Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
1
General Outdoor Furnace Discussion / Re: EPA orders Central Boiler to pull efficiencies from its models
« on: June 26, 2013, 07:32:38 PM »
Boilerman,
I understand you sentiment. It appears you own a CB EClassic 2400 - one the boilers identified in the letter - and take exception to the information I posted. It doesn't however take away from the real issue here, that is, CB continuing to misrepresent efficiencies in their advertising and until recently on the hang tag of their units. It is quite obvious that you adamantly disapprove of my posting. I can only speculate as to why but one thing is for sure you have frantically tried to derail the facts as presented but have not offered any alternative to prove my facts are incorrect. Everything I have posted can be obtained by doing a FOIA to the EPA. I suggest you collect the information yourself and form your own conclusions. Perhaps you really don't want to know the truth about the efficiency controversy. Maybe this is just a matter of principle with you and some of the others here and you'll say anything you can to try and discredit the information. Maybe you don't want to admit you were swindled. The bottom-line is it really doesn't matter what my motivation is or yours for that matter. The fact is, CB, and based on your comments other manufacturers as well, knowingly misrepresented their products to consumers.
I ask that you try to be objective and realize that although this may be difficult for you to accept, there are many others who can use this information in deciding whether or not to purchase an OWB when compared to other heating systems. What I have attempted to accomplish is to level the playing field. Consumers have every right to know what has transpired in this industry and your personal spin has no relevancy. If you have any questions on the facts I presented please ask but please don't make this personal.
I understand you sentiment. It appears you own a CB EClassic 2400 - one the boilers identified in the letter - and take exception to the information I posted. It doesn't however take away from the real issue here, that is, CB continuing to misrepresent efficiencies in their advertising and until recently on the hang tag of their units. It is quite obvious that you adamantly disapprove of my posting. I can only speculate as to why but one thing is for sure you have frantically tried to derail the facts as presented but have not offered any alternative to prove my facts are incorrect. Everything I have posted can be obtained by doing a FOIA to the EPA. I suggest you collect the information yourself and form your own conclusions. Perhaps you really don't want to know the truth about the efficiency controversy. Maybe this is just a matter of principle with you and some of the others here and you'll say anything you can to try and discredit the information. Maybe you don't want to admit you were swindled. The bottom-line is it really doesn't matter what my motivation is or yours for that matter. The fact is, CB, and based on your comments other manufacturers as well, knowingly misrepresented their products to consumers.
I ask that you try to be objective and realize that although this may be difficult for you to accept, there are many others who can use this information in deciding whether or not to purchase an OWB when compared to other heating systems. What I have attempted to accomplish is to level the playing field. Consumers have every right to know what has transpired in this industry and your personal spin has no relevancy. If you have any questions on the facts I presented please ask but please don't make this personal.
2
General Outdoor Furnace Discussion / Re: EPA orders Central Boiler to pull efficiencies from its models
« on: June 26, 2013, 02:48:32 PM »
Scott7m,
I noticed you're a OWB dealer. I was hoping I could ask you a question and get an honest answer. Please know there is no malice intended but I'm curious if you were notified of the flawed efficiencies listed on the Phase II models you were selling. If so can you tell me when?
thanks
I noticed you're a OWB dealer. I was hoping I could ask you a question and get an honest answer. Please know there is no malice intended but I'm curious if you were notified of the flawed efficiencies listed on the Phase II models you were selling. If so can you tell me when?
thanks
3
General Outdoor Furnace Discussion / Re: EPA orders Central Boiler to pull efficiencies from its models
« on: June 26, 2013, 08:13:36 AM »
Keep in mind that EPA’s Method 28 OWHH and the new Method 28 WHH use a testing methodology based on compromise. The EPA’s Phase II program is a volunteer program. This means the only way the EPA can get manufacturers to participate is to give them a seat at the table. The 67-69 % now being reported for some units under WHH is also overly optimistic when compared to real-world results. The only way OWBs will ever get to high efficiencies is to eliminate cycling technology.
Along these same lines there's currently a federal tax credit allowing up to $300 for OWBs that meet a 75% thermal efficiency rating. Many of the manufactures are claiming their units meet the criteria by continuing to use the same efficiency values removed from the Burn Wise website and recently ordered off their hang tags. To cover their bases a few manufacturers had their units tested using EN303-5 which is the European standard. The type of technology employed in American OWB systems cannot be adequately tested using this standard. The design of EN303-5 assumes wood heating systems that do not cycle (damper closed when building quits calling for heat) or employ an auxiliary heat storage system that allows the boiler to run continually. Only a few American manufacturers employ this type of technology.
