EPA orders Central Boiler to remove efficiency ratings from EClassic Models

[tronsliver]

See the enclosed letter from the EPA to Central Boiler written a few weeks ago.   Keep in mind that OWB manufactures knew that the efficiency rating shown on hang-tags attached to their units, and published in their marketing materials, were flawed as early as 2010 when the EPA pulled the efficiency data from its Burnwise website.    Also relevant is the fact that many states promulgated its laws based on these flawed efficiencies.

For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag  and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website.  A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use.  This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.

The EPA told the manufacturers about the flawed efficiencies at the time they were pulled from Burnwise but the manufacturers elected not to remove them from the hang-tags or their marketing materials.  In other words, they continued to misrepresent the boilers to consumers until the recent EPA letters were sent.  The only reason the EPA sent the letters out last month is because they knew that a number of law firms found out about the flawed efficiencies  and elected to do damage control.   In other words, push blame on the manufacturers by proving that the manufactures knew about the flawed efficiencies yet decided not to remove them ( remember it's a volunteer program)

From a consumers perspective,  if a person pays $200 dollars for a full cord of wood and the OWB burns an average of 13 full cords of wood per heating season, the consumer expects only 14% waste (100 - 86%) or $364 dollars per heating season based on a 86% thermal efficiency.  Based on the Gullett's  study a person who purchased a EClassic 2300 actually loses $1820 dollars per heating season because the actual efficiency is only 30%.

70%  (waste based on 30 percent efficiency) x 200 (per cord) = $140 (waste per cord) x 13 cords of wood = $1820

Additionally, when a consumer shops for a heating appliance many base their decision to purchase on the efficiency of the device.  In essence, they compare to other appliances such as gas, oil and electricity before making the purchase.  As you can see from the aforementioned example consumers' are being duped and neighbors are suffering the consequences - efficiency has a direct coloration to smoke and pollution.  The higher the efficiency the hotter the fire burns and hence less smoke and PM 2.5.     


Lastly, after Method 28 OWHH was found flawed , also as a result of the efficiency issue, NESCAUM and NYSERDA strongly questioned  the raw data obtained from Method 28 OWHH on all models tested, to include the data which determined the amount of  Particulate Matter measured for each test.  The EPA baulked because it would require them to force retesting for 23 models at 20 thousand dollars per test. This would obviously prompt  lawsuits against them from manufacturers so they massaged the data to salvage the PM results.  Bottom-line is the PM results are suspect too.

For over three years now consumers have been intentionally mislead  into purchasing Phase II OWBs based on deliberate false marketing schemes costing consumers thousands of dollars.  Both the EPA and manufacturers are complicit. 

[beenthere]

And we are all being led down primrose lane by the EPA shenanigans. They should have been bottled up a long, long time ago. IMO

[clww]

I agree! >:(

tronsliver- Welcome to the Forestry Forum.

[doctorb]

Good stuff.  tronsilver - welcome to the FF.

[tronsliver]

Thank you. I do have additional information on this topic but don't want to wear out my welcome. If you're interested let me know.

[boilerman101]

C'mon guys, smart'n up...sliver is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He made this post on at least 4 other OWF forums today pushing his agenda. 1st time poster on all of them...A quick google search will show he has been blogging and pushing his anti-OWF agenda as far back as 2008 pushing his half educated agenda. Read the first sentence in his attached letter to CB....it states " This letter is to all EPA Hydronic Heaters Program partners who have qualified Phase 2 Hydronic heaters for which testing was conducted using EPA method 28 OWHH"...I would guess all OWF mfgs. listed on the EPA burnwise site got this letter, yet he chooses to single out CB and makes mention of PM as being unethical...Probably because CB does more to stand up against his cause than any other company. Sliver, I've been burning an OWF both traditional and gasser for over 12 years and my families health is just fine...we are warm, we have all the hot water we need and I buy zero oil or gas from anyone. My wife had asthma since she was a kid....probably because she grew up in a house where her parents were heavy smokers....(now there is a cause for you to go after) Guess what, my OWF does not bother her asthma at all since it sits outside and does not fill the yard with smoke as you have blogged on other sites....She loves the OWF and keeping the house at 73 degrees or more! FYI we just had one of the worst winters in years and I only burned 7 cords...not the crazy numbers you like to blog about. That Colorado forest fire just burned up more wood in the last week than all the outdoor and indoor wood burners will use in the next 200 years! If some of us wood burners were allowed to burn some of those trees in our OWF's, maybe it would have saves some of those houses those people lost in the fire. And yes, I posted this same post on another forum I visit on occasion.

[doctorb]

Tronsliver-

I sent you an earlier email on this issue, but now that boilerman has researched further, as have I, I need to put on my administrator cap and referee what's going on here. 

If you want to have a real discussion about air quality and costs of OWB's, I am all for it.  It's a good subject for those interested in wood heating.  We have many true experts here, both in scientific testing and everyday practical  applications with outdoor and indoor wood burning.  We also have straightforward, honest people here.  Sure there are over-zealous people on both sides of this discussion, but for the most part you would be able to state your opinion, and be given a chance to defend it in a civil manner.

