RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Newsom signs bill to ban the sell of gas powered generators

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Posting Help and Support  |  Contact  

Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire

 > Newsom signs bill to ban the sell of gas powered generators

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Prev  |  Next
Sponsored By:
Timmo!

South-central Oregon...on the river

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 10/11/21 10:23am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

It is about "zero emissions" (aka Climate Change), small (gas powered) and large (diesel, natural gas, etc) generators are included, taxpayer subsidies and credits are in play.

From CARB May 2021 workshop--

[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]
[image]

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/fil........21%20Workshop%20Staff%20Presentation.pdf

atreis

IN

Senior Member

Joined: 08/29/2005

View Profile


Offline
Posted: 10/13/21 10:28am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

wapiticountry wrote:

And even better, all these wonder machines will be produced in third world countries like China that are actually ramping up coal fueled electrical generation to meet the increased demand from the manufacturing industry. China is building 47 new coal fired power plants currently and estimates are they will construct up to several hundred more. Nothing happens in a vacuum. (multiple sources including Time.com and CNBC).


As far as I know, there is nothing in the bill mandating that new equipment of any sort be manufactured in third world countries.


2021 Four Winds 26B on Chevy 4500


BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/13/21 10:49am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

wapiticountry wrote:

And even better, all these wonder machines will be produced in third world countries like China that are actually ramping up coal fueled electrical generation to meet the increased demand from the manufacturing industry. China is building 47 new coal fired power plants currently and estimates are they will construct up to several hundred more. Nothing happens in a vacuum. (multiple sources including Time.com and CNBC).

In other words, if China isn’t going to be a better steward of the environment than why should the USA (= “we have no desire to be better than China”). I’m sorry to say, but we (Americans), pollute (CO2) 2x more than Chinese; meaning, we need to cut our emissions to be as good as the Chinese.

* This post was edited 10/13/21 10:58am by BCSnob *

Timmo!

South-central Oregon...on the river

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 10/14/21 10:05am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

If you want to cook the books, then measure CO2 emissions per capita. Using that yardstick, China wins, even though they emit twice the level of CO2 emissions.

[image]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2........ons-and-energy-solutions-for-mitigation/

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 10/14/21 10:34am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Per capita values are the best way to evaluate emissions from a population and their habits. Choosing to use national emissions give small countries like UAE, Qatar, Kuwait a pass on how dirty they are. Not “cooking the books” as you claim.

Same argument for using Covid cases per 100,000 vs total Covid cases; tells you if there is high transmissions vs just high population. Or in the case of CO2, high emissions or low emissions from a lot of people.

Why should everyone in a highly populated country be expected to emit less co2 than everyone in a low populated country? Shouldn’t everyone in world be expected to emit the same (or at least not exceed a world wide threshold) since their emissions are all going to the same place (world atmosphere)? By your math everyone in a small country (like Iceland) could burn coal to heat their houses and other buildings, and burn coal to produce electricity and still not be a big emitter. Where would we be if every country in the world (no matter the size or population) emitted the same amount of GHG as the USA, since by your math we are going on amt/country?

* This post was edited 10/14/21 10:51am by BCSnob *

Deb and Ed M

SW MI & Space Coast, FL USA

Senior Member

Joined: 06/07/2004

View Profile



Posted: 10/14/21 01:02pm Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

colliehauler wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

Anyone with good used equipment is going to make some money, if they want to sell them.
Or increased sales in bordering states. [emoticon]


That was my first thought - "time to open a lawn equipment shop in western Nevada"!

I wonder what they'll do about new RVs that come with generators?

Timmo!

South-central Oregon...on the river

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 10/19/21 07:16am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Interesting perspective in this opinion piece---

Two words: Unintended Consequences.

California’s gas lawn equipment ban hits the little guys

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature on Assembly Bill 1346 makes one wonder whether California politicians ever fully understand — or even want to understand — the ramifications of their decisions.

The measure aims to eliminate the sales of gasoline-powered lawn equipment, such as mowers, string trimmers, leaf blowers and other devices, within a few years.

The purpose, it’s said, is to eliminate the exhaust emissions from small engines that create smog and contribute to global warming.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman, a Menlo Park Democrat, contends that “operating the best-selling, gas-powered commercial leaf blower for one hour emits air pollutants comparable to driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver. Smog-forming emissions from small engines will surpass those from passenger vehicles this year.”

One could add that the gas-powered lawn machines also emit jarring levels of noise.

Under AB 1346, the California Air Resources Board will decide how and when sales of gas-powered devices will be prohibited and it could be as early as 2024. A shift to battery-powered machines presumably would occur as older devices need replacement.

Tools powered by rechargeable batteries are convenient, quiet and relatively inexpensive to operate and make perfect sense for the homeowner. Personally, I’ve used them almost exclusively for the past quarter century and wouldn’t have it any other way.

That said, what’s practical for personal use is not necessarily so for lawn care professionals, most of them single persons or small crews, and often immigrants. It’s estimated that California has at least 50,000 such microbusinesses.

Mowing a lawn once a week is one thing, but pros do it a dozen or more times a day to keep their families housed and fed. They would have to not only buy the equipment but dozens of batteries and chargers and have the facilities, including sufficient electric power supplies, to recharge those batteries.

