# How do older wood stoves compare to the new "EPA Certified" models?



## kentuckydiesel (Nov 1, 2011)

As my wife and I are coming up on our first winter in our new (110+ yr old) farmhouse, I am in the market for a used (possibly antique) wood stove or two...not one of those cheap steel junkers...a nice cast iron piece. Of coarse, nice cast stoves are expensive, so I've been looking at older stuff on craigslist and the like.

The big question is, is there any truth to these new "high efficiency, EPA certified" stoves having a longer burn time while putting out the same or greater heat? If so, is there any downside (heard from one source that they require cleaner/drier wood)? 

To be honest, I couldn't give a crap about emissions of "particulate matter", aka "carbon", aka "the 2nd most abundant element in the human body". We're planning to heat this house completely on wood with radiant LP and electric space heaters for backup only, so I'm really just curious if these new stoves really mean less work for the same or more heat??? 

Thanks,

Phillip


----------



## CrappieKeith (Nov 1, 2011)

Prior to any mods...fireplaces back in the day were about 1 percent efficient..add glass doors and you could double that efficiency..stoves were about 10 percent and furnaces ran about 30-40 percent. Some of the furnace manufactures made more efficient furnaces....like the Yukons that run around 76%.

After the EPA got involved and created the 40/60 rule subpart AAA we saw stove manufactures lower emissions/particulates and as a bi product we also saw efficiency percentages climb.

As to your deal...buying used can be an ok deal if that unit still has parts available...however...used is used or abused. Goodluck.


----------



## CTYank (Nov 1, 2011)

Particulate matter is NOT carbon. It's a chemical soup of many nasties, and an indicator of density of other stuff you don't want to be breathing. So, get the chemistry straight before the "live free or die" crap.

Yes, an EPA stove is more appreciative of DRY wood than earlier "smoke dragons." Burning, rather than emitting poo out the pipe yields more heat output. And pees-off lots fewer neighbors.


----------



## HILLBILLYREDNEC (Nov 1, 2011)

Here is a word of caution check with your insurance company.Many older stoves are illegal to install in a home,you install one and your insurance finds out your in big trouble. Certified stoves are a good option to consider.


----------



## audible fart (Nov 1, 2011)

I've been through a few p o s old el cheapo stoves, and my 6 year old i use now that has the smoke reburner grate on it is by far the best. I'd say i burn up to 1/3 less wood compared to my old stoves sometimes. And it stays super clean. Nothing but an improvement for me. More heat with less wood.


----------



## CrappieKeith (Nov 1, 2011)

HILLBILLYREDNEC said:


> Here is a word of caution check with your insurance company.Many older stoves are illegal to install in a home,you install one and your insurance finds out your in big trouble. Certified stoves are a good option to consider.


 
All wood burning appliances need to be tested to UL391 for safety here in the US. The insurance co.'s want to see the tag.


----------



## laynes69 (Nov 1, 2011)

We went from a non-EPA furnace to a EPA certified furnace. We dropped our wood consumption, increased the amount of heat given over a longer period and resulted in a much cleaner chimney. This allowed smaller temperature swings in the home. With our experiences in the upgrade, I would never choose something without the EPA certification. What ever you choose just make sure it matches the requirements needed to heat the home.


----------



## lampmfg (Nov 1, 2011)

laynes69 said:


> We went from a non-EPA furnace to a EPA certified furnace. We dropped our wood consumption, increased the amount of heat given over a longer period and resulted in a much cleaner chimney. This allowed smaller temperature swings in the home. With our experiences in the upgrade, I would never choose something without the EPA certification. What ever you choose just make sure it matches the requirements needed to heat the home.


 
I agree with Lanes but it doesn't have to be EPA certified (No real EPA furnace certification yet) to be efficient or emission friendly.:msp_biggrin:


----------



## audible fart (Nov 1, 2011)

PAINCOW said:


> I've been through a few p o s old el cheapo stoves, and my 6 year old i use now that has the smoke reburner grate on it is by far the best. I'd say i burn up to 1/3 less wood compared to my old stoves sometimes. And it stays super clean. Nothing but an improvement for me. More heat with less wood.


