Ban Those Wood Stoves

[Ben]

Ten states are suing the Biden admin for not banning wood stoves nationally.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/states-sue-epa-damaging-environmental-impact-residential-wood-burning-stoves

At first I thought it interesting that CA wasn't on the list, but they started attacking wood stoves years ago. I remember when my dad sold the farm, escrow couldn't close until he removed the wood stove from the house and sealed the chimney.

Also, this is another clear illustration of the cultural divide in OR and WA, where AFAIK, wood burning in the Winter is still immensely popular outside the urban centers.

[HankB]

No gas stoves . . . no coal or gas power plants . . . get rid of nukes and hydropower . . . restrict wind generators (bird strike issues) . . . no gas cars . . . no air travel . . . no A/C or ice cubes . . . no straws . . . eat bugs not beef . . . and now no wood stoves?

I thought before the environuts wanted us to live a 19th century lifestyle, but now they're against fire? How far back will THAT turn back the clock on civilization?

What are they going to oppose next - the wheel?

These people are just plain nuts.

[charby]

Crazy that Minnesota is on the list, there is a significant number of people that heat with wood in MN. I sure didn't see the state stepping up to run gas line or give LP tanks to all the rural properties.

[zxcvbob]

Crazy that Minnesota is on the list, there is a significant number of people that heat with wood in MN. I sure didn't see the state stepping up to run gas line or give LP tanks to all the rural properties.

That's because they don't give a rip about the rural folk; let them freeze to death.  All that matters is the big cities, especially Minneapolis.  Gas and LP?  They want to ban those too.  Force everybody to all-electric, and when the grid can't handle the load you ration electricity to the people who vote correctly.

[RoadKingLarry]

Today is one of those days when I'm in a mood that makes me wish they would just go ahead and get things started so we can get on with the cleansing.

[WLJ]

Crazy that Minnesota is on the list, there is a significant number of people that heat with wood in MN. I sure didn't see the state stepping up to run gas line or give LP tanks to all the rural properties.

How liberal in the AG?

[Pb]

I read something that makes a lot of sense to me.  It is a good idea to have multiple energy sources... if one becomes unavailable, you can switch to another in an emergency.  Like a house with electricity, with a wood or gas heater.  If you had only electric, you could be in serious trouble if it failed in the winter.

[WLJ]

I read something that makes a lot of sense to me.  It is a good idea to have multiple energy sources... if one becomes unavailable, you can switch to another in an emergency.  Like a house with electricity, with a wood or gas heater.  If you had only electric, you could be in serious trouble if it failed in the winter.

  Mode on

If you only have one source of energy makes it much easier for them to cut it off 

Mode off

[charby]

How liberal in the AG?

He's a member of the DFL, so I'm going to assume more liberal than conservative. 

[JTHunter]

That's because they don't give a rip about the rural folk; let them freeze to death.  All that matters is the big cities, especially Minneapolis.  Gas and LP?  They want to ban those too.  Force everybody to all-electric, and when the grid can't handle the load you ration electricity to the people who vote correctly.

AKA "The Hunger Games".   

[Kingcreek]

But but but wood is renewable energy.

[Jim147]

You can take my three woodstoves when you get past my firearms.

[sumpnz]

Pre-EPA stoves are called “smoke-dragons” by a lot of wood burners.  They really are pretty obnoxious with the amount of particulates they produce.  Much as I generally dislike regulations and government spending to force a change in the market, the benefits of EPA stoves are actually pretty substantial.  And with some help from taxpayers it can be at least budget neutral for poorer folks.  The savings on wood consumption will go a long way towards paying for a new, compliant stove.

However, the problem with that is they don’t tolerate wet wood (>25% moisture content).  Old stoves, you just run them with more air if the wood isn’t dry.  But EPA stoves will get the re-burners choked out by the steam.  Getting people to put in a proper wood storage shed, and fill it up with 3 years worth of wood so it can dry enough is a hard sell.  Or even to get them to buy properly dried fire wood if they won’t stack it that far ahead.

[French G.]

We primarily use propane with a couple electric space heaters. In the bachelor days that cheap ass kept the thermostat at 54 and a fire in the fireplace if I wanted more. See how well that lasted... Did some significant insulation upgrades and the two 125 propane tanks are good for about 40 days of real cold. I still use the fireplace. Upgrading to a good insert. If times got tough I have two good unused spare chimneys. Still working on breaking up a triaxle load of logs in the yard. I don’t like wood but I can cut down more trees, cutting down a propane seems harder. And the furnace doesn’t run when everyone’s electric car fries the grid. I keep about 15 LP cylinders around too and my cook stove is plumbed independent of the gas company’s bs. Future plans include solar hot water with a heat sink. I’m staying warm somehow.

