California plans to ban small IC engines by Jan 2024

[Hurricane-TX]

California had previously passed a law requiring all vehicles sold in the state must be zero emission effective 2035. I'm not sure if that affects RVs or long haul trucks. Of course, they don't take into account the creation of electricity on the grid is not zero emission, but at least they cared enough to do something. I guess Jay Leno and the folks at Motor Trend will move to a new old car friendly location.

[radar]

Here’s the law. Obviously focused on the gardening industry.

43018.11. (a) (1) By July 1, 2022, the state board shall, consistent with federal law, adopt cost-effective and technologically feasible regulations to prohibit engine exhaust and evaporative emissions from new small off-road engines, as defined by the state board. Those regulations shall apply to engines produced on or after January 1, 2024, or as soon as the state board determines is feasible, whichever is later.
(2) In determining technological feasibility pursuant to paragraph (1), the state board shall consider all of the following:
(A) Emissions from small off-road engines in the state.
(B) Expected timelines for zero-emission small off-road equipment development.
(C) Increased demand for electricity from added charging requirements for more zero-emission small off-road equipment.
(D) Use cases of both commercial and residential lawn and garden users.
(E) Expected availability of zero-emission generators and emergency response equipment.
(b) Consistent with the regulations adopted pursuant to this section and relevant state law, the state board shall identify, and, to the extent feasible, make available, funding for commercial rebates or similar incentive funding as part of any updates to existing, applicable funding program guidelines for districts to implement to support the transition to zero-emission small off-road equipment operations.

[radar]

Originally Posted by RetiredbutWorking

California had previously passed a law requiring all vehicles sold in the state must be zero emission effective 2035. I'm not sure if that affects RVs or long haul trucks. Of course, they don't take into account the creation of electricity on the grid is not zero emission, but at least they cared enough to do something. I guess Jay Leno and the folks at Motor Trend will move to a new old car friendly location.

I’m pretty sure that is for light vehicles only. We have the same law in BC Canada. Affects new vehicles only. I doubt there will be many manufacturers building gas vehicles for the North American market by then. Maybe Toyota, Honda and Mazda as they don’t really have and published long term EV plans yet. Time will tell.

JMHO.

[TCollins]

There are ways to get around it.

[Solo_RV_Guy]

Originally Posted by move on

So if you read the article whose link the OP posted it says that The National Association of Landscape Professionals is against the rule because it will more than double the cost of landscaping equipment. Now, who uses more landscaping services than an RV park? This means higher camping fees. $5 per day ought to cover it.

I suppose one question would be how many of these small engines are out there, how much do they pollute.... oops, that's 2 questions.

From the linked article:

"California has more than 16.7million of these small engines in the state, about 3million more than the number of passenger cars on the road.
Officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver - a distance of about 1,100 miles."


Powering *lawn care and similar equipment* with forms of energy that contribute less air pollution seems a reasonable goal. Writing the regs in a year? That seems less than reasonable.

[Trvltrash]

Van De Graaff generator, just google it!

[TechWriter]

Originally Posted by LETMGROW

This is not intended to be nor do I want it to be political. Please respond within the rules.
Here is a recent news article addressing this subject:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...c-studies.html

It's very political.

[SlowJoe]

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

Officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver - a distance of about 1,100 miles."

This is an absurd statement!!!


I have a heavily wooded lot with lots of leaves in the fall. I bought the largest echo back-pack style blower the place had. It is an industrial version and maybe there is something on the market larger, but I couldn't find it.



The fuel tank holds about 1/2 gallon of fuel.


If I fire it up and run wide open for 1 hour, it may burn the entire tank but I dont believe so. I really haven't timed it specifically, but it runs a long time on a full tank of fuel.



A 2017 camry gets 33mph on the highway according to Google. Assuming this number is real, then an 1100 mile trip would require 33 gallons of gas.



How are these "experts" trying to represent that my blower can burn 1/2 gallon of fuel in an hour and produce more emissions than a vehicle which will burn 33 gallons on an 1100 mile trip? Where is the study that show this to be true?


