Last winter for open fires

Smog lingers over Alexandra. Photo by Lynda Van Kempen.
Smog lingers over Alexandra. Photo by Lynda Van Kempen.
This winter will be the last that many Central Otago residents will be able to legally light open fires and older, inefficient wood or multifuel burners.

New woodburner standards apply to towns classified by the Otago Regional Council as Airzone 1 - Alexandra, Cromwell and Clyde in Central Otago and Arrowtown and Milton elsewhere in Otago - from January 1, 2012, to help reduce air pollution in those communities.

Regional council director of policy and resource planning Fraser McRae said from that date, two new standards would come into effect that would determine which woodburners could be installed.

Firstly, all woodburners that had an emission discharge rating of less than 0.7g/kg of fuel burnt and an efficiency rating of more than 65% were permitted, Mr McRae said.

The second group of permitted woodburners comprised all those installed before April 14, 2007, in Alexandra, Arrowtown, or Cromwell; or April 1, 2009 in Clyde, with an emission rate of less than 1.5g/kg of fuel burnt and a thermal efficiency rating of more than 65%, he said.

"In effect, these rules mean that open fires and older, inefficient wood burners and multifuel burners are banned."

Policing those rules would not involve going into every home to check burners were compliant. "Initially, it will be done through observation and complaint," Mr McRae said.

"Many people would have invested a lot of money cleaning their own heating system up and they won't be impressed if their neighbour still has a choking old fire." Regional council Clean Heat Clean Air Programme manager Jeff Donaldson encouraged people to take advantage of the subsidies available for the removal of their old fire or burner and the installation of a new, compliant one as the level of subsidy could change.

"People should take advantage of them [subsidies] now as there may not always be the same amount available.

"Some of the money for the subsidy is regional but some comes from the Central Government and there could be changes as the Government redirects resources following the Christchurch earthquake," Mr Donaldson said.

To be eligible for subsidies, homes must have been built before 2000.

Generally speaking, any woodburner more than five or six years old would not meet the standards, Mr Donaldson said.

Grey Power Central Otago secretary Jacqui Goyen, of Alexandra, said many people she had spoken to were worried that they would have to replace their open fires or woodburners. "There's an awful lot of concern out there.

"People can see there is a need for change. The problem is those people who are making the decisions live in the North Island and don't know what it's like here during winter."

One of the biggest concerns, Mrs Goyen said, was many of the heatpumps available only heated one room, whereas people's older-style woodburners heated the whole house.

"And heatpumps only heat from the knees up, which leaves you with cold feet."

However, the subsidies available to help put in new woodburners were helpful, she said.

"I would encourage people to take advantage of them as soon as possible.

"Get in now."

Mrs Goyen said she had discussed her concerns with the regional council and was preparing a submission on the subject that she would send to every organisation she thought would be interested.

Mitre 10 Home Store Alexandra manager Colin Verry said he had noticed an increase in inquires about and sales of new, compliant woodburners during the past 12 months.

"There's been a steady stream.

People are aware of the changes coming and they want solid fuel burners because they like wood fires.

"But even with a clean air fire, you need to use seasoned, dry timber if you don't want smog," Mr Verry said.

Woodburner standards

New woodburner standards will apply to Alexandra, Cromwell, Clyde, Arrowtown and Milton from January 1, 2012.

• Woodburners more than five or six years old do not meet the standards.

• No coal burner, open fire or multifuel burner meets the standards

• The aim is to reduce air pollution

• Subsidies to install new burners are available for homes built before 2000

 

 

The new rules don't go far enough

It is a great shame that all woodburners are not being banned in all towns in Otago. Wood smoke is incredibly toxic, and it causes death, disease and mutations. So whilst it is great that some of the most polluting burners are getting banned the so-called clean burning woodburners are anything but clean. They still have a huge design flaw in that they emit toxic pollution. Alexandra, Cronwell, Arrowtown and even little Ranfurly, are not going to experience an end to the winter pollution until all burning off is completely banned. It is as simple as that. If we don't want to live in filth we have to stop making the filth.

You still have not made a point

I do not believe I said the ORC set the standards ... "they have a list of fires". My comment is about the veracity and repeatability of tests made on burners by the testing authority. The results suggested inconsistencies. AS/NZS 4012/4013 refers to wood fuel heating by the way.

The proposed law banning coal burners or multi fuel burners is revealing, I believe it is a result of  central Govt  negativity on solid energy. Note most of Central Government is populated by people from the North Island, who have not a clue how to heat a home during a Central Otago winter.

My comments are borne of the fear that many of the targeted families and elderly will be unable to afford to change the heating of their older homes to modern heating without carrying out very expensive alterations to their homes.  The money offered up as a subsidy is being siphoned off on utterly ridiculous fees by the various bureaucracy's foisting the sham on ratepayers. 

'Compliant' fires

...I argue thus.... There is a list of fires approved by ORC to be compliant...
Yeah, that's your first mistake. The list of approved burners was provided by the MFE, not the ORC, as part of a National Environmental Standard that took effect 1 September 2005.