On the other hand, your identical posts on multiple other blogs can only be interpreted as someone with an agenda.   We don't do agendas here.  So, either come clean with your background and motivation, and have a decent discussion, or this discourse will be pretty short.  Realize this is not censorship, far from it.  Here on the Forum we have a standard of Internet behavior of which we are both proud and protective.  Those standards apply to all of us, including you.
You may reply publically here or to my email, as you wish.

[Paul_H]

An agenda methinks


http://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/epa-demands-efficiencies-be-removed-from-owbs.110911/

http://www.arboristsite.com/firewood-heating-wood-burning-equipment/239214.htm

1.
I applaud Mass for protecting their citizens. Outside Wood Boilers put out 22 times more pollution than a standard wood burner and most have a chimney height 10 feet off the ground. No one has the right to harm their neighbors to save a buck. I too am a veteran but it doesn't give me a right to cause a nuisance or harm others. To those thinking about moving you may want to do your homework, OWB's are being banned or severely restricted either by state government or local communities across the U.S.
Posted by tronsliver December 28, 08 04:40 PM

[tronsliver]

Boilerman,

I understand you sentiment. It appears you own a CB EClassic 2400 - one the boilers identified in the letter - and take exception to the information I posted.  It does't however take away from the real issue here, that is, CB continuing to misrepresent efficiencies in their advertising and until recently on the hang tag of their units.  It is quite obvious that you adamantly disapprove of my posting. I can only speculate as to why but one thing is for sure you have frantically tried to derail the facts as presented. 

I ask that you try to be objective and realize that although this may be difficult for you to accept, there are many others who can use this information in deciding whether or not to purchase an OWB when compared to other heating systems.  What I have attempted to accomplish is to level the playing field.  Consumers have every right to know what has transpired in this industry and your personal spin has no relevancy.  If you have any questions on the facts I presented please ask but please don't make this personal.

[doctorb]

Is your major issue about what was advertised as high (and potentially misleading) efficiency ratings, or what you mathematically perceive as the unexpected costs of that inefficiency?

I own an E-2300 and do not take exception to your post because my boiler is named in the letter.  I paid little attention to the %efficiency that was stated about my OWB.  I looked at the facts about wood gasification and the ability of these devices to burn wood in a much cleaner manner than ever before.  I looked at my cessation of the use of oil and my ability to obtain my fuel at a very cheap cost.  And I looked at my self sufficiency with this device and I said...let's go.  And it's been great.  Does my OWB burn optimally 24/7/365.  Of course not.  Neither does your car.  But, for the most part, my stack is smoke free and my house is warmer than before.  Should they be placed in neighborhoods of 1/2 acre lots?  Of course not.  Are they a very viable source of heat from renewable sources?  You bet.  And my belief is that the efficiency and reliability of such devices have come a long way and will only improve further with time.  You see OWB's as a bad thing, based on your internet posts and our emails.  I do not, and its going to take a lot more than a two year old decision by the EPA commanding ALL OWB manufacturers to not place efficiency ratings on these furnaces to change my mind.  It's definitely not a conspiracy, selling promises to the unwitting buyer.  It's the evolution of what's gaining momentum for the future, and not the reverse.

[boilerman101]

I'm not a professor, great mathematician and certainly don't know all the details on how the EPA qualifying tests are done. But I'm not dumb either. CB and other mfgs. posted the results that were posted by and on the EPA site in their advertising materials. A test that was implemented by the EPA and good enough for the EPA, but not good enough for you. Right, wrong or otherwise, it is a method to compare OWF's on an equal basis and showed their emissions based on that test. I wouldn't know the difference between 50% efficient or 89% efficient compared with another fuel source. I wanted to upgrade my OWF and did use those results when opting for my E2400. I burned a Classic for a number of years and was totally satisfied with it. Thought is smoked less than my neighbors indoor stove. When I switched over to the E-Classic, I found I burned 35-40% less wood than I did in my Classic and I rarely see any smoke coming out of it. I think you are just working a new angle to raise support for your anti-OWF agenda, by trying to discredit the mfgs of them and to try to discredit the industry. You don't understand, yes I could by a 95%+ efficient propane furnace. Us wood burners elect to burn wood because it is cheaper and there is no way I or anyone else are losing money by burning it.

[martyinmi]

Way to go boilerman! This is twice in one year that we agree!!!

I'm a member of both the sites Paul_H highlighted. It amazes me to think that there are actually folks who would print this kind of crap as their first post on a site and expect anyone to actually take them seriously!
30% efficiencies from a gasser? Really? Probably the least efficient conventional OWB ever built was at or above that.

Tronsilver is obviously an anti wood burning activist who willingly feeds his garbage to anyone on any site that will allow him/her access, and he/she certainly should not be taken seriously.

tronsilver-GO AWAY!!!!!