The federal statute is not explicit as to how the 75% must be measured so those manufacturers with the wherewithal (paying for testing) are taking advantage of the current language by using inappropriate testing methods. There is nothing illegal about using EN303-5 except the fact that consumers end up being the victim. Yes the consumer receives a tax credit, but again there is the assumption that the device purchased is achieving these advertised high efficiencies. In the long run the cost of operating the device far exceed the measly amount obtained from the initial tax credit.
Bottom-line: Not only are some OWB manufacturers immorally defrauding the federal government but continue to find ways to knowingly misrepresent high thermal efficiency values via advertisement as well. Google CB E-Classic 1450 brochure and look at the bottom right of page one. If you’re an average consumer how would you interpret the 90% efficiency listed on the brochure? What makes this so immoral is the fact that CB knows its units cannot come anywhere close to the efficiency listed on the brochure based on the EPA informing them in 2010 about the flaws in its Method 28, but has absolutely no second thoughts about consumers incurring thousands of dollars in losses over the life of the product. If you purchased a Phase II OWB under these false pretenses between 2010 and present you should be furious.
Along these same lines there's currently a federal tax credit allowing up to $300 for OWBs that meet a 75% thermal efficiency rating. Many of the manufactures are claiming their units meet the criteria by continuing to use the same efficiency values removed from the Burn Wise website and recently ordered off their hang tags. To cover their bases a few manufacturers had their units tested using EN303-5 which is the European standard. The type of technology employed in American OWB systems cannot be adequately tested using this standard. The design of EN303-5 assumes wood heating systems that do not cycle (damper closed when building quits calling for heat) or employ an auxiliary heat storage system that allows the boiler to run continually. Only a few American manufacturers employ this type of technology.
The federal statute is not explicit as to how the 75% must be measured so those manufacturers with the wherewithal (paying for testing) are taking advantage of the current language by using inappropriate testing methods. There is nothing illegal about using EN303-5 except the fact that consumers end up being the victim. Yes the consumer receives a tax credit, but again there is the assumption that the device purchased is achieving these advertised high efficiencies. In the long run the cost of operating the device far exceed the measly amount obtained from the initial tax credit.
Bottom-line: Not only are some OWB manufacturers immorally defrauding the federal government but continue to find ways to knowingly misrepresent high thermal efficiency values via advertisement as well. Google CB E-Classic 1450 brochure and look at the bottom right of page one. If you’re an average consumer how would you interpret the 90% efficiency listed on the brochure? What makes this so immoral is the fact that CB knows its units cannot come anywhere close to the efficiency listed on the brochure based on the EPA informing them in 2010 about the flaws in its Method 28, but has absolutely no second thoughts about consumers incurring thousands of dollars in losses over the life of the product. If you purchased a Phase II OWB under these false pretenses between 2010 and present you should be furious.
4
General Outdoor Furnace Discussion / Re: EPA orders Central Boiler to pull efficiencies from its models
« on: June 25, 2013, 08:33:43 PM »
I can assure you that the postings were not indiscriminate but a deliberate attempt to inform consumers of misrepresentation by a large manufacturer. Efficiencies of OWBs have been discussed ad nauseam on these forums but until now there has been very little evidence to validate what most people already know to be true. That is, OWBs are the most inefficient wood burning device on the market today. I feel it is important for those who have purchased or thinking about purchasing know the truth on how they have been duped. The test data can be obtained from the EPA via a FOIA. The enclosed letter from the EPA to Central Boiler can also be obtained via a FOIA if you doubt its authenticity.
I have no affiliation with any wood burning or other heating manufacturer nor am I involved with advertising of any sort. In other words this is not spam. The facts speak for themselves and can easily be validated.
I have no affiliation with any wood burning or other heating manufacturer nor am I involved with advertising of any sort. In other words this is not spam. The facts speak for themselves and can easily be validated.
5
General Outdoor Furnace Discussion / EPA orders Central Boiler to pull efficiencies from its models
« on: June 25, 2013, 12:40:47 PM »
See the enclosed letter from the EPA to Central Boiler written a few weeks ago. Keep in mind that OWB manufactures knew that the efficiency rating shown on hang-tags attached to their units, and published in their marketing materials, were flawed as early as 2010 when the EPA pulled the efficiency data from its Burnwise website. Also relevant is the fact that many states promulgated its laws based on these flawed efficiencies.
For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website. A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use. This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.
