Alaskans’ Cost of Staying Warm: A Thick Coat of Dirty Air (This is What Climate Regulations Do)

a reply to: desert

Might it be the price of the "High Efficiency Stove"? Just a guess.

Woodland Direct High Efficiency Wood Burning Fireplaces

Add to that the cost of installation. It's not gonna mate to the old stove pipe. To add one to a house that was older would run up to 8k+ at a minimum.

Shame.

Running these regulations in half of the countries in the world would kill the citizens.

a reply to: jellyrev

Running these regulations in half of the countries in the world would kill the citizens.

Really? Which half?

It doesn't seem the regulations will be killing anyone in Fairbanks.

a reply to: jappee

There's no program to help Alaskans change over to efficient wood stoves, now that there is a concern? That sucks. A subsidy or rebate would help small businesses sell and, if they need to, help install. We had wood burning regs go into effect here, and a friend got a rebate to buy and install an efficient system. Helped the local small business and the customer.

a reply to: Phage

looks like a nice city in the summer but how are those residential homes gonna feel in -50. Have you every, in your whole life, felt what that kind of cold is?

My friend walked a block in that kind of cold. Why he never put them in his pockets or tucked them up in his sleeves, I will never understand. He said that he just couldn't feel the cold. He ended up with hypothermia and almost lost them.

I still feel the frostbit in my fingertips when I accidently got them wet. I shoved them in my pockets real fast but it was already too lake in a matter of 10 seconds.'

Are you just flapping your gums on matters you just don't understand?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: desert

Because there are people living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford one. Or because buying a new stove might mean not being able to feed themselves, or their family.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Are you just flapping your gums on matters you just don't understand?

Yeah, I understand how much cold sucks. Have you actually read the article?
It's a city. A lot of people in a small area. Burning wood and the wood smoke doesn't go anywhere. A lot of wood smoke.

“I’m not big on government, and I think there’s a lot of overreach, but I’m trying to be a good steward,” he said. “I see now that there is a problem.”

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And that's why my next post asked about subsidies or rebates for changing over. That makes sense for small businesses and their customers. Efficient wood stoves are so much better than the old ones. And I still could cook on the top.

a reply to: Phage

No, the cold doesn't "suck"!

The cold kills, maims and injures, if you are not careful. The cold means you have emergency rations in your car for every trip. The cold means you never ever drive past a stalled car. You stop! you bring people to safety because not stopping means someone could die. The means you don't stay in your house during a blackout - you evacuate out to where there is heat!

You don't fine people for having an old wood stove. You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.

Besides, imposing particuate regulations appropriate to Los Angeles, is not appropriate for Alaska. PM 10 and 2.5 are too large to get into the lungs.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You don't fine people for having an old wood stove. You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.

People are being fined?

a reply to: Phage

Don't change the topic.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Don't change the topic.

I didn't. (I can't, actually. Only the OP can do so, for a limited period of time.) I asked if people are being fined for smoke violations.

Do you think that wood smoke is not a problem in the Fairbanks-North Pole area? Ignore it, maybe it will go away.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You provide rebates so that they can have more efficient stoves, if you have to.

Agree. Alaskans need to voice this to their state reps.

PM 10 and 2.5 are too large to get into the lungs.

One is referred to as PM 10 and the other PM 2.5. For the layman, think of PM 10 as dust-sized particulates while PM 2.5 refers to smoke. Both are harmful but the PM 2.5 more so. They can be easily ingested and lodge in the lungs posing significant health risks. PM 10 is something between 2.5-10 micrometers in size, PM 2.5 is anything under that. A micrometer is one-millionth of a meter. The human eye generally cannot discern anything smaller than 40 micrometers.

Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

When it gets cold, the smoke from wood fires sometimes settles in some areas because of the cold and it means that people are exposed to higher concentrations of particulate than the EPA deems healthy. So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves. Unfortunately in Alaska, there isn't easy or cheap access to heating oil or natural gas alternatives.

I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts enough for the wood smoke to lift off.

That seems to be the rationale.

a reply to: ketsuko

So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves.

No. At this point they want people who burn wood to do so more efficiently. Which equates to cleaner.

I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts

Lung damage is an accumulated and chronic condition. For those with breathing problems, "periodic" exposure can be debilitating.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

So they want to outlaw wood burning stoves.

No. At this point they want people who burn wood to do so more efficiently. Which equates to cleaner.

I guess the EPA thinks that someone would rather freeze to death than risk breathing unhealthy air until the cold lifts

Lung damage is an accumulated and chronic condition. For those with breathing problems, "periodic" exposure can be debilitating.

So the EPA wants to save people from themselves by making it financially insupportable for them to heat their homes in winter?

You do know that freezing to death is also a "debilitating condition"?

The problem with what is going on here is that the overlords of the EPA haven't actually created any solutions, they've only created rules, and those rules have created a whole lot of problems for people who are financially capable of heating their homes efficiently (as per EPA ... and Phage ... standards). But that's not the problem of the overlords of the EPA. They have decreed that it should be so, and thus it will be ... over the frozen bodies of the poor in Alaska if need be.

a reply to: ketsuko

So the EPA wants to save people from themselves by making it financially insupportable for them to heat their homes in winter?

Is that what the EPA is doing? Is that what Juneu is doing? Is that what Fairbanks is doing? Seems like there is a problem. Cesspools used to be a problem too. SO2 used to be a real serious problem.

They have decreed that it should be so, and thus it will be ... over the frozen bodies of the poor in Alaska if need be.

How very dramatic. The complaints seem to be more from people who resent government interference than from anyone freezing to death.

originally posted by: Phage
How very dramatic. The complaints seem to be more from people who resent government interference than from anyone freezing to death.

Yeah, how very dramatic that people are complaining that the globalists under President Obama are slowly turning the U.S. into another Venezuela... perhaps you don't understand that people don't want to be taxed to death, and frozen to death because of "Obama's (and your) fight against climate change"...

Let's hope President elect Trump does something about this BS about "fighting climate change"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah, well.
This is about smoke. Local pollution.
I guess that's a myth too.

a reply to: Phage

No, it's about people being able to warm themselves during winter, and not being fined for not being able to upgrade their stoves...

Understand the difference Phage? Or do you agree with Obama's "fees that truckers can pay to avoid climate change regulations"?... That must be your way, as well as President Obama's way of "fighting climate change"?