iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

EPA orders Central Boiler to remove efficiency ratings from EClassic Models

Started by tronsliver, June 26, 2013, 10:50:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

clww

Many Stihl Saws-16"-60"
"Go Ask The Other Master Chief"
18-Wheeler Driver

doctorb

My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

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.
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

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

Quote1.
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


Science isn't meant to be trusted it's to be tested

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.
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

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!!!!! :snowball: :snowball: :snowball:



No God, No Peace
Know God, Know Peace!


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.
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

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! :)
Just call me the midget doctor.
Forestry Forum Founder and Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.

Commercial circle sawmill sawyer in a past life for 25yrs.
Ezekiel 22:30

ronwood

Sawing part time mostly urban logs -St. Louis/Warrenton, Mo.
LT40HG25 Woodmizer Sawmill
LX885 New Holland Skidsteer

martyinmi

Quote from: Jeff on June 27, 2013, 08:28:34 AM

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! :)

No God, No Peace
Know God, Know Peace!

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. :)
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

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.
Science isn't meant to be trusted it's to be tested

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.
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

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

LOL 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.
1974 John Deere 510, Wood fired pizza oven,2005 Dodge/Cummins,Firearms for all occasions.

Gary_C

Quote from: tronsliver on June 26, 2013, 10:50:01 AM
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.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

doctorb

Gary-

Couple of points ....

1.  That quote is from a former member, tronsliver, (read entire thread) who was stirring the pot over misleading efficiency ratings on OWB's.  The epa realized that their tests did not mimic real world use, and while they were designed to put each OWB tested under the same conditions for comparison, there are too many variables in testing these units to generate, from existing test methods, any accurate efficiency ratings.  The epa asked OWB manufacturers to stop using the old,and previouslty determined by the EPA, efficiency ratings about 3 years ago.  Tronsliver was agitated by the issue that apparently some manufacturers had not stopped using the old efficincy ratings in their marketing.

2.  I have searched and searched for the study that tronsliver quoted in his post and that you quoted above, but I can not find it.  He says it was an EPA study, so it should be locatable on the web.  That doesn't mean that the study doesn't exist, it may.  I just can't find it. So I have no corroboration that that (Tom :))statement in his original post is true.

3.  While efficiency of any heating or cooling appliance has become a standard comparative factor when comsumers purchase refrigerators and furnaces, I would suggest that the key point with OWB's is the amount of particulate matter remaining after the gasification process is complete.  In comparisons of this type, the size (capacity) of the OWB matters, as units with very large fireboxes and large BTU capability may not be able to match the particulat matter emissions that smaller units create, with smaller amounts of combustion.  The E-2300, which is quoted in tronsliver's post, was really CB's first gasification model.  Improvements on it's design were required for real world use, and newer models have replaced it.  If you look at the EPA chart on particulate matter, you can see the improvement CB and other manufacturers have made, and I only think it will get better.

Hope that helps.  I do think that you are correct; the EPA tests were bogus in that they gave the manufacturers and their customers overstated claims of furnace efficiency. 
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

gspren

  While we are speaking efficiencies I would bet that if my P&M conventional OWB were tested my first year and again my third year the ratings would have gone up considerably, part because I got further ahead on my wood cutting but also and just as important is I learned better how to manage it. I think every stove has a preference for what, how much and how often you feed them.
Stihl 041, 044 & 261, Kubota 400 RTV, Kubota BX 2670, Ferris Zero turn

Gary_C

doctorb-

Yes I did read the whole thread and saw what had occured. And I was never surprised at the 86% efficiency ratings of the higher efficiency E series OWB's. But what I am absolutely shocked about is the second tests where the EPA now claims they misplaced 56% of the heat generated in those earlier tests.

There are only two places that heat can go from the combustion of wood in those OWB's. One place is into the air and the other is into the water. But water can conduct far more BTU's than air so there must have been tremendous inaccuries in the amount of heat conducted away with both the air and the water. And those numbers would suggest there was a tremendous amount of air that was misplaced or unaccounted for. And that is just not in the realm of possibilities for anything resembling any test run by any reputable organization.

So the only conclusion I can see is the tests were a complete fraud. And any agency, government or not that commits that type of fraud are simply criminals.