What is the problem we are trying to solve here? They really have know way of knowing if there are actually 16.7 million small engines in the state, but even if one accepts that estimate, what is the impact of them? I have a generator, riding lawnmower, weedeater, blower, tiller, wood splitter and 4 chainsaws. They spend the majority of their time producing 0 emissions, because they ARE NOT RUNNING! Most of them get cranked less than 12 times a year. I may run 10 gallons of fuel through the lawnmower and 2 gallons through everything else in a year at the most.



This is a solution to a problem that does not exist.





I actually think this is a good thing. These officials are over playing their hands and people are waking up every time something like this passes.


I hope they keep it up!!!

[followingsea]

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

.

Powering *lawn care and similar equipment* with forms of energy that contribute less air pollution seems a reasonable goal. .....

After you take a shower, do you take a second, and third, and forth shower to get cleaner?

No of course not because you are already clean.

Then there would be the unattended consequences of the extra energy and water for extra showers.

Air quality issues in North America have been solved for 40 years. The air has already been cleaned. I am really happy about that.

Did the EPA declare victory and have cake an ice cream?

No we invented new problems. PM2.5 and ghg as pollutants causing a problem is just a theories that are still being debated 40 years later.

On a scientific bases, the limits for pollution is based on threshold of harm. Removing lead from gasoline is easy to justify.

Growing up I made some good pocket change shoveling snow, pushing a broom, and raking leaves. I would be happy to see 90 decibel leaf blowers banned.

[radar]

Originally Posted by followingsea

Growing up I made some good pocket change shoveling snow, pushing a broom, and raking leaves. I would be happy to see 90 decibel leaf blowers banned.

Amen to your last statement. We are to the point where we ask when booking a site when they do their grounds maintenance. We try to avoid being there when those noisy, stinky lawnmowers and whipper snippers are in use. The electric ones are fine.

We have a gardening company that looks after our townhouse community grounds. He is slowly converting over to the 40 volt battery stuff. Kinda cool.

[Solo_RV_Guy]

Originally Posted by TechWriter

It's very political.

Yes, the Daily Mail isn't known for neutrality.

for @slow joe and @followingsea:

I quoted their "experts" for a couple of reasons: first, if they 'massaged the numbers', they played down the pollution numbers, not gussied them up (political slant of the source) and, second, that without knowing how much *actual* pollution a 2017 Camry puts out in 1100 miles of travel... it's still a stunning visual thought of the equivalent auto traffic. And honestly, it's a lot more than I'd have thought. Those little 2 stroke engines are pretty dirty.

The opportunity here is in small (well, RV size - 10-20kW) generators with computer controlled engines (like in our cars) to minimize exhaust pipe emissions to charge the lawn crew's tools. Still burning dead dinosaurs but burning more completely and treating the leavings, things that small engines currently don't do.

edit ps: what's the engine displacement 'cut off' for this legislation? Gas powered golf carts, mopeds, gas engine assisted bicycles might fall under this.

[Ldubs]

Originally Posted by johninsd

An excellent idea - I recall a Mad magazine catalog spoof from years ago that featured a "Battery Charger" for charging two flashlight batteries. The description stated that it wouldn't run up your electric bill as it ran on 18 flashlight batteries. It went on to say that if you bought two of them they could be used to charge each other's batteries in perpetuity. I wonder how many people wouldn't realize that this was a spoof -

I must have been distracted by the ad for the x-ray glasses!

[Ldubs]

Originally Posted by move on

So if you read the article whose link the OP posted it says that The National Association of Landscape Professionals is against the rule because it will more than double the cost of landscaping equipment. Now, who uses more landscaping services than an RV park? This means higher camping fees. $5 per day ought to cover it.

As I understand it, California is going to set aside $30 million to help landscape type businesses transition to new equipment.

[Ldubs]

Originally Posted by move on

Banning ICEs would require the availability lots of cheap, reliable electrical energy. Isn't it strange that the state with the most expensive and least reliable electric grid is the first one to propose this?

Yeah, not long ago the request went out to stop charging Teslas during peak usage times -- the system couldn't handle the demand. And the current count of plug-in cars are a small percentage of the total. Am I the only one that sees a little problem developing.