Print

[tronsliver]

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. 

[MattyNH]

Your spam bud..I googled it..It showed up on other forums with only 1 post  from you on other forums  like this one. Reads the exact same thing..

[tronsliver]

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.

[Scott7m]

It's not really spam.  Stoves that tested at 90% efficiency on tests last year or year before are testing at 67-69% on the new test.

Which, are much more real world style numbers.

People heavily involved knew it was screwy all along but you'd look like a fool to be a company saying our stove is 67% efficient when your entire competition claims 90

[tronsliver]

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.

[johnybcold]

If central boiler knowing mislead people then there would be a class action suit by now, so far I love my unit, but I would hope on the class action suit, I got a whole $5 from the blockbuster $100,000,000,000 law suit.

[CountryBoyJohn]

Ok, a couple things.  First of all, in your second commment, you said "OWBs are the most inefficient wood burning device on the market today."  Horsecrap!  (pardon my French)  You're telling me that a fireplace insert is more efficient?  I really don't think that there is anything out there, short of setting your floor on fire, that heats a house with wood better than and OWB.  Second, I don't think many of the guys on here really worry much about their "efficiency rating."  They put wood in, it heats water, it heats their house.  End of story.  If they burn 8 cords, they burn 8 cords.  So what.  They burn the amount of wood that they need to keep their house warm.  Some guys will get a gasser to burn less wood.  So, next year they burn 5.  Awesome, they saved 3 cords of time.  I don't think they look at the sticker that says how "efficient" the model is.  I have no idea what the tagged efficiency is on the stove I'm getting.  I know it's going to take 5-7 cords to heat my house for a winter.  I didn't buy it because it says its 90% efficient and my conventional heating system is only 85%.  I bought it because the wood is free. 

[Scott7m]

Yea, part of what he was saying was true but then he got carried away with the worst efficiency yada yada yada. 

Many of us don't care is true, but the testing they have used for years is rather goofy.

[tronsliver]

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

[boilerman]

Scott and the rest of you, smart'n up...sliver is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He made this post on at least 4 other OWF forums today pushing his agenda. 1st time poster on all of them...A quick google search will show he has been blogging and pushing his anti-OWF agenda as far back as 2008 pushing his half educated agenda. Read the first sentence in his attached letter to CB....it states " This letter is to all EPA Hydronic Heaters Program partners who have qualified Phase 2 Hydronic heaters for which testing was conducted using EPA method 28 OWHH"...I would guess all OWF mfgs. listed on the EPA burnwise site got this letter, yet he chooses to single out CB and makes mention of PM as being unethical...Probably because CB does more to stand up against his cause than any other company. Sliver, I've been burning an OWF both traditional and gasser for over 12 years and my families health is just fine...we are warm, we have all the hot water we need and I buy zero oil or gas from anyone. My wife had asthma since she was a kid....probably because she grew up in a house where her parents were heavy smokers....(now there is a cause for you to go after) Guess what, my OWF does not bother her asthma at all since it sits outside and does not fill the yard with smoke as you have blogged on other sites....She loves the OWF and keeping the house at 73 degrees or more! FYI we just had one of the worst winters in years and I only burned 7 cords...not the crazy numbers you like to blog about. That Colorado forest fire just burned up more wood in the last week than all the outdoor and indoor wood burners will use in the next 200 years!

[MattyNH]

Ok, a couple things.  First of all, in your second commment, you said "OWBs are the most inefficient wood burning device on the market today."  Horsecrap!  (pardon my French)  You're telling me that a fireplace insert is more efficient?  I really don't think that there is anything out there, short of setting your floor on fire, that heats a house with wood better than and OWB.  Second, I don't think many of the guys on here really worry much about their "efficiency rating."  They put wood in, it heats water, it heats their house.  End of story.  If they burn 8 cords, they burn 8 cords.  So what.  They burn the amount of wood that they need to keep their house warm.  Some guys will get a gasser to burn less wood.  So, next year they burn 5.  Awesome, they saved 3 cords of time.  I don't think they look at the sticker that says how "efficient" the model is.  I have no idea what the tagged efficiency is on the stove I'm getting.  I know it's going to take 5-7 cords to heat my house for a winter.  I didn't buy it because it says its 90% efficient and my conventional heating system is only 85%.  I bought it because the wood is free.

