California considering statewide ban on gas-powered gardening equipment.
A new leaf blower operating for one hour is the equivalent in pollution to a 2016 Toyota Camry traveling over 1,100 miles.
Cheers Max.
Well, it is California; and the best [and acknowledgedly politically incorrect] quote I have on that topic is this one; "California; it's exactly the same as Granola - it's made up of flakes, fruits [i.e. homosexuals] and nuts!"
Last edited by Bruce; 20/03/2411:04 AM. Reason: Fixed Links
Cheers, Gadge
"ODK Mods can explain it to you, but they can't understand it for you..."
"Crazy can be medicated, ignorance can be educated - but there is no cure for stupid..."
Well it might be fine for the small home owner but those large estates it is going to be a problem.
Plus it is hard to believe a hand held blower operated an hour using only 1-2 quarts of fuel is polluting more than a car burning over 22 gallons of fuel.
If California want to clear up their pollution problem maybe they need to look into solving the vehicle traffic problems they have where a drive may sit in traffic with the engine running for 1-3 hours just trying to getting and from work.
Gadge got it spot on - I was going to say more commies than russia, but same thing.
At present, it would be political suicide in Australia to ban petrol powered machines since we are so heavily reliant on them.
Overall, I have had this argument before with a woman; How do they make an Ozito cordless mower.
Shipping litihium from some third world dangerous mine which severely degrades farming land halfway across the world to China, then doing the same for the (limited) steel, and the oil for the plastics, all carried out in factories with poorly governed emissions.
Then shipped halfway across the world to bunnings. You use it for 3 years, with your lawn needing more water and fertiliser due to the way they hack at the blades of grass, you most likely use electricity from coal or gas fired power plants, then something minor breaks or the batteries lose efficiency; meaning you have to repeat the process.
Meanwhile, I use 0.6L of 25:1 fuel per mow in a victa 2 stroke (well in my case one of about 10 to choose from). Once a fortnight for 3 years means 45ish L of fuel and 1.8L of oil.
The mower had its raw materials extracted and refined once 30 years ago - and the only distance it has traveled in its life is from Milperra to Perth
Whose footprint is smaller?
Just because you p*ss of your polution to some third world **** hole doesn't make you better than everyone else
Thanks to synthetic two stroke courtesy of Aldi special buys, my 1982 Victa Mustang found in a rubbish pile, has a transparent exhaust that won't attract sneers from neighbours and passers by. The noise will do that all on it's own The finished lawn will attract accolades or at least an absence of said sneering reactions. Our neighbour went and got one of those hopeless Ozito plastic lithium mowers. It couldn't cut it's way out of a damp paper bag going by the weed ridden mess of a patio. I feel guilty not fixing up a four stroke for him in time. (He prefers a four stroke).
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
What I don't get is our EPA (US) ban on the repair shops getting carburetor tuning tools; unless, we have a very expense exhaust gas analyzer. They rather us to install a supposedly pre-tuned two cycle carburetors that are badly out of tuned that result a high polluting engine. We can not get a single tool from the OEMs. At least thank to the Chinese I have be able get most of those adjustment tools so thing are tuned right when they leave my shop.
What they are referring to when they compare a blower with a car is the hydrocarbon emissions. Production cars since forever have had catalytic converters to clean up the emissions by burning off what is not burnt by combustion. Even the cleanest running Honda 4 stroke will still have worse emissions than a car. Same goes for motorcycles, which are only in the last few years getting converters put in them.
I am a very big skeptic of the whole global warming thing and I won't go any further into it, I am simply explaining the Californian point of view.
Regulation on the power equipment industry has always been a farce. I remember years ago they were on Stihl for emissions so their solution was go to Honda, re brand a bunch of 4 stroke trimmers and that brought their emissions overall down so far it bought them years to clean up their range. to this day they still refuse to make a 4 stroke.
I don't doubt the small equipment (blowers, trimmers etc.) will get phased into battery, its already happening. I have never tried them but I've heard good things about the Milwaukee/ Makita gear. And with where the battery stuff is now I would say another 5 years, probably less, bigger equipment will get the same treatment.
