• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Massachusetts suing EPA over wood burning stoves

So having EPA rated wood stoves is good? I thought NES hated EPA rated stuff and government regulation?
Nice try putting words in my mouth.

ETA: NES is not a monolith. We have commies that post there.

EPA is much too complicated to discuss on this medium. I really can't be bothered to post more than a few sentences at once.
 
Last edited:
The research I have done means this helps make a wood stove extremely efficient. It reclaims the heat and unburnt gasses and helps make the house heat up faster.

On the down side. You can't burn plastics or glossy paper. Because the catalytic converter is expensive.
Google regency triple burn or 3 stage burn
Catalyst stoves can achieve great burn efficiency at very low output.
My reburn tube stove hits similar efficiency at the upper end of its range but struggles to keep the tubes lit when completely damped down.

Alaska has issues with bad smog from wood burning but most of that is from wet wood and ancient, leaky stoves.
 
Catalyst stoves can achieve great burn efficiency at very low output.
My reburn tube stove hits similar efficiency at the upper end of its range but struggles to keep the tubes lit when completely damped down.

Alaska has issues with bad smog from wood burning but most of that is from wet wood and ancient, leaky stoves.
Mine was a reburner. The dancing flames as the smoke burned was great.
 
This is a straight-up waste of taxpayer money. Wood burning stove industry has had some incredible innovations in the past 20 years. Capitalism and market demand drove the innovation, not the government meddling.
My new heating fireplace insert is fantastic! I used to burn almost two cords per winter. This past winter, I barely went through 2/3s of one cord!
 
We have a couple old ones in Maine probably 100+ years old
It came out of a camp on Wilson Pond.

As a side story the liberal I bought it from was pretty upset at the tee shirt I was wearing that day but she or her husband didnā€™t have the balls to say anything about it until the stove was in my truck and strapped down. šŸ˜‚
It read ā€œShove gun control up your ____ā€ with a picture of a RWB donkey.
 
This frequently means something like, ā€œyou naĆÆve idiotā€ or something similarly unflattering. Was that your intention?
Pretty much, although I was thinking more along the lines of "naive boob". "Idiot" is a bit too far.

What exactly did I write that you object to?
"This isnā€™t about efficiency or thermodynamics or CO2 emissions, itā€™s about particulate emissions."

I think it would be kind to describe the above as naive.
 
Just another added expense. You can rip the catalytic converter out rather than waste even more dollors on replacements.

These threads always remind me of my dad and his 1977 Dodge Aspen. I think that is around when they started with all the emissions hysteria. The thing ran like crap. He took a crow bar to the catalytic converter and re-installed the empty shell. He deleted the EGR. The car had more power, gas mileage improved >20%, and the inspection emission tests were better than before the "mods". Go figure.
 
If I heard that right, MA is suing because the standard and testing method is NOT strict enough. They are not suing to stop standards that have the goal of banning wood burning stoves for heat. Don't be shocked if Beacon Hill tries to ban pellet and chunk smoker grills and eventually all gas and charcoal grills.
Obama's EPA tried to ban indigenous rural Alaskans from using would burning stoves for heat despite the fact that they had no other viable heat source.
 
Wood stoves represent a heat source that canā€™t be regulated or shut off at a central office if your 2025 social credit score is too low or youā€™ve posted unsanctioned thoughts online.

They are also most likely used by rural customers, which vote the wrong way and should be punished.

Eventually wood burning will be illegal.

Just because Iā€™m paranoid doesnā€™t mean they arenā€™t out you get you.

ā€” Anonymous

You're a paranoid individual a lot of the time, SF, but I'm 100% behind you on this.

It's like the digital currency folks. They've come out and SAID "we can't control the money supply until we eliminate the paper dollars." šŸ˜²

Strange is the more that the courts are ruling against government overreach, the more the government TRIES more overreach. ????
 
Nice try putting words in my mouth.

ETA: NES is not a monolith. We have commies that post there.

EPA is much too complicated to discuss on this medium. I really can't be bothered to post more than a few sentences at once.
There are a lot of liberal type commies on every issue, including guns on NES. If we don't push back, they take over.
 