[AsaG]

n/m

[doctorb]

I would like more data and less interpretation.  The EPA asked for the efficiency ratings to be removed 3 years ago.  If they had to reiterate that request, fine.  But all that testing done on OWB's at that time was performed in an independent lab, and the data published by the EPA.  New and differently designed tests are in place, but the variables concerning the amount of fuel, the type of wood, the size of the wood, and the dryness of the wood make these tests not of "real world" experience.  Yet, to try to control variables, there's no other way to test the devices.

But biomass burning, on large and small scales, is something that's on the rise, not the decline.  If the point of this thread is to generate public outcry concerning old efficiency ratings created by both the manufacturers and the EPA, then fine.  Kind of old news which has been previously discussed, IMO.  If the point of the thread is to try and stop OWB production and use, then I don't get the point.

I have received emails from tronsliver.  Here's a sample of what he thinks...

" I have not read one intelligent post from your members only an attempt to move the issue to the gutter. Time will tell whether what I was posted on these four sites will have a significant impact on the future of OWBs." 

Well, tronsliver, I wish you luck with that.  And I think I'll just end it there.

[Jeff]

Due to some behind the scenes information being exchanged, it has been decided that tronsliver is not worthy of being in the presence of the other fine members of this forum. His goal was simply to push an agenda and stir the crap, and add nothing to the community. He has been vanquished for evermore.

Wow, I don't think I have ever typed the word vanquished before. I like it!

[ronwood]

Jeff and Doc,

Thanks for addressing this issue.

Ron

[martyinmi]

Wow, I don't think I have ever typed the word vanquished before. I like it!

At the pig roast you will be able to observe a large amount of pork "vanquish" right before your eyes as I consume much, much more than my fair share! 8)
AND... while I am at the pig roast, and if I am able to find OWW's beer stash, it will both "vanish" and be "vanquished" as my body transforms it to a plant available nutrient. :D

Thanks Jeff and Doc. Tronsilver has an agenda that is not favorable to any form of wood burning or any form of responsible Forestry.

Well done!

[beenthere]

Thanks to Jeff and the moderators. Good decision.

He was definitely barking up the wrong tree.

"vanquished"...  a good word, and like "no longer here", .. kinda like the light from the bulb when one pulls the plug.

[Paul_H]

The best part in my opinion is the members here stepping up and pointing to the troublemakers and yet respecting the FF way, knowing what is acceptable and what's not.

[doctorb]

Agreed.  He was not booted because of his opinion about OWB's, although I am sure that's the way he sees it.  He was banned because of the way he tried to manipulate the system, not admitting that he came to us with a single purpose.  He wanted to create controversy, not have an intellectual discussion. Dissenting opinions are fine here, IMO.

[talldog]

I have not been on here for a few days. All I can say is I am very impressed!

[superwd6]

I tested my Eclassic 2300 shortly after buying it with my UEI combustion anilizer(yes it has wood mode) and it read over 84% efficiency on low fire. Now I can also put this machine in an 1970 gas furnace with a huge draft hood and a pilot big enough to cook hot dogs and it states 80 % when AFUE knows it's closer to 60%(flue gas temp and CO2 are used to calculate eff reading).The fact that my hand doesn't burn and actually feels a bit wet in the flue gasses of my Eclassic tells me it's way more efficient than some that have fire coming out the pipe 8).Efficiency ratings are great but cost of fuel is more important, buy an electric furnace and pay that bill if you want no stack loss for max efficiency :D Gas furnaces can have the same 95% hang tag rating but not state the fact some us 300$ more in electricity to operate.Condensing boilers for gas have high ratings of 95% but see what you get running 180*f water temp. Don't think the wood industry is exclusive for not telling the whole story

[Logging logginglogging]

the heck with the EPA ...if given a chance ill buy the old style stove someplace on my next stove.... However their math is flawed.... we roast so hot in our house we shut off zones sometimes, and i burn moe like 4-6 cord a year. Thats less than half of what they figure in as average.... People should insulate their homes.

[Local4Fitter]

I don't know how my e-2400 compares to my Peerless boiler with Beckett oil burner as far as efficiency ratings go. I do know that I can keep my T-stat at 72 degrees all winter long and burn 8-9 cords ( grapple load @ $850), or I can burn 1,000 gallons of oil @ $3.70 per, and turn my T-stat down to 65 degrees. It is more work to cut,split,stack and tend to a woodboiler, but I really don't mind it. I guess I could get a part time job at Wal-Mart and use that money to buy oil, but that does not sound very appealing to me.

[Gary_C]

For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag  and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website.  A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use.  This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.

I just read this and was immediately shocked at the drop in efficiency from 86% to 30% from one test to another. Strictly from an engineering and scientific standpoint I don't know how that could be true and accurate. That would have to be the most flawed tests that have ever been run to have that kind of range in results.

In reality what that letter does is completely discredits the EPA and their tests.