3 ms·

> Small engine-based tools are a surprisingly large source of carbon emissions and air pollution... just one hour of gas leaf blower use is the equivalent of dr

> Small engine-based tools are a surprisingly large source of carbon emissions and air pollution... just one hour of gas leaf blower use is the equivalent of driving 1,100 miles Perhaps this is true for certain types of air pollution, but there's no way it's true for carbon emissions. CO2 emitted has to be proportional to gasoline burned. And there's no way a leaf blower is consuming 25 gallons of gas per hour.

bronco21016 3y ago
I’m not an expert in the chemistry at all but how does the 2-cycle oil added to the fuel contribute to carbon density of the fuel?
- margalabargala 3y ago
  It's denser than octane but doesn't meaningfully close the gap. To drive 1100 miles, the commenter above gave an extremely generous 25 gallons of gas (likely closer to 40 for a non-Prius). One gallon of gas produces about 20 pounds of CO2, which is about 73% oxygen (from the atmosphere) by weight. The remaining 27% of the weight comes from carbon. So, one gallon of gasoline provides 20*0.27=5.4lbs of carbon to the CO2 produced. Multiply by 25, and you're looking at over 135lbs of carbon alone coming from your source when 25 gallons of gas are burned. Considering that the amount of weight carried around by the user of a leaf blower is on the low tens of pounds, and not hundreds, it seems ludicrous to presume that a leaf blower produces anywhere near the amount of CO2 in an hour as does a car driving 1100 miles.
  - Earw0rm 3y ago
    It doesn't. This is about particulate pollution and other directly toxic nasties, not CO2 or climate.
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  It basically doesn't. Even without the oil - 2-stroke engines will run on straight petrol, albeit briefly - they still emit an obscene amount of unburnt fuel.
gwill 3y ago
I found a 2001 study that says 1 hour of lawn mowing is equivalent to 100 miles. either a mistype, wicked game of telephone or nefarious act has taken place. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h...
- cma 3y ago
  No catalytic converter and it makes sense. It is talking about traditional pollution and not CO2.
- exhilaration 3y ago
  Fixed link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h...
joelcollinsdc 3y ago
Yeah I am assuming that they are talking about the pollutants that are normally burned up in a catalytic converter. Still confusingly worded.
ammar2 3y ago
The source might be "A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS" found here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20and%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Leaf%20Blowers.pdf https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20... This is the table in the source: +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | | Exhaust Emissions | New vehicle | Older vehicle | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | Hydrocarbons | 199.26 | 0.39 | 201.9 | | Carbon Monoxide | 423.53 | 15.97 | 1310 | | Particulate Matter | 6.43 | 0.13 | 0.78 | | Fugitive Dust | 48.6-1031 | N/A | N/A | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ and the accompanying text: > Another way to visualize the data is to compare emissions for a given amount of leaf blower operation to miles traveled by car. The Air Resources Board regularly publishes such emissions benchmarks. Thus, for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  For those not reading closely note that Hydrocarbons != Carbon. A New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO. The catalytic converter will oxidize hydrocarbons, CO and NO2 leaving almost entirely N2 CO2 and H2O (and in fuels with significant sulfer, hydrogen sulfide which has its own issues).
  - Gordonjcp 3y ago
    > New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO So will old ones, if you run them on the right fuel. My 25-year-old Range Rover has a 4.6 litre engine adapted to run on propane which is - under the right circumstances - a *negative* emission vehicle. It can have measurably less CO and HC in the exhaust than in the intake air (city air heavily contaminated with CO and HC for example from bus engines).
enragedcacti 3y ago
I've found in general people and even regulatory agencies play fast and loose with comparing GHGs and pollutants. In this case, including CO in "carbon emissions" makes the statement technically true but pretty misleading since most people see "carbon emissions" as an equivalent or shorthand to "GHG ermissions"

bronco21016 3y ago

I’m not an expert in the chemistry at all but how does the 2-cycle oil added to the fuel contribute to carbon density of the fuel?

