expensive. Does this "ruling" cover wood burning boilers like this?:

http://www.centralboiler.com/

If it does, this is really going to affect a lot of people in a harmful way.

Re:How about wood heat? (0)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380483)

I believe that "wood-burning stoves" means any heating device in a home that uses wood as its fuel source. I haven't read the regulations, so I don't know the precise legal definition.

Re:How about wood heat? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year ago | (#45380605)

Right but some of them put out more particulate matter than others. Like on the website he mentioned the big "EPA APPROVED" banner.

Over here, there is a list of EPA approved stoves:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/caa/woodstoves/certifiedwood.pdf [epa.gov]

Duraflame or other "eco" logs (2, Interesting)

basecastula (2556196) | about a year ago | (#45380425)

Is it still legal to burn logs made from waxed cardboard. I say these in the store the other day, and wanted to get in on the recycling money..

already happened (3, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45380427)

We gave up our wood stove when fire insurance prices increased to make it more expensive than an air conditioning unit (which can be run as a heater).

Re:already happened (1)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#45380615)

> air conditioning unit (which can be run as a heater).

. . . providing you live where it rarely goes below freezing, or with the newest heat pump tech, -15c/5f, below which they become very inefficient and more than a few degrees below that point they cease to function. At my house (I live in NH) we use oil heat and wood, but I am adding a heat pump for my basement office/home theater next year. I expect for several weeks in the winter I will be back to space heaters when it dips below zero - and it will get that cold.

Keep voting for the Democrat Party (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380433)

You'll get what you deserve.

Not that big of a deal... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380463)

As someone who lives in a rural area and burns wood as a secondary heat source (oil is primary), I think this may be getting blown out of proportion. For years they've been driving up efficiency of wood-stoves, and most stoves on the market today probably already meet the new standards. Looking at the list, the (non-catalytic) stove I bought 8 years ago (to replace a 30% efficiency old stove) will still be legal to sell under the new rules. I do find the practice of banning the use of existing stoves terrible, but driving up the efficiency of stoves is a good thing, and my current stove produces much more heat than the stove it replaced.

Re:Not that big of a deal... (2)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380489)

This story does sound a lot like the Republicans screaming ZOMG OBAMA'S TAKING AWAY OUR INCANDESCENT BULBS when it was really Congress saying "oh, hey, light bulbs have to be x% efficient now, but if you can get an incandescent bulb up there, go for it."

Re:Not that big of a deal... (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380509)

I think your analogy isn't quite correct. Lighting technology isn't the same as burning wood. Part of the problem with wood is that you can't exactly change what wood is made of. It's made of wood. When you burn wood, it makes smoke. How do you reduce the amount of smoke that wood burns? (Seriously, does anyone know how to get less smoke from the same volume of wood?)

Re:Not that big of a deal... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380533)

Scrubbers in the smokestacks, duh. Works for coal plants, ought to work for woodstoves.

Re:Not that big of a deal... (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380563)

http://www.adn.com/2011/09/29/2095361/wood-stove-smoke-scrubber-gets.html [adn.com]

Looks like they cost around $3,000 and Fairbanks already tried it. The results were "mixed" and the scrubber by itself didn't resolve the issue completely.

Re:Not that big of a deal... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380583)

So two years ago one particular design didn't solve all the problems (clearly it could never be developed further), and it happened to cost money... that's what tax subsidies are for.

You're bitching for the sake of it, boyo.

Re:Not that big of a deal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380627)

Well, genius, you just make the whole heating system more efficient so you have to ...burn ..less ..wood.

Completely Ridiculous (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45380467)

Hey... you live in a big city? I can see a local ordinance banning wood smoke.

But in lots of other places? Give me a break. Does this apply to Alaska, too? When you might easily be 30 miles from the nearest human?

This is none of the FEDERAL government's damned business. It's a classic example of something that can and should be locally controlled.

I am so sick and tired of Fed overreach and having their noses up our asses all the time! This is another example of WAY TOO FAR.

Re:Completely Ridiculous (1)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about a year ago | (#45380579)

I tend to agree with you on many things, however there is another point of view here...

The fact is, what happens locally no longer just affects locals. Polution doesn't tend to stay local, so it moves and affects us all over time.

There is something to be said for being a responsible citizen of Earth and not trashing the place. We can debate how much and what that means, but saying that you can pollute locally as much as you want and no one should be able to tell you otherwise isn't bring very responsible either.

Re:Completely Ridiculous (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45380635)

There is something to be said for being a responsible citizen of Earth and not trashing the place.

Of course. But consider: I was saying that where it does make a real difference (lots of people in large cities) is very different from a few people, widely dispersed. The former pollutes a lot. The latter does not.

