5 ms·

I think you misunderstand the statistics. Modern cars are so clean that the two-strokes powering lawn tools really are most of the smog in some cities. Getting

by michael1999 5y ago

I think you misunderstand the statistics. Modern cars are so clean that the two-strokes powering lawn tools really are most of the smog in some cities. Getting rid of them will be a big improvement for many people.

voakbasda 5y ago
Source?
- wtallis 5y ago
  From a CARB publication dated 2017 (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-california https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-c...): > In the early 2020s, however, total smog-forming emissions from small engines are projected to exceed those from passenger cars in the South Coast Air Basin because passenger car emissions will continue to decrease. By 2031, small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars. And from the bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...): >In 2020, California daily NOx and ROG emissions from SORE were higher than emissions from light-duty passenger cars. SORE emitted an average of 16.8 tons per day of NOx and 125 tons per day of ROG. Without further regulatory action, those emission levels are expected to increase with increasing numbers of SORE in California. Regulations of emissions from SORE have not been as stringent as regulations of other engines, and one hour of operation of a commercial leaf blower can emit as much ROG plus NOx as driving 1,100 miles in a new passenger vehicle.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Ok, so that's a forecast. Not something happening now (that you claim). And how about planes, generation plants, etc?
    - wtallis 5y ago
      I didn't claim it's happening now. The state legislature of California did: "The Legislature finds and declares all of the following..." I don't know for sure that the legislators who drafted this law verified that the predictions from several years ago have held up based on newer data, but it's really not much of a stretch think that they actually did check with the experts. As for airplanes, power plants and other large-scale users of fossil fuels: like cars and unlike gas-powered lawn tools, they tend to more carefully manage combustion to burn cleaner, and power plants can treat exhaust (like cars do with catalytic converters). So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Ah, I see that you responded with a source on behalf of the person making the claim. Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim. "So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people." Per gallon. Lawn equipment is is a tiny fraction compared to these others. Airports tend to be in cities, power plants tend to be close to population centers, most people have a road in front of their house... sounds like those are close to people, output more overall, and are used more frequently than once every week or two.
        wtallis 5y ago
        > Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim. It does. If you don't believe the source, then take that up with CARB. But don't act like information provided by a government regulator is hearsay.
        voakbasda 5y ago
        The California government has a track record of declaring “facts” like this to push their agenda. The fact that a government agent claimed something does not automatically make it true.
giantg2 5y ago
The vast majority of lawn mowers are not 2 stroke.
- wtallis 5y ago
  Lawn mowers, no. But those are far from the only gas-powered lawn tools. (Also, I've never seen a catalytic converter on a four-stroke lawn mower.)
  - giantg2 5y ago
    They are the primary one. No reason they can't put catalytic converters on. If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?
    - wtallis 5y ago
      > No reason they can't put catalytic converters on. The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries. > If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers? Grow up.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        "Grow up." Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument. "The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries." The ECU is a joke, and not a necessary part of using a catalytic converter. You can run a pi zero or audrino as an ECU. The catalytic converter would be more expensive than not having one, but not that expensive. You might be assuming they would cost the same as one for a car, but they would be drastically scaled down. You can find new catalytic converters for small cars for under $100.
        5y ago

voakbasda 5y ago

Source?

wtallis 5y ago
From a CARB publication dated 2017 (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-california https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-c...): > In the early 2020s, however, total smog-forming emissions from small engines are projected to exceed those from passenger cars in the South Coast Air Basin because passenger car emissions will continue to decrease. By 2031, small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars. And from the bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...): >In 2020, California daily NOx and ROG emissions from SORE were higher than emissions from light-duty passenger cars. SORE emitted an average of 16.8 tons per day of NOx and 125 tons per day of ROG. Without further regulatory action, those emission levels are expected to increase with increasing numbers of SORE in California. Regulations of emissions from SORE have not been as stringent as regulations of other engines, and one hour of operation of a commercial leaf blower can emit as much ROG plus NOx as driving 1,100 miles in a new passenger vehicle.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Ok, so that's a forecast. Not something happening now (that you claim). And how about planes, generation plants, etc?
  - wtallis 5y ago
    I didn't claim it's happening now. The state legislature of California did: "The Legislature finds and declares all of the following..." I don't know for sure that the legislators who drafted this law verified that the predictions from several years ago have held up based on newer data, but it's really not much of a stretch think that they actually did check with the experts. As for airplanes, power plants and other large-scale users of fossil fuels: like cars and unlike gas-powered lawn tools, they tend to more carefully manage combustion to burn cleaner, and power plants can treat exhaust (like cars do with catalytic converters). So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Ah, I see that you responded with a source on behalf of the person making the claim. Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim. "So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people." Per gallon. Lawn equipment is is a tiny fraction compared to these others. Airports tend to be in cities, power plants tend to be close to population centers, most people have a road in front of their house... sounds like those are close to people, output more overall, and are used more frequently than once every week or two.
      - wtallis 5y ago
        > Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim. It does. If you don't believe the source, then take that up with CARB. But don't act like information provided by a government regulator is hearsay.
        voakbasda 5y ago
        The California government has a track record of declaring “facts” like this to push their agenda. The fact that a government agent claimed something does not automatically make it true.

giantg2 5y ago

The vast majority of lawn mowers are not 2 stroke.

wtallis 5y ago
Lawn mowers, no. But those are far from the only gas-powered lawn tools. (Also, I've never seen a catalytic converter on a four-stroke lawn mower.)
- giantg2 5y ago
  They are the primary one. No reason they can't put catalytic converters on. If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?
  - wtallis 5y ago
    > No reason they can't put catalytic converters on. The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries. > If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers? Grow up.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "Grow up." Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument. "The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries." The ECU is a joke, and not a necessary part of using a catalytic converter. You can run a pi zero or audrino as an ECU. The catalytic converter would be more expensive than not having one, but not that expensive. You might be assuming they would cost the same as one for a car, but they would be drastically scaled down. You can find new catalytic converters for small cars for under $100.
      - 5y ago