It would be silly to repeat the mistakes of Libby, Montana, where $2.5 million
was spent replacing all the old stoves with new EPA-certified wood ones. In
reality the so-called 'clean-burning' stoves were almost as dirty as
the old ones - woodsmoke pollution fell by just 28%. Unless they
can find another $2.5 million to replace the new stoves with non-polluting
alternatives, the end result of such a silly policy will be to lock in unhealthy
pollution for decades to come.Far better to bite the bullet and
install non-polluting heating in the first place. Modern heat-pumps are so
efficient they can deliver 5 or 6 times as much heat to the home as they use in
electricity. The UN Environment program recommended phasing out log-burning
wood stoves in developed countries to reduce global warming as well as improve
health - woodsmoke dot 3sc dot net/greenhouseThe American Lung
Association (ALA) "cautions against wood-burning and urges cleaner
alternatives for winter heat"Until there really are
clean-burning wood stoves, the best option is to follow the ALA's advice.
The really poor don't even have a place to heat, and the moderately poor
often live in apartment blocks that do NOT allow wood burning. Every wood burner
I know has a big truck and big attitude. They burn because for now they can!
I think the problem is taxation by inflation without representation. When the
price of goods went up they[the Gov] gets more taxes. as the price goes down
their going Oh Oh.
The wood stove I use burns at the bottom then collects the gas at the ceiling
and burns it again than it goes into another chamber above the ceiling that
burns what's there than again as it inters the flue pipe there is another
burner so as it leaves the house I have the most heat out of the wood as I can
possibly get with the least possible dirt in the air. But I love the smell of a
wood fire. I love smoked cheese and meat.