While I am as against polluting the environment as anyone, we have to be rational about what we allow and what we do not. And believe me: I used to work for an engineering company that worked closely with the EPA, and EPA's decisions are often NOT rational, and often (believe it or not) not in your best interest.

It MUST be kept in mind that the EPA is a gigantic government bureaucracy, and acts like one. Its foremost and constant goal is to expand its own size, reach, and power. And if it has to do that at the expense of YOUR environment quality and good health, they can, have, and will.

I could give you several excellent, current, real-world examples of that. But unfortunately that would tell people where I live, which is something I do not do on Slashdot.

Re:Completely Ridiculous (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45380589)

Um... "nearest other human", I mean.

Damn. And I tried so hard to not give myself away.

Re:Completely Ridiculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380625)

Sure, can you keep your air and your smoke and your particles precisely over your home? No? Then shut up you hysterical fraud.

A lot of negative comments. . . (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380471)

On the other hand, would any of you who are criticizing this care to say whether you would want to live in an environment like China's, which is horribly polluted? Go ahead, justify your position, we can sit back and listen to you equivocate.

mathematically silly? (1)

ninja59 (1029474) | about a year ago | (#45380479)

if you added all fine particle matter produced by all the wood burning stoves on the planet during the course of a year, would it be significant? It might be but I suspect that the resources going into implementing this new ban could be spent on a higher return source of pollution.

Re:mathematically silly? (1)

stomv (80392) | about a year ago | (#45380619)

The collective PM from wood burning stoves is significant in some parts of the country. The EPA has air regs on all kinds of combustion, from large coal power plants down to, well, wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Heck, in some parts of the country dirt roads are a major source of air pollution.

I'm not going to be your monkey and look up the citations -- but I'd bet if you're really interested, you could find 'em.

Misleading summary/comments (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380493)

To read here, it would seem like the EPA is effectively outlawing wood stoves, but reading http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/wood-and-pellet-heating it's clear that there is in fact already an existing certification framework in place, and there seem to be several types of wood stove that fit well within the described criteria.

Also, the legislation only applies to the sale of "new" stoves, correct? Since any newly manufactured stoves probably already take the EPA guidelines into account, this isn't likely to hurt any sales for new stoves, and it's not retroactively taking away any existing stoves that I can tell. Of course, I did not read TFA, so I could be mistaken.

Most fireplaces also inefficient. (2)

jelwell (2152) | about a year ago | (#45380499)

In other news, most fireplaces are inefficient anyways.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/fireplace.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Currently home builders have little incentive to put an efficient stove into their buildings. At least in my neck of the woods. This is just a step in that direction: Efficient wood burning devices that pollute less.
Joseph Elwell.

Re:Most fireplaces also inefficient. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380525)

In other news, most fireplaces are inefficient anyways.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/fireplace.htm [howstuffworks.com]

Currently home builders have little incentive to put an efficient stove into their buildings. At least in my neck of the woods. This is just a step in that direction: Efficient wood burning devices that pollute less.
Joseph Elwell.

Wood burning stoves and fireplaces are not the same thing.

Scaremongering??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380511)

The regulations reduce the amount of particulate emissions by 20%. How hard can it be to come up with a modified design that satisfies the new rules?

Re:Scaremongering??? (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380521)

What I want to know is how a person can change the amount of smoke coming out of the same volume of wood being combusted.

Re:Scaremongering??? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#45380591)

Would specific cultivars of trees burn more efficiently - thus to plant lower emission trees?

Re:Scaremongering??? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about a year ago | (#45380603)

Burn it more efficiently.

Re:Scaremongering??? (3, Informative)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about a year ago | (#45380631)

The moisture content of the wood along with the temperature that it is burned at makes a huge difference as to the amount of smoke that comes out.

The issue is that older models of wood burning stoves often burned at the wrong temp and of course the owners didn't allow the wood to dry out first.

Re:Scaremongering??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380547)

Ask the same about diesel engines.

Filter wood smoke with wood (1)

FishTankX (1539069) | about a year ago | (#45380513)

They could take a page from wood gasifiers used in some automobile wood burning conversions, and use a cyclone filter to get the ash flecks and stuff out, then pass it through a filter media made out of wood chips and an active exhaust fan to generate the necessary pressure to evacuate the exhaust. The wood chips can then just be passed through the wood stove for another round. Seems like a good system that works well.

Why couldn't they just make an active suction hepa filter for the exhaust, if cost would be a huge issue?

Who voted for these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380519)

Or is the US no longer a democracy?