Batteries are the biggest holdup. There have been battery Ride ons since nearly the 70's, always let down by batteries that don't last and cost more than the machine is worth
Hi nath, My biggest bitch with batteries is the fact the production of these is far more damaging to the planet than petrol engines ever can be. This is never mentioned, it is kept a a big secret. And they also ignore the fact that in most cases coal is the base power source for recharging most of these batteries. I was using my Stihl Farmboss yesterday that I bought in the early eighties, what a beautiful saw that machine is, never misses a beat, and I probably started it 30 times yesterday, second pull every time
I have heard the ridiculous situation of carburettors with the non adjusting screws are set to meet optimum emissions when they leave the factory and meet the rules when they come out out the box. They don't consider that they inevitably need to be readjusted after a short time of use, so become worse over the life of the machine of they're not readjusted somehow after time in use. We may as well be running them on brown coal granules.
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
Two-stroke engines produce a lot of pollution because the fuel-air mixture in them gets contaminated with the engine’s lubricating oils. Simultaneously the combustion chamber draws in the contaminated mixture as exhaust gases are expelled through an exhaust port. Some of the fuel and oil gets mixed with the exhaust.
Envirofit’s fix replaces the engine’s carburetor, which mixes the air and fuel before they enter the combustion chamber, with a direct in-cylinder fuel-injection system. This allows fuel to enter the combustion chamber when the exhaust port is closed. Eliminating nearly all the unburned fuel significantly reduces the ensuing smoke and hydrocarbons. The conversion kit includes an air compressor, wiring harness, custom brackets, and a new cylinder head.
I have heard the ridiculous situation of carburettors with the non adjusting screws are set to meet optimum emissions when they leave the factory and meet the rules when they come out out the box. They don't consider that they inevitably need to be readjusted after a short time of use, so become worse over the life of the machine of they're not readjusted somehow after time in use. We may as well be running them on brown coal granules.
This doesn't make much sense to me when they do this. How can they be sure they have every carburetor tune perfectly right? Every engine and carburetor has variables that change the overall operating conditions not mentioning the actual conditions the engines are operated in.
Oh I have seen those Honda carburetors with idle mixture screws that are Loctite in place with the heads broken off yet they sell replacement screws.
Now I do get in riding mowers where the engines are so lean tuned from the factory that they simply are continuously surging from super lean to super rich where jets are one or two hundredths of a millimeter too small. Don't these produce pollutants by doing besides just excessive wear on the equipment including the engine and our nerves? Or at least it gets on my nerves that engine isn't operating smoothly once warmed up.
Originally Posted by NormK
Well I guess I had better stop using my wood fire during winter, but it will be some years before I burn all the wood I have collected
They are coming for you Norm and they going to put you under the jail for burning wood. But seriously it is a problem in places like India but they think the street is their outdoor bathroom too, just everywhere that is convenient.
I always love how people say I'm buying an electric car to save the planet!! If you really wanted to save something don't buy a new car at all! The sheer amount of pollution produced in making any car, in particular electric is far more than the car will ever produce.
I actually don't mind the idea of battery stuff, takes away the problem of stale fuel and carburetors you cant clean. I don't doubt its the future, I would never say its greener though.
The other thing is cost, if even china started putting catalytic converters on the trimmers and things (highly doubt it), I would be surprised if they would be able to keep it at the very low price that sells. The major brands shouldn't have too many dramas on the premium gear. If anything they might quieten some models which would be a win for contractors. I love my shindaiwa but the noise next to my ear would get old if I was using it day in day out
I read a small article and these are always kept small. I'm pretty sure it was from Volvo and they had no axe to grind here as they were comparing 2 of their own vehicles of similar size. I can't remember the models they were referring to because it meant nothing to me, but the crux of the matter was that the difference in the manufacturing carbon footprint between the 2 vehicles meant that the electric car would have to be driven for the first 80,000ks before the 2 cars carbon footprint became even. You can see why they keep these articles small, they don't want the population to know about this battery scam. When they can start making batteries from a renewable resource then I will start taking notice. Batteries are always needed for the world to operate but don't shove down my throat that using them is going to save the planet
What concerns me is the commercial and maybe higher end battery equipment is good but not the cheaper stuff, which is what the bulk will choose and they are true crap that will be disposed of quickly en mass. We will also have a lot of lithium battery waste with their toxic chemical makeup that will find it's way to land fill.
I hope the ban isn't made retrospective. Long may we breath in a healthy dose of 2 stroke goodness.
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
The Pellenc mower in the video looks good except for the price tag of $3000.
The newer Pellenc mowers are 1600 watt ,3 year warranty ,electric brushless motor that has no fan cooling as it's designed not to need fan cooling and the run time is 5 hours per charge.