 
+1 Paincow. I would only buy a stove that had a smoke reburning setup on it.


----------



## Quadrafire2 (Nov 1, 2011)

*EPA stove*

How about 16 hours of burn time with one load of ~2.2 cf of wood, would that make you a believer?:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## stumpy75 (Nov 1, 2011)

I have a regular(medium) Buck stove(model 27000) from the late 1980s. This is when the catalytic stoves just started to come out. It is a non-catalytic, secondary burn type stove, and it *is *UL approved. The earlier ones were not. Some people think these are just big old beasts, and maybe compared to the modern stoves, they are. But it has worked fine for me for the past 20 or so years. I burn 3 - 5 full cords a year in a 2000sf house built in 1920, but fairly well insulated. I have no reason to look at a new stove right now, especially for the price of a new one.


----------



## Chris-PA (Nov 1, 2011)

You really want a well sealed stove with a secondary combustion system, IF you have the chimney to make it work. If you don't have enough draw then you won't get the air velocity out of the air inlet holes over the fire, and it just won't be able to maintain the secondary combustion. But if you have a decent flue there is simply no comparison. Once you see that roiling plasma over the fire and feel the output - with only a tiny air inlet to the stove - you'll be sold. If you don't have the chimney or you want to burn wet wood, then you'll just lose out on the benefits.

Even though I'm an engineer, I'm not one of those who have to have the latest technology, and I usually prefer older tools and equipment. But these new stoves kick butt, and I can only imagine what people in older times would have thought of a stove that could do what these do - it would have made their lives SO much easier.


----------



## Fyrebug (Nov 1, 2011)

Nothing beats old cast iron antique wood stoves for the looks. I collect pictures of them. There's even some outift that refurbishes them and sell them back for a fortune!

New EPA cast iron & soapstones are beautiful & expensive. If your budget is limited why not look for a used EPA cast iron if it ever comes up. I'm sure there's also a fair amount of used plate steel EPA used stoves that come up for sales once in a while.

The advantage of EPA wood stoves are:

1) Smaller firebox for a similar BTU output 'Smoke Dragon'
2) Requires only a 6" flue so cost of intallation is less if you have to buy a chimney
3) Longer more even burn time
4) Since it burns all the fuel including the smoke approx. 1/3 less cord wood per season
5) Since it burns the smoke; less chimney maintenance, brushing, creosote
6) The warm feeling you are not polluting the environment & p***ing off the neighbors

Because they are much more efficient they are also more sensitive to the following: 
1) Wood must be dry (15% to 20% humidity)
2) Wont tolerate big logs. wood must be split (around 6" to 8" diameter)

That's about it. You can get a decent new EPA wood stove for about $800. Let us know if you need recommendations.


----------



## kentuckydiesel (Nov 1, 2011)

CTYank said:


> Particulate matter is NOT carbon. It's a chemical soup of many nasties, and an indicator of density of other stuff you don't want to be breathing. So, get the chemistry straight before the "live free or die" crap.
> 
> Yes, an EPA stove is more appreciative of DRY wood than earlier "smoke dragons." Burning, rather than emitting poo out the pipe yields more heat output. And pees-off lots fewer neighbors.


 
Actually...I have my chemistry straight...I was a Plant and Soil Science major and have read (actual scientific) studies on particulate emissions from the burning of wood and other cellulose material.
There aren't "many nasties" in wood smoke...however scientific that may sound. 

ANYHOW..... 

I told a guy today that I'd buy his Vermont Castings Defiant Encore catalytic stove tomorrow...anyone have any info on this model? 
My dad and grandparents used to have Vermont casting Stoves which everyone loved, so I'm basically going off that.

Thanks,
Phillip


----------



## Dalmatian90 (Nov 2, 2011)

> All wood burning appliances need to be tested to UL391 for safety here in the US.



That's for furnaces. Woodstoves are under UL1482...possibly others since I'm didn't do an exhaustive search.

