Logburners Page 1 / 2

bergkamp, Feb 21, 12:11am
can someone update me as to what the likelihood of super clean air burners becoming legal to install into properties with no existing fires is?

we are looking at buying a house and I see a logburner as an asset ,I would consider buying a house with no fire but only if ecan have plans to change current policy

TIA


pezarointeriors, Feb 21, 8:55am
Two have past CM1 and another going through testing in the next week.

golfaholic2, Feb 21, 7:03pm
As said above . but both are awaiting resource consent .
That means , the burner manufacturer has to pay X dollars to be able to sell Y burners in Christchurch . This is something that conventional log burner manufacturers DO NOT have to do .
In other words , the playing field is stacked in favour of conventional burners .

For anyone interested -
In around 2003 ECan became aware that the burners promoted as "low emission" were NOT low emission . the test work to authorise them was horribly flawed .
Log burner manufacturers are still in talks with ECan over the specifics of the new Canterbury Method 1 . is a draft test method which was/is to be developed to help us move to cleaner air .
For some unknown reason , ECan have choosen to fire ahead and authorise two burners as ULE , when they know full well the test is NOT giving us the data we need to determine if the burners are clean .
The test under which these burners were authorised , fails to identify the size of particles emitted . it fails to determine the composition / toxicity of emissions . it also has flaws which deem the results far from accurate .
Both burners are only 'part time' down draft burners , and have no secondary afterburn to clean startup emissions.
These burners will also fail on the usability front , with many people finding them a let down , and no doubt resulting to tampering with the things .

The burners JUST scrapped past the limit , which in all reality, is 10 times higher than it should be . 0.05g/Kg is where we could/should be aiming .

Are ECan appeasing the masses ? or are they knowingly firing ahead with this flawed and easy test method to appease the manufacturers ?

I suggest its a little of both , but a LOT of the latter .

You would have thought they would have learnt from past mistakes ? no .

Ask yourself this , why would ECan take half steps , knowingly allowing burners which are nowhere near as clean as possible ?
What would happen if home heating emissions were cleared from our air ?
I will tell you . we'd still have high readings , and ECan would be left to explain why .
As they are doing with water for the farmers , they are offsetting industrial emissions by forcing home owners to freeze . but with the science behind air quality being not so exact , they are facing periodic overdoses of industrial emissions

ECan's Air team and all those making the decisions need to be SACKED

golfaholic2, Feb 21, 7:19pm
As for the log burner that led to this change of tack by ECan -

Roger Best refuses to test to CM1 as it's written .
Passing it is a formality , but he refuses to test for a number of reasons .
One being that he has already tested twice , to far more robust tests , and proven to be 10 times cleaner than the 0.5g/Kg limit .
He is pressuring ECan to DO THEIR BLOODY JOB , and do the science needed to make correct decisions .

Official manufacture of his burner is starting in Northland in coming weeks/months .
Exact dates are still unclear . flooding last year slowed the setting up of facilities . and Rogers workload down here (70yrs old and forced to keep working to fund his fight against ECan) which is quite extensive , will determine when he can fly north to advise .

Parts of NZ have no rules . these areas are waiting to install Rogers burners , with many orders on the books .
There are other councils around NZ which , while having similar rule to ECan , recognise the advances the technology brings , and are willing to fire ahead when available .

Remember folks , this technology was available in 2001 .
Not just the burner , but full heat recovery / emission abatement filters which will work on any log burner .
ECan have fought tooth and nail to keep these technologies from us .

SACK them

pezarointeriors, Feb 21, 7:22pm
Golfaholic, resource consent is no big deal. I went through exactly the same process with my two MfE range cookers.

The current AS/NZ test as opposed to CM1 is a vast improvement. Instead of using nice, clean test fuel the CM1 uses real life fuel with bark, knots,partially seasoned etc.

The test was designed to be flexible to allow all products to be tested, therefore there is no reason why the product you champion couldn't be tested.

Why not save us all from terrible air?

As for appeasing manufactures, I don't think so. All three that I know of are made in other countries.

How would you tamper with the units? The only thing you could do would be to use it as a normal fire. Nobody would do that as combustion would chomp through wood at a massive rate. People are not stupid.