Eg. a very popular fire being installed to meet compliance standards passed the authorities test, but another fire from the same manufacturer that had a decorative surround and utilises the same firebox produced on the same day on the same production line,failed the tests.

There's potentially a very simple explanation for this, and it's to do with the decorative surround.  There are two criteria for compliance <1.5g of particles for every kg of wood burned, and >65% efficiency.  The simplest, most obvious explanation is that without the surround it had (for example) a 66% efficiency, but with the surround it had a 64% efficiency, thus, without surround compliant, with surround non compliant.

As for the testing - have you looked up the details of AS/NZS 4012/4013?

'Compliant' fires

What is your point exactly? The article makes sweeping statements and it concludes by drawing generalised standards that are unrelated to any repeatable scientific method.

I argue thus .... There is a list of fires approved by ORC to be compliant. They were compliant on the day they were tested by a supposedly reputable testing authority. I argue that the tests lacked any sort of scientific substance, method, or proof by repetition. Eg. a very popular fire being installed to meet compliance standards passed the authorities test, but another fire from the same manufacturer that had a decorative surround and utilises the same firebox produced on the same day on the same production line,failed the tests.

Anyone, let alone an inquisitive scientist, must immediately ask the question why. 

In my view the tests conducted on domestic fires in NZ failed to measure the sequestered carbon density of the wood being used, and ensure all fires were fed with wood of a comparable density to ensure that the emmision's were produced from equivalent fuel sources. As such, the tests were inconclusive and subject to error. 

The scientists failed to take into account that wood grown from a fast growth index site would contain less sequestered carbon, compared to a forest grown in a slow index growth site.

What does this mean from a Central Otago perspective? It takes more than 40 years to grow a pine tree too millable size in Central Otago compared with North-facing slopes in the Catlins, at 21-23 years. The wood from the Catlins lacks tensile strength, which is obvious if you were to have ever stacked wood grown in the Catlins. Tensile strength in wood is dictated by carbon density - how tightly packed the cells of the wood are.

Wood grown in Central Otago contains cells which are more tightly packed, and therefore it releases more carbon when burned. The ratio is not exact, as the older carbon atoms give off more heat than the faster grown coastal wood so there is not a direct ratio.

I contend that any compliant fireplace burning Central Otago wood will not comply. This being the case, the good citizens of Central Otago will have a fair amount of annoyed frustration when the ORC finally come to the realisation that the science they based all there sham fire politics on was in all essence rubbish in the extreme. [Abridged]

 

Are we reading the same article?

You don't think it's a good idea to make people get rid of open fires, or inefficient burners, in favour of newer, more efficient burners and boilers?

You don't think that trading up from a 1960's open fire place to a modern wood burner, that sends less heat up the chimney and puts more heat into the room will help heat a home more efficiently?

You think that installing a boiler with more than 70% efficiency heats a house in Central Otago with less efficiency than an older boiler with, say, 60% efficiency? (As an example, there are wood-fired boilers on the market that meet all of the specified criteria).

I'm sorry, I have to ask - are we reading the same article?  Did you think that this article was discussing heatpumps?

About the file photo.

Could the ODT also let us know what day, and at what time the photo used for this article was taken. There are well documented days in Alexandra of recent note when the smoke from rural small block holders' rubbish fires gathered at the bottom end of the valley. 

The ORC seem hellbent on a course of action instigated by a rainbow connect bunch of losers, yes losers in Wellington.

There is only one viable, economic way to heat a family home in Central Otago. Modern Solid energy boilers. Get over it, find a way to make it happen ... and let us all get on with our lives in peace, without some pen-pushing gnome, wandering around the streets with a smoke detector. 

Numbers accurate?

Since the monitoring of air quality has been handed over to contractors, not air specialists, I would have concerns over the accuracy of the numbers gathered by the ORC. Heat pumps do not operate in Central Otago...a fact Mr Donaldson refuted until recently. So now the push is for 'clean' burners. Given that the ORC is populated by middle managers, how good are the policymakers in managing the real issues?I wouldn't trust them to make correct or informed decisions about much, really.

The ORC share of the subsidy ..

Would Mr McRae care to enlighten your readers as to the amount of consultancy fee the ORC skims from each subsidy request, they claim is for being consulted on the correct removal and destroying of old fires ... and or the checking to see that current fires are compliant. The current situation of council insisting on being consulted on the removal of an old fire is preposterous. Most of the home owners they are targeting are in no position to spend a cent on installing equivalent legal warmth generating systems.

Under Westminster law they have no rights whatsoever to insist on us changing our heating systems ... the whole drive towards clean burners is a sham, based on empty threats, sham rhetoric and highly questionable scientific evidence. Not many of the very vocal bureaucratic gnomes preaching the ORC mantra have ever spent a winter in Central Otago and tried to keep a family warm the cheapest way they possibly can.