Anyway, there are some that aren't tested. Notably the cheap (well, used to be cheap...they've doubled in price over the last few years) Vogelzangs such as their Boxwood line. Which also get out of EPA requirements by being so inefficient they get classified as fireplaces. Whether codes or your insurance allow them without the UL sticker may be another matter.

As I understand the march of technology...

The older stoves like the Boxwoods weren't very efficient. But they'll also burn anything, and do so relatively cleanly since they're shoving a large enough volume of hot air up the chimney to blow the crap out the end and let the creosote settle on the ground. Look at old Civilian Conservation Corps photos from the 1930s and you'll see Boxwood stoves in the barracks, and I guarantee they were burning green wood since they had just built the camps.

With companies like Fisher in the 1970s came the airtight stoves. More efficient, still could burn green wood, but since they were no longer allowing a huge flow of hot air up the chimney, the smoke moved slower, providing more time for volatile components in the smoke and carbon particles to condense and build up on the sides (i.e. creosote).

Then came the EPA stoves with catalytics or secondary burn systems. Both of these produced more usable heat by removing the volatile components in the smoke (either through the cat, an exothermic chemical reaction, or burning them in the seconary system). The downside being the extra moisture in green wood interferes with both methods -- neither the cat nor secondary burn system work properly with green wood. 

=======
As for "smokes not bad for you" I'm not addressing the original poster because there's folks set in their ways and there's no sense arguing with them. Kind of like arguing evolution with a bible thumping evangelical, they believe certain things because they simply accept their view as an article of faith. Nothing there to have a rational argument over.

However, most of us have seen creosote and that doesn't just magically appear. It's what's contained in smoke. I have no problem with the sensual smell of a wood fire on a winter day, but I also wouldn't want to sit on the roof next to the chimney taking deep breaths all season long. Sure, it may contain a lot of carbon. So does coal, but it sure wasn't healthy of the coal miners who got black lung from breathing it in over the decades.

If we can nudge ourselves to use wood burning appliances, like we have overtime by increasing the standards they're built to, that are both more efficient for our own wood use and cleaner for everyones environment that's a good thing.


----------



## Fyrebug (Nov 2, 2011)

_Kentukydiesel "There aren't "many nasties" in wood smoke...however scientific that may sound."_

That's correct. There's not a significant amount of volatile compounds in wood smoke to damage your health unless you are breathing it all day long in a very smoke filled atmosphere.

The biggest culprit in wood smoke is "Particulate Emissions" 2.5 micron or smaller. Basically dust that clings to your lungs and your body finds hard to get rid of. 

As far as the boxwood stoves available on the market they are classified as 'EPA exempt' because their air/fuel ratio is above 35/1 - or for every pound of wood, at least 35 Lbs of air is consumed. In theory, this allows for a clean burn since the fire is so hot the smoke should be consumed as well. As with any theory it works well only if you are burning reasonably dry wood.

EPA will phase out this category in the next few years.


----------



## Felman (Nov 2, 2011)

i think EPA stove can be loaded to the max from the beginning & when the fire establishes & the overhead pipes shoot flames, u can shut down the primary air intake & then the only air coming into stove is above the load where the gasses are burning


----------



## Coldfront (Nov 2, 2011)

The problem with buying old used wood stoves is how does your home owners insurance Co. like it? Better check with them first, or they may drop you like a hot potato. Typical rear wall clearance on a non certified wood stove is 36" from wall. My newer wood stove is rated for 8" clearance to wall big difference unless you have a huge room it's going in.


----------



## Ohioguychris (Nov 2, 2011)

Newer stoves aka "biomass stove" also qualify for a tax credit. 

Thermal efficiency rating of at least 75% as measured using a lower heating value.
Energy Savers: Tax Credits for Energy Efficiency


----------



## lampmfg (Nov 3, 2011)

Fyrebug said:


> _Kentukydiesel "There aren't "many nasties" in wood smoke...however scientific that may sound."_
> 
> That's correct. There's not a significant amount of volatile compounds in wood smoke to damage your health unless you are breathing it all day long in a very smoke filled atmosphere.
> 
> The biggest culprit in wood smoke is "Particulate Emissions" 2.5 micron or smaller. Basically dust that clings to your lungs and your body finds hard to get rid of.



