New $$ available to turn wood stoves into gas

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Nov. 3, 2017 7:10 a.m.

    IS it stoves or furnaces? You can get a simple yet efficient gas stove for $400 or so especially if you bought a bunch. Why do they need $1,000 for each. I'd like a subsidy like that to buy a new stove.

  • sbaggs south jordan, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:28 a.m.

    I'm sick and tired of those few of us, and there aren't that many compared to the gas burners, that burn wood constantly getting abused by those who have no idea how hard it is to keep costs down and still keep a house warm. Every home in this state has a chimney. Don't let them fool you. Gas furnaces put a lot of poison into our air every time they turn on. It gets downplayed so much that you would think it was perfectly clean and no harm comes from it at all. If it's so clean then why do we have an exhaust pipe (chimney) going through the roof? There are millions of homes, and businesses that pollute our air every day without anyone thinking about it. I'll keep my wood stove with the catalytic converter. Thank you very much. And when there is a gas shortage or skyrocketing gas bills, I'll still be toasty warm.

  • nmjim SANDIA PARK, NM
    Nov. 2, 2017 8:38 a.m.

    Then again, they COULD just regulate sales of wood stoves, requiring catalytic converters to clean up the emissions going up the stovepipe.
    With the already skyrocketing cost of housing and fuel in Utah, just add this to the economic burden of living in Utah.
    Yes, there are jobs available in Utah, but folks need to "do the math" and realize the cost of living may well exceed the proceeds of that raise or new job.

  • Freiheit Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 7:46 a.m.

    While some appreciate the "pleasant smelling wood smoke," others of us face the burning, choking discomforts brought on by that same smoke. Just walking outside to pick up the morning paper can be extremely uncomfortable. Those with asthma or COPD can be at real risk of respiratory distress. Just as with cigarette smoke, the effects spread far beyond the original source and affect a great many people who can do little or nothing to escape it. I'd like wood stoves to join other relics in museums.

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2017 7:47 a.m.

    Wood burning stoves aren't the problem! It's just one witch hunt after the other!

  • Johnny Triumph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 6:50 a.m.

    Sorry, I'll keep my wood burning stove...I'll be warm when there's a gas disruption.

    Nov. 2, 2017 6:10 a.m.

    It's not for gas furnaces. It's to convert wood burning stoves to natural gas.

  • UtahEngineer Sandy, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 4:11 a.m.

    When walking in the wintertime, I search for the source of pleasant smelling woodsmoke so that I can stuff a few dollar bills into the mailbox or screen door of the benefactor. These wafting smells bring bake nice memories of the fishing trips we went on as kids up on the Provo river. Dad often camped near an area known as Camp Kill Care, above Kamas.

    I am certain that DAQ and the U of U environmental groups fail to consider such positive details as improved frames of mind brought on by smelling such pleasant reminders of good times.

    This article fails to note that the U of U environmental group originally, about 5 years ago, way overestimated the impact of wood smoke as being 45% in the valley. That figure was later lowered to just 5% after DAQ experts pointed out the overblown claim. At the time I made two calls to DAQ to point out the obvious mistake; they were dealing with it in a low key way, but the figure was lowered drastically later.

    It is a mistake to task DAQ to go for the jugular with evil wood stove users.

    A better focus is for DAQ to better understand & communicate all risks, benefits, and particulars of various pollution sources.

  • jalapenochomper albuquerque, NM
    Nov. 1, 2017 9:21 p.m.

    The article does not say if the incentive can be towards any wood stove or if it must be an older, non-EPA compliant model.

    The EPA models are miles ahead of the old smoky Ben Franklin's, but I understand still put out too much soot for your areas that are impacted by Wasatch inversions.

    Seriously wondering - I have no opinion for once!

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 8:06 p.m.

    $1000 doesn't go very far toward the expensive, high efficiency gas furnaces now required. And it does nothing about the on going cost of paying for gas rather than using wood.

    But the situation does highlight how we need to be pragmatic as we approach environmental issues. Wood is a sustainable, carbon neutral fuel while natural gas is a non renewable fossil fuel that adds carbon to the atmosphere. But clearly, the major problem in local Wasatch Front is air quality. So NG is preferred over wood.

    Such local specifics may need to be considered in a lot of other environmental issues. For example, recycling may not make sense if we burn more energy running a recycling pickup truck than we save with recycling in very rural areas. Disposable diapers in landfills may be preferable to cloth in areas with lots of land but with limited water. And proper roads may be more cost and energy efficient than fixed rail mass transit in low density areas.

    Think globally, act locally needs to be taken to heart.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 5:11 p.m.

    May be running natural gas in towns that doesn't have it. That I would love to have.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 4:36 p.m.

    Maybe some of the VW diesel emissions scandal money coming to Utah can go to bolster this new fund!