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

doctorb

I would also leave some room in your analysis that the 30% efficiency rating posted by tronsliver is not accurate, or maybe not even a published figure.  So your concern for the loss of the 56% of the efficiency may be based upon false figures on both ends.
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

Gary_C

At various times there have been campaigns to limit tests and reports that are used as proof to only "peer reviewed" reports. But that requirement has not been widely adopted, especially by the environmental groups with an agenda. But what makes these two false reports, if they both even exist as being so blatantly criminal is a government agency is supposed to be trusted and the EPA is so far from being trusted that is a complete violation of the public trust. And they should be prosecuted or disbanded or better yet, both.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Al_Smith

 :D Well that fellow was about as short lived as I've seen --poof----.

I just watched in amusment to see how long it took the "boiler crowd " to get in the fray .Really not long at all*<new punctution instead of a period. ;D----ain't I a stinker ---

Gary_C

Quote from: Al_Smith on July 04, 2013, 04:17:54 PM
----ain't I a stinker ---

Al, that's one good thing about the internet.......we can't tell.  ;D
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

John Mc

Quote from: Gary_C on July 04, 2013, 12:24:56 PM
... There are only two places that heat can go from the combustion of wood in those OWB's. One place is into the air and the other is into the water.

Or it can just not combust completely in the first place, never generating all the heat it should.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.   - Abraham Maslow

giant splinter

I have to agree with many of the points that DoctorB, Gary_C and others have shared with us, I have been forced to deal with the EPA and ARB, AQMD, Coastal Commission as well as a few other governmental agencies in my work, it can be very frustrating trying to deal with some of the very unreasonable requirements not to mention the costs involved.
A great deal of the research and test results that comes out of these agencies is weak at best and won't stand up to any close scrutiny.
The problem is usually the sort of thing that you can't win with any argument or by presenting an alternative to help get your permit.
A bigger problem may be finding a responsible person at any of the above Govt. agencies that even cares about what you have to say.
I have to agree that OWB's are a great source of heat and always improving on the design, They are not approved in the State of Washington at least for now but if you lived on the Washington/Idaho state line in Idaho you could have your boiler in Idaho and have efficient and relatively inexpensive heat in Washington with just a few feet of pipe in between them. ( I did not check on the laws to see if that would be ok ) and it is not an option as I do not live on that state line.
roll with it

doctorb

GS-

I did not know that even the Phase II approved OWB's were not permitted in the state of Washington.  Do you know if that's also true for Oregon, California.....?
My father once said, "This is my son who wanted to grow up and become a doctor.  So far, he's only become a doctor."

DR_Buck

Who cares about efficiency?


SW + CC <+> *Tº -  Tº =         8) 8) 8)8)





Sawmill Waste  -  SW
CB Classic -  CC
Outside Temp  -  Tº
Inside Temp -   *Tº
Efficiency = 
Been there, done that.   Never got caught [/b]
Retired and not doing much anymore and still not getting caught

giant splinter

DoctorB
I think but did not confirm that Oregon has approved them, as far as California goes I would expect them to have not approved OWBs and Washington often stands with California on many issues of this sort, e.g. wall tent fireproofing and tent/camp stove approvals.
After looking into OWB's as a possibility for heat I found a dealer in North Idaho that confirmed the State of Washington had not approved any of the Central Boiler models and was not able to sell me one. >:(.
I looked into this matter March of 2013 and it's possible the status could have changed by now. I have added a wood burning top load stove that I found at a local dealer it is approved and had to pay a fee to the state of Washington for this type of heating product. The primary heat source in my house is electric with a classic backup wood cook stove in the kitchen, the previous owner also had an oil burning decorative fireplace/stove that I replaced with the wood burner I now have. I love wood heat and have always had enough firewood and mill reject wood to cut and split keeping me going all winter ..... keeping the house warm and saving a few bucks on my electric bill.
roll with it

timberlinetree

Can the EPA test the emissions coming out of apparment buildings etc.? Driving thru NY city it's hard to imagine howmuch oil is being used and if the boiler is in same shape and as old as the building is how efficient/clean can it be? Same goes for the suburbs lots of houses burning oil and not everyone has a new filter in their furnace. I would think the  EPA would be more concerned or do they favor the oil company? Firewood producers dont have the influence/campaign contribution that the oil companies have! Why band them in a whole state? I could see banding them in suburbs. Doesn't make sence to me!
I've met Vets who have lived but still lost their lives... Thank a Vet

