EPA orders Central Boiler to remove efficiency ratings from EClassic Models

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

----ain't I a stinker ---

Al, that's one good thing about the internet.......we can't tell.  ;D

[John Mc]

... 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.

[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.

[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.....?

[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 = 

[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.

[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!

[timberlinetree]

Forgot to mention great job moderators!

[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.

[timberlinetree]

Thanks didn't know that and ment suburbs in general.

[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.   . Really!

[tonto]

Well said AL SMITH. Probably the best comment I've heard on this issue.

[Al_Smith]

I saw on the news last night that bon fires on the beaches are being banned in California.   . 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]

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 .

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."  :

[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