[Toolip]

I was traveling this week up and down California and I kept hearing ads (in the central parts of ca) that you had to call and see if it was ok to burn in your fireplace and even then you are supposed to use something like a "duralog"

Can they really stop you from heating your house with wood? I'm assuming that they can't mandate this if it is your only source of heat.

Where I live (in northern ca) you can burn outside (even on non-burn days) if it for heat or cooking.

I think it really bothers me because the ads implied that other forms of heat (electric and gas) didn't pollute the air and that wood was horrible. I know that wood pollutes the air in a different way and more directly in the area where is is being used but I still didn't like the implication.

Anyone know anything else about this?

 

[number572]

Not in Cali yet, but I have a fireplace and researched which type of fuel is least pollutant & the ecologs and duralogs are alot less pollutant than true wood. What I read stated that wood pollutes your indoor air alot more than dura & ecologs as well. I burn ecologs and they last about 3-4 hrs each one... I burn 1 at a time. Oh, it also said that duralogs burn hotter than wood, so you get more heating in the home. The dura & ecologs are made (usually) of sawdust and a resin like tree sap, etc. You can google something like "what type of logs are least pollutant for indoor fireplaces" etc and there is much info.

 

[cristeen]

What's going on, in the cities in N. CA is that we have days where air pollution is high and air movement is low, so they declare them Spare the Air days (public transport is free on those days). On those days, we are not allowed to burn wood. Theoretically charcoal-burning (BBQ) would also be out on those days, but that is never mentioned. In the city, wood heating is fairly rare, and wood-burning fireplaces are used for other reasons.

Wood stoves are a completely different matter, using much less wood than a fireplace does. I believe the restriction applies to those as well, but that would be something for the specific municipality to answer.

And yes, when I saw the commercial this weekend about not burning wood I just had to roll my eyes and make a snide comment to the TV about how much more pollution the wood burning pumps into the atmosphere than the millions of cars and the oil refineries do.

 

[Toolip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by number572 Not in Cali yet, but I have a fireplace and researched which type of fuel is least pollutant & the ecologs and duralogs are alot less pollutant than true wood. What I read stated that wood pollutes your indoor air alot more than dura & ecologs as well. I burn ecologs and they last about 3-4 hrs each one... I burn 1 at a time. Oh, it also said that duralogs burn hotter than wood, so you get more heating in the home. The dura & ecologs are made (usually) of sawdust and a resin like tree sap, etc. You can google something like "what type of logs are least pollutant for indoor fireplaces" etc and there is much info.

I'm not so much concerned that they recommended a composite log but that it would be illegal to use wood heat.

I also feel very uneasy about the use of the word "pollution." Wood certainly puts particulate in the air (though it can be minimized by using dry hardwoods and having hot fires) but it is different pollution than gas and electric.

Maybe it is okay to put regulations on wood heat for highly populated areas where wood isn't a naturally abundant resource for heat. And maybe it will keep people from having fires in inefficient fireplaces (not wood stoves) just for "ambiance."

I would be seriously bummed if I was told I had to call to find out if I could have a fire. It it our primary source of heat. We do have central heating but have only turned it on once this year, just to make sure it was working. Other than that we turn it on when we're gone to keep the house from freezing.

 

[Toolip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cristeen What's going on, in the cities in N. CA is that we have days where air pollution is high and air movement is low, so they declare them Spare the Air days (public transport is free on those days). On those days, we are not allowed to burn wood. Theoretically charcoal-burning (BBQ) would also be out on those days, but that is never mentioned. In the city, wood heating is fairly rare, and wood-burning fireplaces are used for other reasons. Wood stoves are a completely different matter, using much less wood than a fireplace does. I believe the restriction applies to those as well, but that would be something for the specific municipality to answer. And yes, when I saw the commercial this weekend about not burning wood I just had to roll my eyes and make a snide comment to the TV about how much more pollution the wood burning pumps into the atmosphere than the millions of cars and the oil refineries do.

So how do they suggest you heat your house if you only have wood heat?

 

[cristeen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toolip So how do they suggest you heat your house if you only have wood heat?