Op, to answer your question a little fuller, you will have a choice of products very shortly, probably before winter.

bergkamp, Feb 21, 11:05pm
really ? a choice of logburner into a house that has no burner? that's fantastic news

pezarointeriors, Feb 21, 11:12pm
Yup. Not long now. Two have past the test, another may do shortly (that I know of). Resource consent is basically conditions such as labeling, number of units to be sold, instructions etc. This, all things considered, should be a formality. One range may be sold here on TM via a store.

spunkeymonkey, Feb 21, 11:53pm
OMG i soooo hope that is correct. I would rather a log burner than a heat pump. I have an ex state house and the idiots that I bought the house off ripped the original burner out. I have only had the house for 4.5 years - if I knew then what I now know I would not of bought the house or I would of gotten the original owners to put a log burner in. Fingers crossed

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 1:26am
Hi. I can confirm that the details provided above are correct. You may want to wait a month or so and search on here for downdraft fire.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 3:54am
I suggest you track down the details of when the burner/fire was removed . you may well be entitled to install a conventional burner .
I wouldn't wait too long tho , because it's a given that ECan will close the loophole which could see you return to a burner

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 4:00am
Very true point Golfaholic. I believe the rule is that if there was a fire installed as of 2001 you can install one again. Couple of things to note though, you don't have to prove that it had one but do have to state that it did, if that makes sense. Check your property details. If the previous owner swapped their log burner for a heatpump under the home heating programme you will need to ensure that they didn't sign anything stating that they will not install a log burner again.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 4:13am
How many months have the two authorised burners been waiting for the 'formality' of resource consent ?

The Walltherm is locally made .it's a bastardised version of the imported model which in many ways is superior .
The Walltherm will NOT run clean if overloaded , which will likely happen when people attempt to increase burn times . there is a vast area available for fuel storage that cannot be utilised due to updraft nature of the combustion at and immediately after reloading .

People ARE stupid , and will tamper .
Take my neighbour . his burner was too powerful , so he smashed out the secondary baffle , and removed the firebricks .
He also wanted a longer burn time , so altered the air controls .
He cares not about the smoke . the unburnt/wasted fuel going out the flue .

The only reason these burners have past the test is due to the fact they run part time , granted it MOST of the time , in down draft , but as we know , a sizeable portion of emissions are generated at the times when not in down draft (startup and reloading) .

The CM1 version used to authorise burners to date , is USELESS .
Roger has no inclination to test to it , and I applaud him for that .
There are margins of error in the test potentially larger than the final results .
And , ECan have continued their stupid mistake of not analysing particulate .

For example . the Ethos is meant to be equal cleanest on the market , yet they smoke worse than many other burner . a classic example is the Ethos in the offices of City Firewood . it smokes far worse than the 20yr old clunker in the same offices .

Without knowing what is coming out the flue , simply weighing it and assuming it's ALL PM10 , or dangerous , we are going NOWHERE .

Further , ECan make no bones about PM2.5 being the dangerous particles . why are they not testing for those ?

If I built a burner which spat a pine cone out the flue during testing , and ZERO of anything else , I'd fail . where a burner releasing smoke below a given level will pass .
Other than the obvious , gravity lol , which burner would you rather have next door ?
Under CM1 , we have smoky air

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 4:15am
I believe the date was 31/12/2002 . you DO have to prove it was there , and the signed HHP deal is/was meaningless .

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 4:57am
Nope, disagree. I have just had one installed by this method and nobody could tell when one was removed from the house. We knew it had one in the past due to chimneys but that was all. Looking at our property details gave no clue. We assumed it had one in 2002 and stated that. On that basis we were allowed to reinstall.

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 5:10am
Golfaholic, I'm afraid that I have no sympathy with Mr Best. If he has such superior technology but won't test it to the rules then I struggle to see that he is any better than Ecan. He is, theoretically, holding back his own product until a better test comes along. Ironically that is what you appear to blame Ecan for. Lots of rules are stupid. Get the thing tested and allow it for sale. If it is so good then Mr Best should test it and show the world. Let consumers decide. If it is that good then every one sold would benefit everyone. You have been told this in other forums.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 6:19am
A chimney was likely all that is needed to qualify for eligibility for the log burner . it may be a little more complicated than that , levels of proof blah blah , and you may have got lucky .

The Best burner is a far more complicated issue .