*FUN FACT*

Kuuma VaporFire Furnaces release less than 1 g/h of particulate emissions...


----------



## brewmonster (Nov 3, 2011)

kentuckydiesel said:


> Actually...I have my chemistry straight...I was a Plant and Soil Science major and have read (actual scientific) studies on particulate emissions from the burning of wood and other cellulose material.
> There aren't "many nasties" in wood smoke...however scientific that may sound.
> 
> ANYHOW.....
> ...



Yeah, well, my Dad had a '67 Pontiac that he loved but that doesn't make me want to drive one. Today's cars are safer, cleaner, more efficient and more comfortable, i.e. better in every way. Likewise with stoves. I've had nice pre-EPA cast iron stoves, including two Vermont Castings models, but I wouldn't have one now. If that Defiant you're talking about is in good shape and the you are willing and able to keep the cat in good working order, I guess you'll be OK. I've known people who ran catalytic stoves and never gave the cat a moment's thought, just let it go to hell and ran the thing in stinkpot mode for years on end. Please don't do that and then justify it by citing your bizarre notions about woodsmoke emissions.


----------



## WidowMaker (Nov 3, 2011)

Fyrebug said:


> _Kentukydiesel "There aren't "many nasties" in wood smoke...however scientific that may sound."_
> 
> That's correct. There's not a significant amount of volatile compounds in wood smoke to damage your health unless you are breathing it all day long in a very smoke filled atmosphere.
> 
> ...




===

How do you measure a lb. of air ???Serious ?


----------



## IHDiesel73L (Nov 3, 2011)

WidowMaker said:


> ]How do you measure a lb. of air ???Serious ?



With the proper measuring tools. You can't put it on a bathroom scale but you can measure the weight of anything that has mass. All matter has mass. Air is matter. These discussions on AS are always interesting-slap "EPA certified" on something and some folks will run for the hills. It's pretty simple really-non EPA stoves send a lot of fuel in the form of VOCs up the chimney that either ends up as creosote or hot gas out of the cap. Those VOCs can be "re-burned" via secondary combustion so that you're making use of that fuel instead of venting it. Personally I wish my Englander was "EPA certified" because it would probably mean only having to cut, haul, split, and stack 3 cords a year instead of five. If you want to beat your head against the wall burning more fuel for less heat though, more power to you.


----------



## Highbeam (Nov 3, 2011)

Establishing an emissions limit is one of the very few things I can think of that the EPA has done to help me. The limits are low enough that attaining them is done by improving efficiency. This is how it happened with cars prior to about 1996. 

What will happen next, which is what happened with cars, is that the emissions will have to be much lower and then as with cars, efficiency will go down since mucho heat will have to be sent up the stack to clean up the emissions. 

Ever notice how cars now have a very very hard time hitting even 40 mpg? Remember back when the old carbureted civics could get 50? How about the diesel trucks? The pre 2007 models got well over 20 mpg where the new ones get low teens. 

There is a tipping point where the good times happen and for stoves that time is now.


----------



## Chris-PA (Nov 3, 2011)

*Carbon*



IHDiesel73L said:


> With the proper measuring tools. You can't put it on a bathroom scale but you can measure the weight of anything that has mass. All matter has mass. Air is matter. These discussions on AS are always interesting-slap "EPA certified" on something and some folks will run for the hills. It's pretty simple really-non EPA stoves send a lot of fuel in the form of VOCs up the chimney that either ends up as creosote or hot gas out of the cap. Those VOCs can be "re-burned" via secondary combustion so that you're making use of that fuel instead of venting it. Personally I wish my Englander was "EPA certified" because it would probably mean only having to cut, haul, split, and stack 3 cords a year instead of five. If you want to beat your head against the wall burning more fuel for less heat though, more power to you.