That I don't know. But I do know that around here there are permits required for the installation of wood-burning fireplaces (and they're not easy to get as an individual). And I know we were told when we bought our house with an existing fireplace that we legally weren't allowed to use it (because it doesn't meet code, being 100 years old).

I've never really investigated it, since the fireplace has been boarded up for years. But I grew up with a wood-burning stove, and I remember that the only reason it was legal a few years back was because the house was outside city limits.

Ok, so a quick google turned up that the rules are basically city by city. And for my city, anyway, there is a distinction drawn between a wood-burning fireplace and a wood heater.

Quote:

"Wood heater" is an enclosed, wood burning appliance capable and intended for space heating or domestic water heating that meets the criteria in Title 40, Part 60, Subpart AAA, Section 60.531 of the Code of Federal Regulations amended October 17, 2000. "Pellet heater" is a wood heather that burns pellet fuel exclusively and is either EPA certified or exempted under EPA requirements set forth in Part 60, Title 40, Subpart AAA, of the Code of Federal Regulations, February 26, 1988. "Wood-burning fireplace" is in site-build masonry construction of factory-built, either open or with doors in front of the combustion chamber, which is neither a wood heater as defined in Title 40, Part 60, Subsection .531 of the Code of Federal Regulations nor a wood-burning cooking stove as defined herein.

 

[Toolip]

well that's interesting.

I'm really surprised that they would be able to make it illegal to use an existing fireplace. I mean, it wasn't against code when they installed it 100 years ago.

I'm glad that there is at least a distinction between fireplace and wood stove. From my understanding wood stoves are much more efficient than most electric and gas heaters, it's the fireplaces that are really inefficient for heating.

 

[AJP]

Here's some info on the restrictions for the Sacramento area:
http://www.sparetheair.com/burncheck.cfm

In this area, the restrictions apply to Sacramento County only, although the air-quality management district encompasses a handful of other counties as well. There are financial hardship exemptions for wood as the only heat source, I think. They also distinguish between open fireplaces and various types of woodstoves (some are much more efficient than others, putting less particulate matter into the air).

I'm sympathetic to both sides of this issue. I agree that woodsmoke can be a problem in certain areas under certain conditions, and sometimes people are irresponsible about it, or ignorant that the pretty, crackling fire in their open fireplace, purely for enjoyment and not to heat the house, can be causing the asthmatic neighbor kid distress. I heat with wood, using a highly-efficient woodstove (usually the only time you can see smoke coming from the chimney is right at the beginning when the fire is getting started), and wood from my own property. We live in a rural, hilly area, so the population density and air conditions are very different than down in the valley. I think it would be better to educate people about burning responsibly rather than make regulations. The Sac. Co. Sheriff said on the radio last week that this burning regulation is not being enforced at all. Still, I think if I lived in that area, I'd check if it's a burn day before deciding if I really needed to start a fire. If it was very cold and other heat sources weren't available or reasonable, then I'd burn anyway. Or maybe not.

 

[eccomama]

yeah i been seeing the ads too. but there's nothing like the smell of burning wood to bring back childhood memories of my grandparents homes with wood burning stoves and fireplaces. i personally dont' have a chimmey,

but if I did I probably burn real wood in it. how many cold days do we get? and the other stuff just doesnt smell the same. so ungreen of me..

 

[Toolip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJP I'm sympathetic to both sides of this issue. I agree that woodsmoke can be a problem in certain areas under certain conditions, and sometimes people are irresponsible about it, or ignorant that the pretty, crackling fire in their open fireplace, purely for enjoyment and not to heat the house, can be causing the asthmatic neighbor kid distress. I heat with wood, using a highly-efficient woodstove (usually the only time you can see smoke coming from the chimney is right at the beginning when the fire is getting started), and wood from my own property. We live in a rural, hilly area, so the population density and air conditions are very different than down in the valley. I think it would be better to educate people about burning responsibly rather than make regulations. The Sac. Co. Sheriff said on the radio last week that this burning regulation is not being enforced at all. Still, I think if I lived in that area, I'd check if it's a burn day before deciding if I really needed to start a fire. If it was very cold and other heat sources weren't available or reasonable, then I'd burn anyway. Or maybe not.

This is basically the way I feel. I get both sides of the issue but it just seems like making it illegal is quite extreme.