100% agree..nicely said my friend!

[MattyNH]

Scott and the rest of you, smart'n up...sliver is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He made this post on at least 4 other OWF forums today pushing his agenda. 1st time poster on all of them...A quick google search will show he has been blogging and pushing his anti-OWF agenda as far back as 2008 pushing his half educated agenda. Read the first sentence in his attached letter to CB....it states " This letter is to all EPA Hydronic Heaters Program partners who have qualified Phase 2 Hydronic heaters for which testing was conducted using EPA method 28 OWHH"...I would guess all OWF mfgs. listed on the EPA burnwise site got this letter, yet he chooses to single out CB and makes mention of PM as being unethical...Probably because CB does more to stand up against his cause than any other company. Sliver, I've been burning an OWF both traditional and gasser for over 12 years and my families health is just fine...we are warm, we have all the hot water we need and I buy zero oil or gas from anyone. My wife had asthma since she was a kid....probably because she grew up in a house where her parents were heavy smokers....(now there is a cause for you to go after) Guess what, my OWF does not bother her asthma at all since it sits outside and does not fill the yard with smoke as you have blogged on other sites....She loves the OWF and keeping the house at 73 degrees or more! FYI we just had one of the worst winters in years and I only burned 7 cords...not the crazy numbers you like to blog about. That Colorado forest fire just burned up more wood in the last week than all the outdoor and indoor wood burners will use in the next 200 years!

That is what I found when I google it..

[tronsliver]

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.

[boilerman]

I'm not a professor, great mathematician and certainly don't know all the details on how the EPA qualifying tests are done. But I'm not dumb either. CB and other mfgs. posted the results that were posted by and on the EPA site in their advertising materials. A test that was implemented by the EPA and good enough for the EPA, but not good enough for you. Right, wrong or otherwise, it is a method to compare OWF's on an equal basis and showed their emissions based on that test. I wouldn't know the difference between 50% efficient or 89% efficient compared with another fuel source. I wanted to upgrade my OWF and did use those results when opting for my E2400. I burned a Classic for a number of years and was totally satisfied with it. Thought is smoked less than my neighbors indoor stove. When I switched over to the E-Classic, I found I burned 35-40% less wood than I did in my Classic and I rarely see any smoke coming out of it. I think you are just working a new angle to raise support for your anti-OWF agenda, by trying to discredit the mfgs of them and to try to discredit the industry. You don't understand, yes I could by a 95%+ efficient propane furnace. Us wood burners elect to burn wood because it is cheaper and there is no way I or anyone else are losing money by burning it.

[Scott7m]

Buddy I've known about all that since 09 just knew that when the EPA test shows you at 90% efficient u can't claim 67 and then try to compete with companies "with paperwork" showing 90% efficient

The tests we were doin then was showing some gasification models at over 120% efficient,we knew it was crap then as well

All I can say is this. If a stove is at 90% eff and it has 300 degree exhaust temps tht would mean internal temps must be 3000

It ain't happening.  I have had this convo with Willieg and was glad someone actually looked at it from that perspective.  The thing is, your in business, you can't let the competition kill you due to faulty testing procedures that after all, have the big EPA stamp on them

For example, if I tried to explain that to a customer here on my lot, who are they gonna trust??  The redneck from ky or a huge govt funded agency that has there labels on everything known to man??

The exact stoves that tested 90% efficient have now tested at 67-69%.  To me those numbers finally make sense.  Gasification units "can" burn up to over 2000, but keep in mind those are ideal conditions and normal operating temps aren't maxed out, it all depends on the wood load, how it's blocking the nozzles at the time, etc etc etc