margalabargala 3y ago
It's denser than octane but doesn't meaningfully close the gap. To drive 1100 miles, the commenter above gave an extremely generous 25 gallons of gas (likely closer to 40 for a non-Prius). One gallon of gas produces about 20 pounds of CO2, which is about 73% oxygen (from the atmosphere) by weight. The remaining 27% of the weight comes from carbon. So, one gallon of gasoline provides 20*0.27=5.4lbs of carbon to the CO2 produced. Multiply by 25, and you're looking at over 135lbs of carbon alone coming from your source when 25 gallons of gas are burned. Considering that the amount of weight carried around by the user of a leaf blower is on the low tens of pounds, and not hundreds, it seems ludicrous to presume that a leaf blower produces anywhere near the amount of CO2 in an hour as does a car driving 1100 miles.
- Earw0rm 3y ago
  It doesn't. This is about particulate pollution and other directly toxic nasties, not CO2 or climate.
Gordonjcp 3y ago
It basically doesn't. Even without the oil - 2-stroke engines will run on straight petrol, albeit briefly - they still emit an obscene amount of unburnt fuel.

gwill 3y ago

I found a 2001 study that says 1 hour of lawn mowing is equivalent to 100 miles. either a mistype, wicked game of telephone or nefarious act has taken place. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h...

cma 3y ago
No catalytic converter and it makes sense. It is talking about traditional pollution and not CO2.
exhilaration 3y ago
Fixed link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529234907.h...

joelcollinsdc 3y ago

Yeah I am assuming that they are talking about the pollutants that are normally burned up in a catalytic converter. Still confusingly worded.

ammar2 3y ago

The source might be "A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ON THE POTENTIAL HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEAF BLOWERS" found here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20and%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Leaf%20Blowers.pdf https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20... This is the table in the source: +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | | Exhaust Emissions | New vehicle | Older vehicle | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ | Hydrocarbons | 199.26 | 0.39 | 201.9 | | Carbon Monoxide | 423.53 | 15.97 | 1310 | | Particulate Matter | 6.43 | 0.13 | 0.78 | | Fugitive Dust | 48.6-1031 | N/A | N/A | +--------------------+-------------------+-------------+---------------+ and the accompanying text: > Another way to visualize the data is to compare emissions for a given amount of leaf blower operation to miles traveled by car. The Air Resources Board regularly publishes such emissions benchmarks. Thus, for the average 1999 leaf blower and car data presented in Table 9, we calculate that hydrocarbon emissions from one-half hour of leaf blower operation equal about 7,700 miles of driving, at 30 miles per hour average speed. The carbon monoxide emission benchmark is signficantly different. For carbon monoxide, one-half hour of leaf blower useage would be equivalent to about 440 miles of automobile travel at 30 miles per hour average speed.

aidenn0 3y ago
For those not reading closely note that Hydrocarbons != Carbon. A New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO. The catalytic converter will oxidize hydrocarbons, CO and NO2 leaving almost entirely N2 CO2 and H2O (and in fuels with significant sulfer, hydrogen sulfide which has its own issues).
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  > New vehicle will burn fairly completely (if you include the cat as part of the process), leaving a miniscule amount of hydrocarbons (incompletely burned fuel) and a small amount of CO So will old ones, if you run them on the right fuel. My 25-year-old Range Rover has a 4.6 litre engine adapted to run on propane which is - under the right circumstances - a *negative* emission vehicle. It can have measurably less CO and HC in the exhaust than in the intake air (city air heavily contaminated with CO and HC for example from bus engines).

enragedcacti 3y ago

I've found in general people and even regulatory agencies play fast and loose with comparing GHGs and pollutants. In this case, including CO in "carbon emissions" makes the statement technically true but pretty misleading since most people see "carbon emissions" as an equivalent or shorthand to "GHG ermissions"