Suburbanites beware: Here comes teh gas tax?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We burn wood because it is free and comes off our own property eliminating the taxman completely. Good exercise too.
No there is a reduction in income tax. We have already received rebate cheques and the carbon tax is revenue neutral. As the carbon tax goes up income tax goes down. The dippers have tried to spread a lot of misinformation about it during the last election to get the union vote. They are more in favor of income taxes because they like to freeload off of producers.
Which makes more sense to you slave? Tax foreigners for consuming our goods or tax the citizens for consuming their own goods?
tonington;1117196T said:
It IS the argument... The entire basis of this tax is to reduce carbon emissions by the public at large - that said, it doesn't matter if the forests are virgin, old-growth or planted sites. Taking down a tree eliminates that trees capacity to absorb CO2 and later burning the wood adds all of the stored CO2 back into the system. It's a double-whammy.
tonington;1117196T said:
I am not as familiar with the program as yourself. The only reference I have seen re: benefit to public is in the form of a $100 rebate at the start. I am not familiar if this rebate will exist every year, however, the gas tax will increase significantly over the next few years.
Captain morgan.....dead fall and commercial waste is what 90% of people burn because it cleans up their property and is 75% less work and no curing time. You've never lived in a wood heat home have you?
Do not misunderstand my responses to you. The fact that you have access to the fire wood and use it is great - in fact, you'd be crazy not to take advantage of your position.
My point is this: Your position is definitely in the minority (in that you have wood burning capacity and an abundance of wood). The rebate will indirectly lower your income taxes. However, for most BCers, taht is not the case. The cost of heating a home (nat gas), gas for cars and the corresponding increase in the cost of goods/services that rely on transport (oil/gas) may be greater than the rebate. The tax is advertised as revenue-neutral, but in the end, when was the last time taht the Cdn gvt imposed a tax that didn't take more money out of someone's pocket.
Lastly, my comment about the goal of the carbon tax still applies. My understanding is that the tax is earmarked to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere... Burning wood does not accomplish that.
I currently live in a home that has wood burning capabilities and I often warm the place with wood in the winters.
I am a little curious about the commercial waste that you referred to.. You must be talking about wood from construction projects ro demolitions.
As for the dead fall - sure, I'll gladly burn that, however, I refrain from collecting rotting materials and it doesn't take much to clean up the dead fall.
So they should burn natural gas instead leaving the dead fall to rot and release even more lethal methane?
Yup the millions of pallets laying around cities, the scrap ends from manufacturing, bark mulch, sawdust etc. I know of several people who heat their home with this wate and never leave the city to acquire it. They have some prettly slick "98% efficient combustion chambers" rather than "wood stoves or fireplaces".
A fireplace isn't for heating in a modern home they are purely decorative.
Real wood heat systems don't send the majority of the heat up the pipe.
You really really need to look into todays' heating systems before yapping off about how and who is using what.
It was only what? 3 years ago I had to clue you in to home geo-thermal?
Technical Information
Non-catalytic vs. Catalytic
Below: Cross section of a non-catalytic stove, showing combustion air/exhaust flow patterns, large baffle and high level combustion air supply.
Below: Cross section of a catalytic stove, showing combustion air/exhaust flow patterns, the catalytic element, and the bypass damper.
The descriptions of combustion options below are courtesy of The Wood Heat Organization.
which is a Canadian nonprofit that promotes the use of wood for heating.
The internal design of wood stoves has changed entirely since the EPA issued standards of performance for new wood stoves in 1988. EPA's mandatory smoke emission limit for wood stoves is 7.5 grams of smoke per hour (g/h) for non-catalytic stoves, and 4.1 g/h for catalytic stoves.
Today, all wood stoves and fireplace inserts, and some factory-built fireplaces, sold in the United States must meet this limit. Stove manufacturers have improved their combustion technologies over the years, and now some newer stoves have certified emissions in the 1 to 4 g/h range. The EPA certified emission rate is a reliable number that can be compared from one model to the next, but a one or two gram per hour difference in smoke emissions does not mean much in day-to-day use.
The two general approaches to meeting the EPA smoke emission limits are non-catalytic and catalytic combustion. Both approaches have proved effective, but there are performance differences.
Non-catalytic Stoves
Non-catalytic stoves do not use a catalyst, but have three internal characteristics that create a good environment for complete combustion. These are firebox insulation, a large baffle to produce a longer, hotter gas flow path, and pre-heated combustion air introduced through small holes above the fuel in the firebox.
Non-cats cannot match the even heat output of catalytic stoves, but their owners love watching the beautiful fire they create. The baffle and some other internal parts of a non-catalytic stove will need replacement from time to time as they deteriorate with the high heat of efficient combustion.