Backers of the legislation, a coalition of public health and environmental groups, would let the Air Resources Board figure out the details. There’s the possibility of a $30 million fund to help buy new equipment.

The arithmetic, however, indicates that the proposed conversion would cost much more than that, either borne by the lawn services or taxpayers.

Andrew Bray, vice president of the National Association of Landscape Professionals, told the Los Angeles Times that “a three-person landscaping crew will need to carry 30 to 40 fully charged batteries to power its equipment during a full day’s work,” adding, “These companies are going to have to completely retrofit their entire workshops to be able to handle this massive change in voltage so they’re going to be charged every day.”

The larger landscape companies that Bray represents could make the switch and adjust their fees accordingly. But how about the little guys?

A basic array of high-quality, battery-powered lawn tools — a mower, a trimmer and a blower — would cost at least $1,000. Enough spare batteries and chargers would at least double the initial cost. So at a minimum, with 50,000 lawn services, the total cost would be $100 million. The real world cost would likely be a quarter-billion dollars or more.

Even were the state willing to cover replacements, how about the infrastructure that small landscapers, operating out of their homes, would need to recharge their batteries? Would we be putting them through a daunting application process? Would the many undocumented landscapers submit the paperwork?

Newsom and the legislators who voted for this bill may think they are doing the right thing, but did they ever consider that they are messing with people’s livelihoods and lives? Nothing in the bill indicates they did.

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters. For more stories by Dan Walters, go to calmatters.org/commentary


https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/18/ca........lawn-equipment-ban-hits-the-little-guys/

Timmo!

South-central Oregon...on the river

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/24/21 08:04am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

Seems Cali has a 3 prong approach with small engines being lowest hanging fruit....

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/11/24/ba........r-outlawing-gas-leaf-blowers-lawnmowers/

Other changes coming

The crackdown on small powered equipment is one of three upcoming changes backed by clean air advocates.

The board also is expected to vote at its December meeting on an elaborate smog check system for heavy duty trucks, which currently are not required to get smog tests. Although the big rigs are only 3% of vehicle traffic in the state, they produce more than half of the smog and soot emissions, according to board data.

“This is the big enchilada,” said Bill Magavern of the Coalition for Clean Air. “This would be the biggest reduction of emissions in 12 years.”

The third measure under board consideration would create new rules for commercial harbor craft, including commercial sportfishing and whale watching boats, tugboats, ferries and barges. The board held a public hearing on the issue Nov. 19 and is expected to vote early next year on a measure phasing in engines that pollute less.


And we have this tidbit--

Another example of high emissions created by small engines is the operation of a gas-powered lawnmower for an hour, which the board said generates the same amount of air pollutants as driving from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

Wonder if the vehicle in question is a BEV or ICE? Let's assume it's an ICE vehicle, then that is a testament on how clean ICE vehicles actually are. So emissions from 1 hour of lawnmower operations is equivalent to driving 4 hours at 55-65 mph?

Hmmm...Judge Judy says "if it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true".

And this disclosure as well...

Southern California has long had the worst air quality in the country despite the state boasting the nation’s most extensive emissions regulations. That puts residents at an increased risk of premature death, respiratory and cardiovascular problems, cancer, immune deficiency, and fertility and pregnancy related issues, according to a report by Environment California.

Hmm, the weather patterns in Cali usually starts off shore (west) and flows eastwardly--which means the poor air quality is generated by the souls living in California. If their "extensive emissions regulations" have no effect, then what will?

IMO, open pit lithium mining in Nevada is not the answer for Californians (and I was one).

BCSnob

Middletown, MD

Senior Member

Joined: 02/23/2002

View Profile



Posted: 11/24/21 08:29am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

We should know soon (~1 year) if geothermal lithium extraction is a commercially viable method for “mining” Li.

Permits in place for geothermal Lithium production at the Salton Sea

Timmo!

South-central Oregon...on the river

Senior Member

Joined: 03/10/2005

View Profile



Good Sam RV Club Member

Offline
Posted: 11/24/21 09:38am Link  |  Quote  |  Print  |  Notify Moderator

BCSnob wrote:

We should know soon (~1 year) if geothermal lithium extraction is a commercially viable method for “mining” Li.

Permits in place for geothermal Lithium production at the Salton Sea


That would be great...especially if it will rejuvenate that dead lake (I fished there in the early 60s). But, for this technology to prevail, it requires a geothermal brine; no brine, no lithium. Since earth's crust contains around 0.002% lithium, open pit mining will probably be the mainstay game. Gotta have chunks of earth for lithium extraction.

I truly hope this company will succeed in their gamble; mother earth needs all the help she can get. Just a shame that it will be limited to existing geothermal slurry brine deposits. Any idea how many exist?

Reply to Topic  |  Subscribe  |  Print Topic  |  Post New Topic  | 
Page of 5  
Prev  |  Next

Open Roads Forum  >  Around the Campfire

 > Newsom signs bill to ban the sell of gas powered generators
Search:   Advanced Search

Search only in Around the Campfire


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:




© 2021 CWI, Inc. © 2021 Good Sam Enterprises, LLC. All Rights Reserved.