Pellenc is a company founded in 1973 by Roger Pellenc and Jean-Paul Motte. It is a French manufacturer of machines, equipment and power tools for specialized agriculture and the maintenance of green and public spaces. Viticulture, viniculture, arboriculture and olive growing are the main markets of the company in the specialized agriculture sector.
The company is based in Pertuis, where the head office, its research and development center, the group's industrial department, as well as the main production and assembly units are located. The group represents 18 subsidiaries around the world, including 7 production subsidiaries. Coming from specialized agriculture, it diversified into the maintenance of green and urban spaces in 2008.
The cheaper stuff isn't too bad ,my brother has a decent sized yard and reckons his Ryobi electric mower is good , you probably get what you pay for spend $150 on a new electric mower and you are throwing away $150.
I like the smell of two stroke but not when using a chainsaw and the smoke is directed at your face , then I would rather use my 2 Makita electric chainsaws and they are a lot quieter too.
Typical Euros reinventing the mousetrap. Imagine the toll all that dirt, dust and grass clippings will take getting all though it and all the stuff that can go wrong. Wouldn't look all space age and flash for very long. The catcher is an insult on top of it. Try fixing it yourself when the buttons and controls wear out or bust and the electronics pack it in.
I'm sure it's a lovely gadget when new though.
Last edited by Mowerfreak; 15/10/2106:06 AM.
Ahh, if only victa had kept producing the thumblatch catcher series, they would be in better shape today!
Imagine sending in wildland fire fighters with a heavy battery pack that still would give no where near the run time of 1kg of mixed fuel.
The get out clause here is the bit about being 'so long as 2024 is "viable"' - but that being said it wouldn't be the first comprehensive stuff up by a government would it.
I generally do not like any outdoor power equipment with electric motors - the only situation I don't mind battery power in is a quality chainsaw. I have seen enough arborists struggling to start a Stihl arborist saw to gather that a battery would probably suit better.
But until I can get a quality used battery saw for under $20, I will stick with my old 12in GMC, 10in Ozito, and 16in Victa and Ryobi 4040
They will need to fire up a few nuclear plants before that can happen Max because wind and solar won't cut the mustard even without everybody switching to EV's
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I kindly disagree about the zero cost. A solar system will have maintenance costs if nothing else. Even failed components that needs replacing costs the owner.
Every solar system does takes a considerable time to recoup the initial costs thru savings.
Hi Max, You could make it so you could run your EV off your solar system but you would have to either work night shift, be working from home or retired. You can't work a day job driving to and fro to work and keep it charged
I already know of people that run their EV on their house solar system Norm, it doesn't cost them a dime to run their EV in electricity ,the tyres are another matter though $500. each for a Tesla tyre and they only last 30,000 km.
I kindly disagree about the zero cost. A solar system will have maintenance costs if nothing else. Even failed components that needs replacing costs the owner.
Every solar system does takes a considerable time to recoup the initial costs thru savings.
If you look at it like they bought an EV then went out and bought solar then yes there will be considerable costs involved, I was looking at it like the people already have solar whether they have an EV or not.
Originally Posted by NormK
You could make it so you could run your EV off your solar system but you would have to either work night shift, be working from home or retired. You can't work a day job driving to and fro to work and keep it charged
The number of solar batteries installed continues to rise with 28,262 installations in 2024, an increase of 4.9% on 2023 numbers. Australia now boasts a total of 121,551, solar panel and battery units (hybrid systems), representing 3% of all solar owners.
If the solar system is set up with battery storage, you could potentially store the solar energy generated during the day and use it to charge the EV at night. This setup could mitigate the issues associated with daytime charging needs
It all depends on how many klicks you do in a week as you could always charge the EV on the weekend without a home battery for the solar.
With the Solid State batteries ,If you typically drive less than 1000 km during the week, charging on the weekend could be sufficient to cover your needs. You may not deplete the battery completely by the time the weekend comes.
There are also other ways to get around solar only working during the day and you can make power at night without using a battery.
When the sun is shining, solar panels generate electricity. If the solar panels produce more electricity than is needed, the extra power is used to pump water from a lower tank (reservoir) to a higher tank (reservoir). This process stores energy in the form of elevated water.
At Night:
When it gets dark and solar panels stop producing electricity, people still need power. The water stored in the higher tank is released back down to the lower tank. As the water flows down, it turns turbines (like water wheels), which are connected to a generator that produces electricity.
In simple terms, during the day, solar energy is used to pump water up a hill, and at night, that water flows back down to generate electricity when it’s needed!