Although most of the stoves on the market are non-cats, some of the most popular high-end stoves use catalytic combustion. Because they are slightly more complicated to operate, and the best of them do produce exceptional performance, catalytic stoves are suited to people who like technology and are prepared to maintain the stove properly so it continues to operate at peak performance. Both options have their pros and cons.
Catalytic Stoves
In catalytic combustion the smoky exhaust is passed through a coated ceramic honeycomb inside the stove where the smoke gases and particles ignite and burn. Catalytic stoves are capable of producing a long, even heat output.
All catalytic stoves have a lever-operated catalyst bypass damper, which is opened for starting and reloading. The catalytic honeycomb degrades over time and must be replaced, but its durability is largely in the hands of the stove user. The catalyst can last more than six seasons if the stove is used properly; but if the stove is over-fired, garbage is burned and regular cleaning and maintenance are not done, the catalyst may break down in as little as 2 years. (EPA note: Garbage should never be burned in a wood stove or fireplace.)
For more information, visit The Wood Heat Organization.
Relevant EPA Publications
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.
Additional Technical Articles
OMNI-Test Laboratories Publications
OMNI-Test Laboratories, Inc. is a hearth product testing laboratory.
Compilation of Residential Wood Combustion Surveys and Related Studies (PDF)
(20pp, 33k)
The authors of this publication are OMNI-Test Laboratories employees. Dr. James E. Houck is a Research Scientist with OMNI Consulting Services and has over 20 years experience with air quality, energy and biomass combustion issues. David R. Broderick is an Environmental Engineer with OMNI Environmental Services with over 10 years experience with air emission and efficiency measurements.
Local Navigation
Non-catalytic vs. Catalytic
Below: Cross section of a non-catalytic stove, showing combustion air/exhaust flow patterns, large baffle and high level combustion air supply.
Below: Cross section of a catalytic stove, showing combustion air/exhaust flow patterns, the catalytic element, and the bypass damper.
The descriptions of combustion options below are courtesy of The Wood Heat Organization.
which is a Canadian nonprofit that promotes the use of wood for heating. The internal design of wood stoves has changed entirely since the EPA issued standards of performance for new wood stoves in 1988. EPA's mandatory smoke emission limit for wood stoves is 7.5 grams of smoke per hour (g/h) for non-catalytic stoves, and 4.1 g/h for catalytic stoves.
Today, all wood stoves and fireplace inserts, and some factory-built fireplaces, sold in the United States must meet this limit. Stove manufacturers have improved their combustion technologies over the years, and now some newer stoves have certified emissions in the 1 to 4 g/h range. The EPA certified emission rate is a reliable number that can be compared from one model to the next, but a one or two gram per hour difference in smoke emissions does not mean much in day-to-day use.
The two general approaches to meeting the EPA smoke emission limits are non-catalytic and catalytic combustion. Both approaches have proved effective, but there are performance differences.
Non-catalytic Stoves
Non-catalytic stoves do not use a catalyst, but have three internal characteristics that create a good environment for complete combustion. These are firebox insulation, a large baffle to produce a longer, hotter gas flow path, and pre-heated combustion air introduced through small holes above the fuel in the firebox.
Non-cats cannot match the even heat output of catalytic stoves, but their owners love watching the beautiful fire they create. The baffle and some other internal parts of a non-catalytic stove will need replacement from time to time as they deteriorate with the high heat of efficient combustion.
Although most of the stoves on the market are non-cats, some of the most popular high-end stoves use catalytic combustion. Because they are slightly more complicated to operate, and the best of them do produce exceptional performance, catalytic stoves are suited to people who like technology and are prepared to maintain the stove properly so it continues to operate at peak performance. Both options have their pros and cons.
Catalytic Stoves
In catalytic combustion the smoky exhaust is passed through a coated ceramic honeycomb inside the stove where the smoke gases and particles ignite and burn. Catalytic stoves are capable of producing a long, even heat output.
All catalytic stoves have a lever-operated catalyst bypass damper, which is opened for starting and reloading. The catalytic honeycomb degrades over time and must be replaced, but its durability is largely in the hands of the stove user. The catalyst can last more than six seasons if the stove is used properly; but if the stove is over-fired, garbage is burned and regular cleaning and maintenance are not done, the catalyst may break down in as little as 2 years. (EPA note: Garbage should never be burned in a wood stove or fireplace.)
For more information, visit The Wood Heat Organization.
Relevant EPA Publications
You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the Adobe PDF files on this page. See EPA's PDF page for more information about getting and using the free Acrobat Reader.
- Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures (PDF) (234pp, 8.0 MB)
- Technical Information Document for Residential Wood Combustion Best Available Control Measures (PDF) (100pp, 3.7 MB)
Additional Technical Articles
OMNI-Test Laboratories Publications
OMNI-Test Laboratories, Inc. is a hearth product testing laboratory.
Compilation of Residential Wood Combustion Surveys and Related Studies (PDF)
(20pp, 33k) The authors of this publication are OMNI-Test Laboratories employees. Dr. James E. Houck is a Research Scientist with OMNI Consulting Services and has over 20 years experience with air quality, energy and biomass combustion issues. David R. Broderick is an Environmental Engineer with OMNI Environmental Services with over 10 years experience with air emission and efficiency measurements.
Local Navigation
- Wood Stove Home
- Basic Information
- Where You Live
- Wood Burning Efficiency and Safety
- Healthier Home, Cleaner Environment
- Health Effects of Wood Smoke
- Technical Information
- Partners & Useful Links
- Cleaner Burning Fireplaces
- For Air Quality Program Officials
- How-To Guide for Implementing a Wood Stove Changeout Campaign
Is that you Iggy?!
I am somewhat familiar with the new designs of the 'combustion chambers' and there is no doubt that they are extremely efficient and effective.. On a side note, the 1 beef I have with them is that despite having appropriate fans to circulate the air, I always find it much hotter in the room where the unit is located (sometimes uncomfortably hot).
None the less, I don't rely on burning wood to heat my home, I opted for an in-floor radiant system that I swear by.. A little more expensive to install and start-up, but I've saved a lot of money in comparison to forced air. That said, I have zero interest in rushing-out to install one of these units as a redundant heating system.
On the fuel source topic... I am not interested in driving across town to steal palettes let alone the time and gas I'd need to expend to steal this stuff (ironic, eh) - Think about it, how many people are willing to load their trunk with saw dust and then drag that mess into their home?
.. And how many of these miracle projects have been built in your community? How many people have spent the $$ to install?... Not many.. I guess that it isn't so practical after all, is it?
I am somewhat familiar with the new designs of the 'combustion chambers' and there is no doubt that they are extremely efficient and effective.. On a side note, the 1 beef I have with them is that despite having appropriate fans to circulate the air, I always find it much hotter in the room where the unit is located (sometimes uncomfortably hot).
None the less, I don't rely on burning wood to heat my home, I opted for an in-floor radiant system that I swear by.. A little more expensive to install and start-up, but I've saved a lot of money in comparison to forced air. That said, I have zero interest in rushing-out to install one of these units as a redundant heating system.
On the fuel source topic... I am not interested in driving across town to steal palettes let alone the time and gas I'd need to expend to steal this stuff (ironic, eh) - Think about it, how many people are willing to load their trunk with saw dust and then drag that mess into their home?
.. And how many of these miracle projects have been built in your community? How many people have spent the $$ to install?... Not many.. I guess that it isn't so practical after all, is it?
We're talking about eevviillCO2 emissions here, not pollution. So, unless the EPA has suggestions for sourcing carbon-less wood, the point is moot.
Projects? People calling a plumber for an installation is a communiy project? Why don't you ask the Feds how many applied for and got the hefty grant to do it on YOUR NICKLE like I did dumbass?
Thanks by the way for helping to fund my emission free hot tub.
I-N Y-O-U-R C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y
Learn to read champ... In fact, Sask may even have some hefty grants available to help you slack jawed yokels learn to read.
Why do I care?.. Any grant money you received got burned up in your tank on gas or propane to scour the industrial areas to steal palettes and dumpster dive for other 'fuel' - or snacks, whichever is edible for ya.
No problem... Albertans are used to funding you poor inbreds for decades now.
Poor poor Captain Moron. Whine whine whine about how sitting in your gonch in your kitchen in February costs too much but you refuse to take steps to get with the program and enjoy the benefits of efficiency and economy and still get to sit in your gonch at the kitchen table in February.
You've funded **** all for anyone in any other province. If you snoozed and lost out that is your own ****ing fault not mine. Blaming others for your own stupidity doesn't fly you snot nosed wanker.
You always come to insults when you hit your intellectual brick wall which by the way anyone else has no problem stepping over.
Like I've said before "you aren't stupid, everyone else is just smarter than you are".
You've funded **** all for anyone in any other province. If you snoozed and lost out that is your own ****ing fault not mine. Blaming others for your own stupidity doesn't fly you snot nosed wanker.
You always come to insults when you hit your intellectual brick wall which by the way anyone else has no problem stepping over.
Like I've said before "you aren't stupid, everyone else is just smarter than you are".