The EPA told the manufacturers about the flawed efficiencies at the time they were pulled from Burnwise but the manufacturers elected not to remove them from the hang-tags or their marketing materials. In other words, they continued to misrepresent the boilers to consumers until the recent EPA letters were sent. The only reason the EPA sent the letters out last month is because they knew that a number of law firms found out about the flawed efficiencies and elected to do damage control. In other words, push blame on the manufacturers by proving that the manufactures knew about the flawed efficiencies yet decided not to remove them ( remember it's a volunteer program)
From a consumers perspective, if a person pays $200 dollars for a full cord of wood and the OWB burns an average of 13 full cords of wood per heating season, the consumer expects only 14% waste (100 - 86%) or $364 dollars per heating season based on a 86% thermal efficiency. Based on the Gullett’s study a person who purchased a EClassic 2300 actually loses $1820 dollars per heating season because the actual efficiency is only 30%.
70% (waste based on 30 percent efficiency) x 200 (per cord) = $140 (waste per cord) x 13 cords of wood = $1820
Additionally, when a consumer shops for a heating appliance many base their decision to purchase on the efficiency of the device. In essence, they compare to other appliances such as gas, oil and electricity before making the purchase. As you can see from the aforementioned example consumers' are being duped and neighbors are suffering the consequences - efficiency has a direct coloration to smoke and pollution. The higher the efficiency the hotter the fire burns and hence less smoke and PM 2.5.
Lastly, after Method 28 OWHH was found flawed , also as a result of the efficiency issue, NESCAUM and NYSERDA strongly questioned the raw data obtained from Method 28 OWHH on all models tested, to include the data which determined the amount of Particulate Matter measured for each test. The EPA baulked because it would require them to force retesting for 23 models at 20 thousand dollars per test. This would obviously prompt lawsuits against them from manufacturers so they massaged the data to salvage the PM results. Bottom-line is the PM results are suspect too.
For over three years now consumers have been intentionally mislead into purchasing Phase II OWBs based on deliberate false marketing schemes costing consumers thousands of dollars. Both the EPA and manufacturers are complicit.
For example, the EClassic 2300 showed 86% efficiency on its hang-tag and that's what was listed on the Burnwise website. A study sponsored by the EPA showed the EClassic 2300 (three stage HH) as having only 30% thermal efficiency under real-world use. This is one of the reasons the efficiencies were pulled in late 2010.
The EPA told the manufacturers about the flawed efficiencies at the time they were pulled from Burnwise but the manufacturers elected not to remove them from the hang-tags or their marketing materials. In other words, they continued to misrepresent the boilers to consumers until the recent EPA letters were sent. The only reason the EPA sent the letters out last month is because they knew that a number of law firms found out about the flawed efficiencies and elected to do damage control. In other words, push blame on the manufacturers by proving that the manufactures knew about the flawed efficiencies yet decided not to remove them ( remember it's a volunteer program)
From a consumers perspective, if a person pays $200 dollars for a full cord of wood and the OWB burns an average of 13 full cords of wood per heating season, the consumer expects only 14% waste (100 - 86%) or $364 dollars per heating season based on a 86% thermal efficiency. Based on the Gullett’s study a person who purchased a EClassic 2300 actually loses $1820 dollars per heating season because the actual efficiency is only 30%.
70% (waste based on 30 percent efficiency) x 200 (per cord) = $140 (waste per cord) x 13 cords of wood = $1820
Additionally, when a consumer shops for a heating appliance many base their decision to purchase on the efficiency of the device. In essence, they compare to other appliances such as gas, oil and electricity before making the purchase. As you can see from the aforementioned example consumers' are being duped and neighbors are suffering the consequences - efficiency has a direct coloration to smoke and pollution. The higher the efficiency the hotter the fire burns and hence less smoke and PM 2.5.
Lastly, after Method 28 OWHH was found flawed , also as a result of the efficiency issue, NESCAUM and NYSERDA strongly questioned the raw data obtained from Method 28 OWHH on all models tested, to include the data which determined the amount of Particulate Matter measured for each test. The EPA baulked because it would require them to force retesting for 23 models at 20 thousand dollars per test. This would obviously prompt lawsuits against them from manufacturers so they massaged the data to salvage the PM results. Bottom-line is the PM results are suspect too.
For over three years now consumers have been intentionally mislead into purchasing Phase II OWBs based on deliberate false marketing schemes costing consumers thousands of dollars. Both the EPA and manufacturers are complicit.
Pages: [1]