Hi Max, I have solar and I can easily work out how much I pay for my power I use from the grid per year. For me to buy a battery for $10,000 it would take me 50 years just to get my money back and this will not save me 1 cent and I can assure you the battery will probably need replacing at least 5 times in that period so my $10,000 investment will have cost me $50,000 and at my current cost of power it will take me 250 years to get my money back with no interest paid. A very dud investment, the batteries at this stage are a total con
Yes again I was thinking more about the people who had batteries already and not about people going out to get a battery to charge their EV at night .Some people need to be off grid as it would cost more to connect power.
There are still other alternatives like charging your EV on the Weekend or use your solar during the day to make power at night.
Using electrolysis to produce hydrogen from solar energy during the day and then using that hydrogen to generate electricity at night is a feasible approach.
At the moment Max with technology where it is at it is way too costly to produce hydrogen for the thermal output you can get from it. Maybe in 20 years they may come with an answer but hydrogen in an economic form is a long way off.
Hi Max, Apparently there is some mob in WA who is talking about a 7000 hectare solar farm and so many thousand wind turbines in the hope they can make green hydrogen. Good luck with that
I never knew how many things they can use hydrogen for.
Hydrogen has a range of applications in various sectors, especially as the focus shifts toward cleaner energy solutions. Here are some of the main uses for hydrogen, particularly in the context of a large-scale hydrogen plant:
Hydrogen fuel cells are used in various modes of transportation, including buses, trucks, trains, and even ships. Hydrogen can power fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), providing a clean alternative to traditional fossil fuel-powered vehicles.
Industrial Processes: Hydrogen plays a crucial role in several industrial processes, especially in: Ammonia Production: Used as a feedstock for fertilizers. Refining: Hydrogen is used in petroleum refining processes, particularly in hydrotreating to remove sulfur from fuels. Steel Production: Hydrogen can replace coke in the reduction of iron ore to produce steel, significantly reducing CO2 emissions.
Power Generation: Hydrogen can be used in gas turbines to generate electricity, either as a blended fuel with natural gas or as a primary fuel. It can also play a role in grid stabilization when integrated into renewable energy systems.
Heating: Hydrogen can be used for heating in residential and commercial buildings, either through hydrogen boilers or by blending hydrogen with natural gas in existing gas networks.
Chemical Production: Beyond ammonia, hydrogen is used in producing methanol and other chemicals, contributing to various industrial applications.
Energy Storage: Hydrogen can serve as a means of seasonal energy storage. It allows for long-term storage of excess renewable energy, which can be converted back to electricity via fuel cells or combustion.
Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU): Hydrogen can be combined with CO2 to produce synthetic fuels or chemicals, playing a role in reducing carbon emissions.
Space Exploration: Hydrogen is used as a rocket fuel in the form of liquid hydrogen due to its high energy content and clean combustion.
Research and Development: Ongoing research is exploring new and innovative uses of hydrogen, including its role in synthetic fuel production and in other up-and-coming technologies.
Hydrogen Roadmap: Australia has invested in developing a "Hydrogen Roadmap," which outlines strategies for becoming a major player in the hydrogen industry, particularly in exporting green hydrogen.
Yes Norm, but it was a win win when the Hindenburg blew up as they worked out Hydrogen would be good for bombs, then later found that the hydrogen bomb has the potential to be 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb.
What I never understood with the Hindenburg is that it didn't actually explode it just burned slowly as it floated to the ground. There may have been an initial explosion but it was the materials which burnt it to the ground
A person would hit the ground from the same height in 4 to 6 seconds the Hindenburg hit the ground in around 30 seconds Norm.
The time that it took from the first signs of disaster to the bow crashing to the ground is reported as 32, 34 or 37 seconds. Since none of the newsreel cameras were filming the airship when the fire first started, the time of the start can only be estimated from various eyewitness accounts and the duration of the longest footage of the crash. One analysis by NASA's Addison Bain gives the flame front spread rate across the fabric skin as about 49 ft/s (15 m/s) at some points during the crash, which would have resulted in a total destruction time of about 16 seconds.
The flames quickly spread forward first consuming cells 1 to 9, and the rear end of the structure imploded. Almost instantly, two tanks (it is disputed whether they contained water or fuel) burst out of the hull as a result of the shock of the blast. Buoyancy was lost on the stern of the ship, and the bow lurched upwards while the ship's back broke; the falling stern stayed in trim