Family man and loving it :)

timberlinetree

I've met Vets who have lived but still lost their lives... Thank a Vet

Family man and loving it :)

leonz

UUUUMMMMMMM,


Kind of big whoopsie there about New York City and its 5 Burroughs.
Depending on how far you are from Manhattan
the entire area is heated by steam, natural gas
and kerosene, fuel oil or electricity and cooled by chilled water
or air conditioners.

tonto

Great job moderators. Way to look out. Very informative thread.
Stihl MS441 & Husqvarna 562XP. CB5036 Polaris Sportsman 700 X2. Don't spend nearly enough time in the woods.

timberlinetree

I've met Vets who have lived but still lost their lives... Thank a Vet

Family man and loving it :)

Al_Smith

Well here we are again tilting at windmills in a sense .

So the bottom line goes something like this ,people who burn wood usually do so because it's cheap .Some buy the stuff but most gather it up for no cost except the sweat equity it costs.I mean it's certainly not as easy as turning up the thermastat .

So why the fuss if  some systems aren't quite as efficient as the greenies think they should be.Most of our grand parents heated with potbelly stoves which aren't efficient at all and they never froze nor spent a lot of money keeping warm . Then again nobody fussed about either .

So the fuss about the smoke .Watch the evening news about half the state of Nevada is on fire .More will go up in smoke from wild fires than North America will burn for heating the next 10-15  years before the summer is over .Let's see them pass a law against that .

WmFritz

I saw on the news last night that bon fires on the beaches are being banned in California.   fire_smiley. Really!
~Bill

2012 Homebuilt Bandmill
1959 Detroit built Ferguson TO35

tonto

Well said AL SMITH. Probably the best comment I've heard on this issue.
Stihl MS441 & Husqvarna 562XP. CB5036 Polaris Sportsman 700 X2. Don't spend nearly enough time in the woods.

Al_Smith

Quote from: WmFritz on July 12, 2013, 09:04:38 PM
I saw on the news last night that bon fires on the beaches are being banned in California.   fire_smiley. Really!
Well you have to remember that's just California being California .It can't help itself .

I don't know the cicumstance involved or if it includes  all beachs .Then again for some unknown reason there is a faction of beach goers who for some reason feel it's okay to walk their dog on public beachs with no regard to who else might care to enjoy suning in the sand after the danged dog did his business in the sand .Good grief . >:(

Gary_C

Quote from: Al_Smith on July 12, 2013, 07:54:40 PM
So why the fuss if  some systems aren't quite as efficient as the greenies think they should be.Most of our grand parents heated with potbelly stoves which aren't efficient at all and they never froze nor spent a lot of money keeping warm . Then again nobody fussed about either .

Quote from: Al_Smith on July 14, 2013, 06:58:16 AM
Then again for some unknown reason there is a faction of beach goers who for some reason feel it's okay to walk their dog on public beachs with no regard to who else might care to enjoy suning in the sand after the danged dog did his business in the sand .Good grief . >:(

If we apply the same logic in the first quote to the second quote, the answer would be "what's the big deal, there's plenty of sand on those beaches."  ::)
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Al_Smith

Well yes of course the beach is made of sand but it would be my luck to plop my butt down on a pile of dog doo doo .

So then fess up now are you the type that likes to take your dog every where like it was a person ?

Timberjack_395XP

wow I bet tronsliver wished for global warming so we wouldn't have to burn so much wood to keep warm! propane is 5.00 a gal, 49 states with snow cover & the great lakes almost 100% frozen over yep our wood burners are doing a real good job heating the earth up!

dave_dj1

We have to stick together and tell them to kiss our a$$'s
It's just another way for the gubberment to get into our business!
I do what I can afford and oil or gas or electric aren't it! Wood is free and plentiful in this neck of the woods.
dave

Thank You Sponsors!