tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post1961927064763749986..comments2024-03-28T06:18:02.329-07:00Comments on Heated Up!: Can the EPA Set Future Emission Limits Using a Cordwood Test?John Ackerlyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07548459677032843743noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-61972801765897780122014-05-02T10:11:14.339-07:002014-05-02T10:11:14.339-07:00To be clear..the EPA required that outdoor wood bo...To be clear..the EPA required that outdoor wood boilers be tested with crib wood. Boilers were therefore designed to meet emissions standards with crib wood and that same equipment performed poorly in the field with cord wood. The EPA's insistence on a crib wood test continues to be responsible for dirty equipment that has "blessed" by the EPA. If they want to stop this travesty the new rule should require that all equipment be tested and certified with the actual fuel that will be used....cord wood.Chris Holleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16789597010891972676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-78484308523673624822014-04-02T06:41:28.143-07:002014-04-02T06:41:28.143-07:00Manufacturers had their chance with the voluntary ...Manufacturers had their chance with the voluntary program but didn't. The result were wood boilers that caused a lot of pain and suffering for us that want clean air. I think the FBI should look at lobbyist that caused this non clean air! Its criminal even the EPA maybe be found guilty!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-19503333404512724152014-03-17T14:29:07.648-07:002014-03-17T14:29:07.648-07:00True, we did not get into that change in the test ...True, we did not get into that change in the test method, which is yet another variable the EPA is introducing. But I think the EPA only needs to show a few stoves can meet its proposed standards and the idea is that redesign and innovation will lead lots of them to meet the standards over a few years. But we think many more stoves are already meeting the proposed standards than industry claims. Remember, the EPA has proposed eliminating the conversion from 5G to 5H, so many stoves will test much cleaner. Some in industry understand this, but don't appear to be sharing that with others.John Ackerlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548459677032843743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-59639083502418792222014-03-17T14:12:20.877-07:002014-03-17T14:12:20.877-07:00For a single burn rate test, cribs would actually ...For a single burn rate test, cribs would actually make a lot of sense. Limited data so far indicates excellent repeatability when moisture is kept within very tight specs.<br /><br />I don't think anybody knows yet if cordwood will work - you could be looking at throwing cash at the lab hoping your lucky number comes up. The cart is before the horse at this stage.<br /><br />Has EPA specified what burn rate will be used for the single burn rate test?<br />Norbert Senfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13647278008745365126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-3307890399218985712014-03-17T09:08:04.540-07:002014-03-17T09:08:04.540-07:00We've just conducted a study of crib testing f...We've just conducted a study of crib testing for masonry heaters. Based on our data, cribs are very repeatable, and the emissions fall right in between "real world" burning of cordwood (about 1.3 g/kg of PM in our testing) and "manufacturers instructions" burning of cordwood (about 0.5 g/kg in our testing).<br /><br />This is for single crib batch burn testing in a masonry heater, which admittedly is much different than a metal stove EPA test, where the crib is loaded onto a hot charcoal bed, and has to be tested at 4 different burn rates.<br /><br />It does, however, provide a good counter example to the current group think in favor of cordwood.<br /><br />Nobody knows yet what the repeatability of cordwood testing is, compared to cribs. The testing simply has not been done, and no public agency is stepping up to provide funding.<br /><br /> It could turn out, for example, that you need to run 10 tests with cordwood to average out the variability, whereas you might only need 3 tests with cribs. Nobody knows.<br /><br />Opinion rules, because there is no data.Norbert Senfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13647278008745365126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-26368236284793273322014-03-17T08:13:02.081-07:002014-03-17T08:13:02.081-07:00This article misses a critical ingredient. The cu...This article misses a critical ingredient. The current test method requires four different burn tests, determined upon fuel load consumption. These four burn categories are then placed into a weighted formula so as to reflect how a given stove performs over a wide spectrum. The EPA 1.3 standard is proposed to be based upon only one run, the worst run and tosses out the entire notion of weighted averages. Therefore, few if any stoves on the market today make a 1.3 gr/hr on their worst run.Oregonbowguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996407107963535650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8511144021300330801.post-8965138027356753092014-03-17T08:06:50.208-07:002014-03-17T08:06:50.208-07:00This is not a thorough review of the situation man...This is not a thorough review of the situation manufacturers face. In addition to changes in the test method, the EPA's current test method includes weighted averages for wood stoves. These weighted averages take into account four different burn rate performances. The proposed 1.3 gr/hr is proposed to be a standard set on "worst case scenario" testing. Few if any wood stoves on the market today would qualify at 1.3 gr/hr on their worst run. Oregonbowguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17996407107963535650noreply@blogger.com