Most of the energy we have access to is stored as a molecular bond of something with carbon. By burning it, we release the carbon and get (most of) the energy back that was stored when that molecular bond was made.

If you send stuff up the stack still bonded to the carbon, likely that was energy you didn't recover. If you can get it hot enough most of those bonds will break down into simpler molecules that are relatively harmless, and you get to use the energy. We all know how much energy goes into just collecting and moving the wood, whether it be our own physical labor (energy from food) or fossil fuel energy - you don't get that back directly as heat, it's just the cost of gathering it, and I sure don't want to expend any more of it than I have to. 

I love my EPA stoves, one welded steel and the other cast iron. Unlike what's been described here they are both marvels of simplicity. They don't have complex systems or sacrificial parts (other than perhaps seals and firebrick), they work by virtue of the physical shape of parts made from durable materials. They are very effective and easy to live with day after day, and pleasing to look at. In the winter they are focal point of our lives, and after several years of this I still have fond feeling associated with them - they simply work and don't demand much of me. Certainly by spring I'm tired of the routine, but that doesn't extend to the stoves.

Both wood and fossil fuel are pretty much all solar energy, it's just that the FF was solar energy that fell a long time ago, while the wood we burn is solar energy from recent times - so when we release that we're making little net change to the amount of carbon in the air over the short term.


----------



## Fyrebug (Nov 3, 2011)

Good post WoodHeatWarrior!

Burning wood is more or less carbon neutral. A tree stores its carbon in its trunk, so if it rots in the forest or if you burn it, it will release approximately the same amount of carbon. Better to make it useable by burning it.

Of course, we are not factoring the carbon required to power the chain saw, truck etc...


----------



## TJ-Bill (Nov 3, 2011)

I upgraded my old Fischer to a new huge EPA monster. The new stove takes a 24" piece of wood and the fire box is used in the larger furnace models. I still find that the old stove heated the house better then the new one. Yes the new stove has a fancy blower, a double burn chamber and yes it's air tight and has longer burn time, and yes most mornings I can just come down stir up the coals throw in some wood and walk away but when the sided of my old stove started to glow red you knew you were opening the bedroom that night.

anyway my insurance company is happier..


----------



## kah68 (Nov 3, 2011)

Good dry wood, straight and tall chimney and a good EPA stove is money in the bank! Between 6 mo. to 3 year pay back when you factor in money saved in Oil and Gas. I went from buring over $3500 a year in oil to $1000 in oil and $500 in wood (My own supply).


----------



## WidowMaker (Nov 4, 2011)

IHDiesel73L said:


> With the proper measuring tools. You can't put it on a bathroom scale but you can measure the weight of anything that has mass. All matter has mass. Air is matter. These discussions on AS are always interesting-slap "EPA certified" on something and some folks will run for the hills. It's pretty simple really-non EPA stoves send a lot of fuel in the form of VOCs up the chimney that either ends up as creosote or hot gas out of the cap. Those VOCs can be "re-burned" via secondary combustion so that you're making use of that fuel instead of venting it. Personally I wish my Englander was "EPA certified" because it would probably mean only having to cut, haul, split, and stack 3 cords a year instead of five. If you want to beat your head against the wall burning more fuel for less heat though, more power to you.



===

I'm beating my head against nothing,but you seem to be, I do burn a EPA stove. I was simply asking a question. Then I done some googling and found lots of information, but it all have me a headache reading it and I still don't know how they can determine their 35 to one ration of air to fuel...


----------



## IHDiesel73L (Nov 4, 2011)

WidowMaker said:


> I'm beating my head against nothing,but you seem to be, I do burn a EPA stove. I was simply asking a question. Then I done some googling and found lots of information, but it all have me a headache reading it and I still don't know how they can determine their 35 to one ration of air to fuel...



My post was not directed at you-it was directed at others on AS who treat EPA certified stoves like the boogeyman. Here is a Wikipedia article that explains air-fuel ratios with regard to liquid and gaseous fuels, but it's the same idea:

Air

Every fuel has an ideal ratio of fuel to air for a complete burn.


----------