Re:Who voted for these people? (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year ago | (#45380545)

Bingo

That's Why MY Wood Stove (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year ago | (#45380529)

Burns good clean PLUTONIUM! Just shovel a couple pounds in in the fall and it'll keep your house nice and warm all winter long! Ask your local heating and cooling store about a plutonium-burning stove today!

Wood burners are their own worst enemy (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#45380535)

We have a wood stove. We haven't used it much for a couple years; but when we did, we did our best to let our wood dry out for a year before burning, and also to keep our fires hot and well oxygenated. As such, you generally wouldn't see smoke coming out of our chimney, just hot air. (That still releases some particulates, I realize)

But a lot of people around here burn wood that's been cut fairly recently, so it still contains a lot of moisture. On top of that, they often manage room temperature by damping - limiting the air flow to the fire . Both practices throw huge amounts of smoke/particulates into the air. I always cringe when I go by a house with smoke belching out the chimney as if it were an old coal-burning freight train.

People bitch and moan about the government meddling in their homes, but in this case it's their own fault. We all have to breathe that exhaust.

My modern stove doesn't make smoke (4, Insightful)

rcb1974 (654474) | about a year ago | (#45380541)

I have a Jotul F500 stove. It is 75% efficient. http://jotul.com/us/products/stoves/jotul-f-500-oslo [jotul.com] When I burn dry wood and the stove is hot, there is no smoke coming out the chimney. Everything gets consumed. The stove recirculates any smoke inside the stove until it is completely burned. If you stand outside my house no matter which side you're on, you don't smell any smoke, and the gases coming out the chimney are clear. I'm guessing that many perceived problems with stoves are caused by people who don't know how to properly operate their stoves. They're burning wet wood, they have a very old inefficient stove, they aren't controlling the airflow well, they aren't burning outside air, etc. A modern wood stove is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to heat your house. You're burning renewable energy. I'm bothered by people here in upstate NY who put anti-fraking signs in their hard but who also heat with gas. Hypocrites.

Misleading title/source article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380543)

Wow with 5 minutes of research I found that the EPA has not made wood burning stoves illegal or 'banned' them, rather they have set regulations on new stoves. I used to feel like /. readers were smarter than the average bear, sadly this is seems to be less true over time.

Re:Misleading title/source article (1, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380561)

News for teabaggers, stuff that keeps you angry and afraid.

Re:Misleading title/source article (0)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380593)

A regulatory ban on sale and manufacture of stoves also implies a de facto ban on manufacture of the repair parts needed to keep those stoves going when something breaks. The ban on sales would include a private party selling that stove to someone else unless rendered inoperative. Granted, private party sales would simply ignore the rules since enforcement is a problem, but it would still be an illegal act under federal reguations. Reminder: IANAL

Re:Misleading title/source article (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380617)

"implies"? Cite chapter and verse where it says you can't refurbish a busted unit or STFU.

Good idea, bad execution (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year ago | (#45380549)

The same wood burning stove rules would apply to both heavily air-pollution laden major cities and far cleaner rural regions with extremely cooler temperatures. Families living in Alaska, or off the grid in wilderness area in the West, will most likely have extreme difficulty remaining in their cold, secluded homes if the EPA wood stove rules are approved.

Talk about alarmist post titles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380551)

But it wouldn't be nearly as inflammatory (*rimshot*) if the post was titled "All new wood stoves will now come with air filters."

Re:Talk about alarmist post titles (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about a year ago | (#45380571)

http://www.adn.com/2011/09/29/2095361/wood-stove-smoke-scrubber-gets.html [adn.com]

That solution doesn't quite solve the problem, plus it costs more than a lot of poor people will be able to afford.

Re:Talk about alarmist post titles (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380637)

As I posted upthread: So two years ago one particular design didn't solve all the problems (clearly it could never be developed further), and it happened to cost money... that's what tax subsidies are for.

You're bitching for the sake of it, boyo.

blue skies in China (1)

si3n4 (540106) | about a year ago | (#45380569)

we could learn from the Chinese regulation of fine particulate :>)

Replace renewal energy with fossil fuels? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45380581)

So the EPA wants us to replace renewable wood fuel with non-renewable fossil fuels for domestic heating? Isn't this a step backwards?

Re:Replace renewal energy with fossil fuels? (-1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45380645)

No. Do they teach reading comprehension in West Bumfuck?

What a flamebait headline (1)

stomv (80392) | about a year ago | (#45380595)

Most coal fired power plants are illegal by EPA standards today. Very few buildings in America's inventory would comply with 2013 building codes or zoning regulations.

Wood burning stoves emit pollutants that we all breathe. The EPA already regulates wood stoves. As technology has improved, they've ratcheted up the standards, just like they do with lots of regulations.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?