4 ms·

Also, one of the pictures in the article, and apparently "one of her more popular posts" is this: https://twitter.com/NicoleKelner/status/1589748415130664960 ht

Also, one of the pictures in the article, and apparently "one of her more popular posts" is this: https://twitter.com/NicoleKelner/status/1589748415130664960 https://twitter.com/NicoleKelner/status/1589748415130664960 The claim is that using a two-stroke leaf blower for 30 minutes produces as many hydrocarbon emissions as driving a pick-up truck from Texas to Alaska. Clearly she has never actually thought about the logistics of this! The shortest route I could find on Google Maps was from Dumas, TX to Metlakatla, AK at around 2500 miles. I drive a car in the UK, but that would be probably 200L or more (or 100 gallons for US folk) and even more for a truck. There's no way that ANY leaf blower gets through 3 gallons of fuel a minute! In fact, google tells me that a typical leaf blower uses 0.43 gallons per hour. So driving a truck will use approximately 500 times as much. I'm concerned about climate change, but making completely ridiculous claims like this, even if they are pretty watercolours, isn't helping the cause - especially when it's immediately obvious that it's nonsense!

MarkSweep 3y ago
Your point may be valid if you we are talking about CO2 emissions. But if you click the source, linked as a reply to the tweet you linked: https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d... You will see it is talking about other chemicals like oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and non-methane hydrocarbons.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
You're assuming 1 gallon of fuel consumed by a pickup truck emits the same amount as that emitted by a 2-stroke leaf blower engine consuming 1 gallon of fuel. They definitely don't.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  Odd you didn't explain how they could be different. I can't see how they can be (by much).
  - honk 3y ago
    I link some sources in a separate comment up-thread, but the short answer is two stroke engines run orders of magnitude "dirtier" than a four stroke in a car, primarily due to incomplete combustion of fuel. (Some of this is fundamental to the physics of their operation, and some of this is they aren't subject to the same strict automotive emissions standards, so less engineering goes into reducing their emissions) Intuitively, this is why you can sometimes taste a lawnmower running the next block over in the air, but the same isn't true for a modern car idling, even if they were consuming fuel at the same rate.
honk 3y ago
First off, kudos for putting in the effort to critically think through the implications of stats you see! Actually, the counterintuitive truth is that two-stroke engines produce ~300-500x more PM/hydrocarbon emissions from the same amount of fuel use than a four-stroke engine, due to the fundamental nature of incomplete combustion and the oil-fuel mixture used in two stroke engines, and the efficacy of emissions controls on modern cars vs common leaf blowers. Your calculations are correct, it's just this difference is so big it seems crazy when you first learn about it. (Which is what Nicole's art is trying to communicate!) This is cited in the NYT article from the tweet you link: https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d... , although for a more scientific source you can see https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC53779/eur%20report%2023999%20en_mopeds_2009%20%282%29.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J... . While technically, carbureted two-stroke engines can sometimes produce less NOx than four-stroke fuel-injected counterparts for equivalent fuel use, incomplete combustion means leaf-blowers and the like have a massively outsized impact on air quality, especially for the operator. The good news is that electric systems are now cheap and lightweight enough for most applications, which is fantastic.
- Negitivefrags 3y ago
  I think that this stat still rises to the level of being actively deceptive though. Most people are going to take the term "Hydrocarbon emissions" to mean C02 emissions, even though it's referring to a different thing.
  - ralferoo 3y ago
    I'm not sure about actively deceptive. What else does it mean? Hydrocarbon emissions are what you get when you burn hydrocarbons - H2O, CO2 and CO. If it's referring to a different thing, it's not a hydrocarbon emission. The image, and the claim within it, is actively deceptive because it's not true.
    - honk 3y ago

MarkSweep 3y ago

Your point may be valid if you we are talking about CO2 emissions. But if you click the source, linked as a reply to the tweet you linked: https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d... You will see it is talking about other chemicals like oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and non-methane hydrocarbons.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago

You're assuming 1 gallon of fuel consumed by a pickup truck emits the same amount as that emitted by a 2-stroke leaf blower engine consuming 1 gallon of fuel. They definitely don't.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
Odd you didn't explain how they could be different. I can't see how they can be (by much).
- honk 3y ago
  I link some sources in a separate comment up-thread, but the short answer is two stroke engines run orders of magnitude "dirtier" than a four stroke in a car, primarily due to incomplete combustion of fuel. (Some of this is fundamental to the physics of their operation, and some of this is they aren't subject to the same strict automotive emissions standards, so less engineering goes into reducing their emissions) Intuitively, this is why you can sometimes taste a lawnmower running the next block over in the air, but the same isn't true for a modern car idling, even if they were consuming fuel at the same rate.

honk 3y ago

First off, kudos for putting in the effort to critically think through the implications of stats you see! Actually, the counterintuitive truth is that two-stroke engines produce ~300-500x more PM/hydrocarbon emissions from the same amount of fuel use than a four-stroke engine, due to the fundamental nature of incomplete combustion and the oil-fuel mixture used in two stroke engines, and the efficacy of emissions controls on modern cars vs common leaf blowers. Your calculations are correct, it's just this difference is so big it seems crazy when you first learn about it. (Which is what Nicole's art is trying to communicate!) This is cited in the NYT article from the tweet you link: https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-dirtier-than-high-performance-pick-up-trucks-says-edmunds-insidelinecom.html https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/leaf-blowers-emissions-d... , although for a more scientific source you can see https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC53779/eur%20report%2023999%20en_mopeds_2009%20%282%29.pdf https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J... . While technically, carbureted two-stroke engines can sometimes produce less NOx than four-stroke fuel-injected counterparts for equivalent fuel use, incomplete combustion means leaf-blowers and the like have a massively outsized impact on air quality, especially for the operator. The good news is that electric systems are now cheap and lightweight enough for most applications, which is fantastic.

Negitivefrags 3y ago
I think that this stat still rises to the level of being actively deceptive though. Most people are going to take the term "Hydrocarbon emissions" to mean C02 emissions, even though it's referring to a different thing.
- ralferoo 3y ago
  I'm not sure about actively deceptive. What else does it mean? Hydrocarbon emissions are what you get when you burn hydrocarbons - H2O, CO2 and CO. If it's referring to a different thing, it's not a hydrocarbon emission. The image, and the claim within it, is actively deceptive because it's not true.
  - honk 3y ago