Print

[mlappin]

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/hhcertifiedwood.pdf

Being the government I’m sure it’s not up to date.

[slimjim]

Top line it says as of Jan 2016

[Sloppy_Snood]

First:  I am not a Communications major in any way, shape, or form.

Second:  You guys are killing me!    I do understand what is on the EPA's approved (certified) outdoor wood-burning furnace list;  unfortunately, that s not what I am driving at and asking about.

The Question again (second time):

what NEW PRODUCTION (meaning, as if January 1, 2016) Portage and Main products are actually manufactured and for sale in the United States and meet the EPA White Tag Phase II requirements?

The answer?  I guess I will try to answer my own question.


As I listed in my last post, I will clarify that I am NOT referring to:

• coal boilers
• old P&M inventory
• Pre-January 1, 2016-P&M boilers specified on the EPA's list

For outdoor WOOD-burning furnaces, P&M's website and the EPA's approved OWB list seem to deduce the following:

The ONLY brand new, after January 1, 2016 Portage and Main outdoor wood-burning furnace that is EPA White Tag Phase II-approved and listed for legal sale and purchase in the United States of America is the $30,000+ Enviro-Chip 500 chip boiler (Optimizer 350 is discontinued so it doesn't "count" for U.S. sales now as it is no longer manufactured)

A single, $30,000+ dollar boiler for legal U.S.A.-eligible sales as of January 1st, 2016? 

Am I correct or incorrect here?   

Set me straight information insiders! 

[mlappin]

Top line it says as of Jan 2016

Sorry, what I meant was there may be some out there that just got approved and not on the list yet.

[martyinmi]

I am looking forward to what martyinmi has to say later today.

You covered everything that martyinmi (that's me) had to say, plus a whole bunch more!

[Strawbale Builder]

Thanks martyinmi!

[boilerman]

Reading through this thread I'm as confused as Sloppy...These two units do seem almost identical. Both companies now have brochures and specs posted for these units.  www.polarfurnace.com and www.portageandmainboilers.com
Visually look at the outer shell similarities, the bends and proportions seem way beyond chance.
Polar G3: 75"Hx42"Wx78"L Firebox 14.0 cu ft Firebox L 27"(wood length)Door 15.5"x22" Weight 2,750lb, Water capacity 250, 200K BTU output, Heats 14,000 sq ft
EGR 250:74"Hx42"Wx68"L Firebox 12.7 cu ft Firebox L28"                       Door 15.0"x18" Weight 3,200lb, Water capacity 160, 250K BTU output, Heats 4K-6,000 sq ft
Again, look at the outer shell, the bends, chimney location, cut-a-ways and the specs. Seems way beyond coincidence. Sperling mfg plant and Piney mfg plant are only 95 miles apart
Both seem to have horizontal and vertical exchange tubes and the same exchanger cleaning system. The EGR probably gets the extra weight from refractory weight.
Polar G2 and G3 can be found on the February EPA Certified list www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/hhcertifiedwood.pdf, while the EGR is not shown.
Not that it matters, but who is the real owner of this design and who is actually manufacturing these units is intriguing.
Polar G3  200,000 BTU output and heats 14,000 sq ft?       
EGR 250 250,000 BTU output and heats 4,000-6,000 sq ft? Where do all these numbers come from? Or rather who makes them up?

[mlappin]

Polar G3  200,000 BTU output and heats 14,000 sq ft?       
EGR 250 250,000 BTU output and heats 4,000-6,000 sq ft? Where do all these numbers come from? Or rather who makes them up?

These numbers are pointless at best.

3500 square feet of brand new ultra efficient house is a hell of a lot easier to heat then 2000 square feet of 1800’s farm house.

[slimjim]

I'm not sure what is going on here or if I should even comment but I'll give you my take.
Almost all good boiler manufacturers are located within about 4 hours of one another.
All the manufacturers spy on one another, at shows, at home sites and some even buy competitions boilers in order to reverse engineer them. Sometimes, the competition is even invited into the factory for input
Some times it takes a year to get boilers tested and approved on the EPAs website as happened with the Enviro 500, I'm not sure if the EGR 250 has been tested and passed yet!
I know of one that is running, it seems to be a good burning unit, the home owner is pleased with it's performance so far, it's been running for about 4 months.
It is a sectional unit and can be dismantled in the field.

[willieG]

as stated already the type of home you are heating will have a LOT to do with your btu usage.

well insulated with good windows ans such will require less btu per square foot than a leaky old century home that has hadlittle renovations done to it

lets just do a little math....200,000 btu devided by 40 btu per square foot per hour (used here in Ontario for guestimating and older home) would mean you could heat a 5000 square foot home on the coldest night of the year

now if you used that same 200,000 on a 14,000 square foot home you would get the result of about 14 btu per square foot! perhaps if you are living in florida you may be able to heat your home on the coldest night of the year?

I would say the guy telling you that  you could heat between 4 and 6 thousand square feet is being far more honest

I have a small home that I used to rent out that had electric heat and I can tell you this...the home is in southern Ontario Canada, it only has an uninsulated crawl space (working on that) but it has new windows and 6 inch stud walls with pink fiberglass insulation and in the dead of winter (the coldest temps and wind) that little house could use about 30 btu per square foot and I have seen it use less than 10 btu per square foot on a winter day of just freezing but sunny outside

[boilerman]

I couldn't agree more Willie. That's exactly what I meant about "pulling a number out of the air". Claims of heating 14,000 sq ft with that unit in the real world seem ridiculous. SlimJim shared his thoughts on these units, anyone else have any thoughts on the uncanny similarities between these models? Almost seems kind of like when ProFab was building the same model for a number of companies and just hanging a different name on them. i.e. Pacific Western, Global Hydronics, etc. Those were exact replications while these have some slight differences, but sure seem to have come off the same drawing board. Again I'm not saying it is good or bad, just a bit of a mystery.