Manufacturers are STILL attending ECan meetings to thrash out a suitable method for testing ULB's .
No method has been formalised or signed off , the CM1 was a "draft" method , and the burners in question were tested in an effort to test the test .
These burners should not have been authorised using CM1 .

As for Roger testing his . his burner is a central heating device , these are not mentioned within CM1 . nor are his emission abatement systems .

In 2002 the EA systems and his burner were tested by the leading specialist in NZ . the EA system gave results "undetectable"
I cant recall the burners results offhand .
In 2008 , ECan paid for the EA systems to be tested . a second time . the results clearly showed a conventional burner being fed the worst of fuels , runs at a negative emission level re ambient air when in unison with the EA system .
In 2011 the burner was once again tested , it was a rushed test with faulty startup secondary afterburn . the results were around 1/10th of the CM1 limit .

ECan have continually failed to recognise this test work , even tho it was carried out by the very testing agent employed by them to advise them on the new CM testing .

There is no mention of emission abatement systems in CM1 . and likely no provision for them under the revised air plan .

ECan are and have been nothing but obstructive . they have manipulated rules to keep the technologies from the market for well over a decade . and I do not blame Mr Best in the slightest for not trusting them .

This is the reason he is bypassing them , and going into production with a simple version of the burner , but modular in nature , allowing for extra features to be added as desired .

ECan have failed the country .

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 6:30am
Sorry, that doesn't wash. My two range cookers are also central heating units and also tested overseas. They were approved under the functionally equivalent regime. Something that Mr Best could have done.

The CM1 is a recent issue. The sad reality is that Mr Best could have been selling his products for years.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 6:40am
ECan refuse to allow the test work under FET . they kept demanding he use 4012/3 .
Others have been treated differently by ECan . I suspect he pissed someone off in there lol

You can accept or not accept whatever Ive put to print . the fact remains , ECan have systematically shafted Mr Best

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 6:45am
So you are saying that he formally applied under the functionally equivalent regime and was asked to produce test reports to AS/NZ 4012:4013? That test regime would be unsuitable for his device so if this is the case he could claim a trade barrier. Something sounds very wrong.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 6:46am
Oddly enough , I have an email here sent from top MfE lawyers to an ECan Air Management .
The Ministry are/were not happy with ECan's handling of FET , suggesting ECan staff were interpreting the FET related rules seemingly to protect local manufacturers .

So even the Ministry are concerned with ECans actions .

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 7:12am
Well, I do agree to a point. I actually lodge a complaint to MfE a couple of years ago. That said I got two products through the fet and resource, without AS/NZ. I think that makes me pretty unique. Ha ha! If Mr Best has a working product he should still test to CM1. Unlike the AS/NZ it does not exclude central heating units.

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 7:19am
Why would he pay to test to a method which isn't formalised , is far from suitable for his technology , and likely to be contested by God knows who ?

The test work done over a decade ago will be , and is , far more robust .
ECan staff were at one of those tests , and have yet to release specific test data enabling a g/Kg figure . they are withholding that data .
The very same ECan employee also sent Roger an email stating that the filter system is seeing the air come out cleaner than the air entering the burner , or words to that effect .
Yet can we hook these filter systems to our log burners ? effectively transforming the burners into air conditioning scrubbers ? , while lifting thermal efficiency into the high 90% range ?
Nope . they were not tested to 4013 . can only be granted permission under individual resource consent .

ECan are keeping our air dirty . the sooner the public realise that the better

pezarointeriors, Feb 22, 7:45am
Then he needs to ensure they accept an application under fet. The rest of us find ways. The public want fires. CM1 is far from perfect but its a step in the right direction. We are all working hard for improvement. Thank goodness we haven't all taken Mr Best's view!

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 8:03am
Mr Best has had the ECan leader of public relations publicly slag him off . he has no inclination whatsoever to deal with that dept .
NZ is bigger than ECan and he is going around them .

They will not learn , and will be exposed sooner or later .

golfaholic2, Feb 22, 8:06am
There is little "working hard" to be done .
It isn't rocket science . building clean burners is easy .
I made one completely different to Rogers inside 3 weeks . that was in my spare time , and I had to teach myself to weld in doing it .
A burner which can run on coal or green pine without a wiff of smoke . smokeless start

The rules are what is keeping us from clean burners . you will be well enough aware of that . 4012 for starters is just a joke .
Wider options on heat recovery are vital for new homes .

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)