[Ben]

Pre-EPA stoves are called “smoke-dragons” by a lot of wood burners. 

Note that unless I misread the article, they're talking about ALL stoves, not just pre-EPA stoves. I know that many state EPAs were giving pretty massive rebates, like practically buying the new stove, if people switched from older stoves. While I'm not crazy about taxpayer money being used for that without taxpayer permission, it at least was an incentive system that let people keep burning wood, versus a Draconian ban.

[sumpnz]

Note that unless I misread the article, they're talking about ALL stoves, not just pre-EPA stoves. I know that many state EPAs were giving pretty massive rebates, like practically buying the new stove, if people switched from older stoves. While I'm not crazy about taxpayer money being used for that without taxpayer permission, it at least was an incentive system that let people keep burning wood, versus a Draconian ban.

My read is they’re saying EPA ratings are allowing too many stoves that aren’t much better than smoke-dragons to be sold.  They want a substantial tightening of the rules.

[HankB]

When I lived in Minnesota, local TV station did a story about a latter day hippie, living out in the woods in an old Airstream trailer. He'd built a stove for himself - as I recall, a pretty clever design - and he kept warm during the winter by burning junk mail. He said that he went out of his way to get on every free advertising, catalog, and newspaper list he could, and he seldom had to supplement his fuel with wood. Maybe the paper didn't provide as many BTUs as wood, but he got a LOT of it. Free.

[charby]

If they really really want everyone to go 100% electric, better start building those nuclear plants and mining a lot of copper for new infrastructure and rare earths for the other components. 

[K Frame]

No gas stoves . . . no coal or gas power plants . . . get rid of nukes and hydropower . . . restrict wind generators (bird strike issues) . . . no gas cars . . . no air travel . . . no A/C or ice cubes . . . no straws . . . eat bugs not beef . . . and now no wood stoves?

I thought before the environuts wanted us to live a 19th century lifestyle, but now they're against fire? How far back will THAT turn back the clock on civilization?

What are they going to oppose next - the wheel?

These people are just plain nuts.

I've been saying for years that the steps that the left is taking aren't so much to help the environment directly, it's to reduce the population.

You can tell someone to stop doing something and they may comply...

But if you make it impossible for them to live by either starving them or freezing them or whatever, they they have no choice to comply.

Yep. I'm saying it.

The left is working to backdoor population control through state sponsored mass murder.

[Ben]

You can tell someone to stop doing something and they may comply...

Appropriate:

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

[cordex]

If they really really want everyone to go 100% electric, better start building those nuclear plants and mining a lot of copper for new infrastructure and rare earths for the other components.

Yeah, this is dead on.  Even if they want intermittent producers like solar and wind to be a big component of it, building tons of new nuclear reactors capable of some degree of load following as a base power generation should be very top of the list for anyone looking to reduce fossil fuel use and emissions.

The cheaper they make electric, the more people are going to want to use it.  If they can do it cheap and clean, then everyone wins.

[sumpnz]

Yeah, this is dead on.  Even if they want intermittent producers like solar and wind to be a big component of it, building tons of new nuclear reactors capable of some degree of load following as a base power generation should be very top of the list for anyone looking to reduce fossil fuel use and emissions.

The cheaper they make electric, the more people are going to want to use it.  If they can do it cheap and clean, then everyone wins.

But, do they want us to win?  Or choose electric because it’s cheap? 

[K Frame]

If they really really want everyone to go 100% electric, better start building those nuclear plants and mining a lot of copper for new infrastructure and rare earths for the other components. 

Funny how the left always talks about getting everyone on electric...

But they never talk about actually GETTING the electric to people.

California and Texas are already severely grid deficient at multiple times of the year.

Double or triple the demand for electric without actually building a grid to deliver it and we're back at my contention that the left is running a back end game.

And yes, unlimited abortion on demand is part of that game. And I predict that within a decade, physician-determined, mandated euthanasia will be a strong component of their environmental plan.

[WLJ]

If they really really want everyone to go 100% electric, better start building those nuclear plants and mining a lot of copper for new infrastructure and rare earths for the other components.

The dems/left will let this country go dark and full on 3rd world before they will allow that.

[Ben]

Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that modern nukes are the answer. Even most mainstream dem politicians in DC know it, but they won't rock the boat for fear of the squad and their ilk and the far left whackos.

Even then, the big fight would be streamlining the permitting process to create a reasonable timeframe to startup, and the EPA is basically an enemy combatant who would be fighting that from the inside, nevermind all the NGO lawsuits.