These politicians should be wearing body cams 24/7 and 25 years in prison for turning them off.
I said it in another thread, we need to start a hobbyist group that follows local bureaucrat pols around in public with parabolic mics and scrutinize all aspects of their public lives. We become their Big Brother.
 
If they try to take my preban Jotul itā€™s quite simple really. Build a stump wall with a choad moat and keep the fire burning so long that they will never be able to touch it and give up.
 
Pretty much, although I was thinking more along the lines of "naive boob". "Idiot" is a bit too far.


"This isnā€™t about efficiency or thermodynamics or CO2 emissions, itā€™s about particulate emissions."

I think it would be kind to describe the above as naive.

It's literally right in the article that it's about particulate emissions. Efficiency isn't mentioned anywhere.

I get that it's cool and all to think everything is a conspiracy to control every aspect of everything anyone does; and sometimes it is a deliberate conspiracy (e.g.: gun laws like the current MA abomination), but this doesn't meet that standard. I don't usually think of Alaska as being a "live under the thumb of the state" kind of place, yet they signed on to this. And in this case, the states are suing because the EPA isn't doing their job.
 
These politicians should be wearing body cams 24/7 and 25 years in prison for turning them off.
99% should be wearing a noose. Actually, more like 99.5%.

Iā€™m not all that particular about where the hanging takes place, but the Lincoln memorial would make for a fitting back drop.
 
It's literally right in the article that it's about particulate emissions. Efficiency isn't mentioned anywhere.

I get that it's cool and all to think everything is a conspiracy to control every aspect of everything anyone does; and sometimes it is a deliberate conspiracy (e.g.: gun laws like the current MA abomination), but this doesn't meet that standard. I don't usually think of Alaska as being a "live under the thumb of the state" kind of place, yet they signed on to this. And in this case, the states are suing because the EPA isn't doing their job.
Yeah, the feds will go to every remote village in Alaska and remove their only source of heat in the middle of winter (which is pretty much 10 months a year depending on location).

I donā€™t think so, commie.

What kind of American in their right mind would even try to enforce this?!
 
Yeah, the feds will go to every remote village in Alaska and remove their only source of heat in the middle of winter (which is pretty much 10 months a year depending on location).

I donā€™t think so, commie.

What kind of American in their right mind would even try to enforce this?!
It's for sales of new stoves. SO FAR they have not proposed ripping out anyone's old stove.

[ominous sound]SO FAR[/ominous sound]
 
How would these mentally retarded politicians know about wood stove emissions, how do they know anything, they are retarded. The really problem is the emissions from political corruption and the emissions from insider trading and the emissions and death from Fentynl , but do they want to focus on those emissions ?

What a Political waste.... dumb idiots. Ignore the real problems , focus on things that have no problem.

What about emissions from wild fires ? What about the fact that we have to burn coal and gas to make electricity.

With the liberals and democrats, they never have solutions all they do is point shut out and bring nothing to the table.
In this example they have absolutely no education or testing. They are just looking for trouble where there isn't any.
Why not focus on the border? Illegals ? Why not focus on the drug problem. Or the rigged elections. What a bunch of dumb Hacks
 
It's literally right in the article that it's about particulate emissions. Efficiency isn't mentioned anywhere.

I get that it's cool and all to think everything is a conspiracy to control every aspect of everything anyone does; and sometimes it is a deliberate conspiracy (e.g.: gun laws like the current MA abomination), but this doesn't meet that standard. I don't usually think of Alaska as being a "live under the thumb of the state" kind of place, yet they signed on to this. And in this case, the states are suing because the EPA isn't doing their job.
Hopefully the conservatives are Stopping them from "Doing their job". The EPA is totally out of control and staffed by 90% Democrats.
 
My pellet stove is something like 86% or 87% efficient. When it's burning there's only a brief puff of smoke when the stove starts a new burn cycle. Once it's going there's nothing to see. There's no smoke going out of the chimney, What does these people actually think? That they can force someone legally to violate the laws of thermodynamics with a judges order?
I HATE my pellet stove. It sucks donkey Dick. With any luck Iā€™ll have it replaced with a new wood stove by winter.
 
Back
Top Bottom