California’s New Motor Law

[Snoopy11 5,713]

1 hour ago, ACman said:

hard to edit a deleted post do to what was posted

Buddy, honestly, I don't really care.

 

Not gonna change my life.

 

I never said anything political... I only asked sincere questions, which I feel could be answered truthfully, and separately from politics. There is a lot of truth in what Maxwell presented here, and if that is deemed too political then so be it. I just happen to feel that it is merely truth, which was the point in my response to Steve. 

 

 

Don

[Snoopy11 5,713]

30 minutes ago, Ed Kennell said:

Dat's what I should have done... 

 

Don

[roadapples 6,981]

I hope to live long enough to see how all this electricity that we're going to need can be made with sun and wind...

[Bill D 1,599]

I see this as a excuse to buy as many Wheel Horses as possible so you'll always have one.  Wear one out, then start using the next one.  Use the worn out one for parts.

[roadapples 6,981]

These tractors will probably outlast most of us...

Pretty sure mine will...

Edited October 26, 2021 by roadapples

[Maxwell-8 4,270]

10 hours ago, squonk said:

I find it quite disingenuous when guys have to keep editing posts to cover their tracks when they step over the line. 

I mostly have to edit it, because of my spelling errors, speaking english is easy, but haven't quite got the writing under the knee. 

[Maxwell-8 4,270]

And I think Wheel Horses are a great candidate for swapping over an electric motor, chassis and trans are seeming to be strong enough for the instant torque of an electric motor.

Instead of banning , Couldn't we not reduce emissions on gas powered equipment, like using a catalysator, making leafblowers, hedgetrimmers and brushcutter 4 stroke( we have one of those, works very good) thanks Steve for bringing in the real law, seems like their are little regions by the water with high emmsions, so the boats seems to be doing well on 4 Stroke.

 

 

 

From the law:

(E) Expected availability of zero-emission generators and emergency response equipment.

 

What is the point of a battery powered generator? 

I would want to see a concrete saw that is capable enough for firefighting, or a chainsaw for tackling the wildfires. 

[Stormin 9,975]

  Eventually oil, coal, natural gas will run out. So other means of producing, heat, power, electricity will have to be found. Yes there's solar, wind and nuclear. Wind and solar can't be relied on for obvious reasons. Lack of wind and the sun doesn't shine at night.

  What gets me with some people, members of my family included, they just can't see that. Over here just down the coast from me is Workington. There is/was a steelworks there that produce some of the best steel in the world. There's railway tracks the world over from there.

  To produce good steel you need a special coal. Coking coal is it's name. There's plenty of that under the sea just off the coast. A new state of the art coal mine has been proposed to extract it. Unfortunately the eco fraternity have just about stopped it. Bad carbon footprint they say.

  So I suppose the alternative will carry on. Imported coal and steel from China and Australia. Bringing those from the other side of the world will really help the carbon foot print.

  I'm pleased I'm the age I am. 

   

[Maxwell-8 4,270]

3 minutes ago, Stormin said:

I'm pleased I'm the age I am. 

Here in Belgium they say, my generation is the first generation who will have to do it with less. and then they are not even talking about the internal combustion stuff

[ranger 1,634]

9 hours ago, roadapples said:

I hope to live long enough to see how all this electricity that we're going to need can be made with sun and wind...

Where are all the electrical engineers going to come from to cope with demand,  Plenty of “Wind” from the 🐂🐄 cattle they want us to eat less of. And don’t forget “Nuclear”. If they could fit a “Reactor” in a car in the ‘eighties’ (Back to the future), I’m sure technology has advanced to the point where a small emergency generator or garden tractor could be so powered. Just imagine, never having to check your fuel gauge on your Wheelhorse again, and enough power to run a hot air blower instead of a snowblower to clear your driveway in the winter. The hot water from the melted snow can fill your hot tub, so nothing wasted. And think of the impact it could have on World Peace, If a country considers having nuclear capability a Deterrent, how would it be if every household had one?💥🤪. To counter a statement from @Stormin, the sun actually does shine at night,🌞 but on the other side of the globe!🌎 So Solar panels installed on all uninhabited areas, deserts etc, a giant ‘Ring Main’ around the planet, and problem solved, I should be a politician! 😅😂🤣 Or I’m a prime candidate for some form of therapy? 🤔

(all suggestions will be duly ignored), (but donations/donuts gratefully accepted).

Doug.

Edited October 26, 2021 by ranger

[953 nut 51,670]

3 hours ago, Maxwell-8 said:

Instead of banning , Couldn't we not reduce emissions on gas powered equipment, like using a catalysator, making leafblowers, hedgetrimmers and brushcutter 4 stroke( we have one of those, works very good) thanks Steve for bringing in the real law, seems like their are little regions by the water with high emmsions, so the boats seems to be doing well on 4 Stroke

Considering the advantages offered by Hydrogen Fuel Cell engines I would think that electric vehicles will be short lived. There is no reason this technology couldn't be scaled down to the lawn and garden equipment and other equipment including home standby generators.

 

The number of power stations for EV is growing every day and there were 20,000 electric charging stations in the United States by December 2018. A big number when compared to the less than 45 hydrogen refilling stations in the US, most of them in the California area, according to the US Department of Energy. Indeed, the infrastructure, supply, and the technology of hydrogen cars are still years behind electric vehicles.

Hydrogen Cars Vs Electric Cars: Powering/Refuelling Time

The amount of time it takes to pump hydrogen into the tank is way more interesting (5 to 10 minutes, just like any petrol car) than the one from electric cars. While Tesla’s fast chargers (with 120 kW) give batteries 80% power in half an hour, the BMW i3 or the Nissan Leaf can take around 4 or 8 hours, respectively, to get fully charged. In the end, the time electric cars take to power depends obviously on the charging station and the type of charging connector. But whatever the combination is, and even with Tesla’s most recent V3 supercharger that’s still in beta testing in San Francisco, this is a clear win for the hydrogen car – all because of 1kg of hydrogen storing 236 times more energy than 1 kilogram of lithium-ion batteries.

Hydrogen can be produced in many ways but the most cost effective seems to be the Reformation of Natural Gas. This process can also be done with coal and biomass. The high temperature steam used in the Reformation process could be waste steam from power plants or solar energy steam generators.

[JoeM 7,624]

It is the old routine "necessity is the mother of invention!"

 

When the need for something becomes imperative, you are forced to find ways of getting or achieving it.

 

When I was a kid most of the folks had a car. They drove to work, church etc. Now everybody in the household has a car. Amazing amount of heat is created by the fuel they use. It is pretty easy to point at coal and gas....not so easy to point at one of the single most used personal conveniences of modern times. 

 

Ten years ago there was a big push to install windmills on the mountain. 5 went to 10, 10 to 20, then no more. I was on a mini trip and ran into a guy that worked maintenance on for a windmill company. I ask him why more are not going up. He told me the federal subsidized money ran out. The power generation company had a hard time making money without the subsidy. I suppose the cost of ownership is pretty high?

 

I did find this info

The mean turbine capacity in the U.S. Wind Turbine Database (USWTDB) is 1.67 megawatts (MW). At a 33% capacity factor, that average turbine would generate over 402,000 kWh per month - enough for over 460 average U.S. homes.

 

By comparison, the power station that services our area is 600 MW continuous output = 1800 windmills?

 

I am much more considerate of our world now then I was 30 years ago.

And I know i get angry at the knee jerk reaction employed today.  

With all the tools in the box we need to come up with a recipe that makes that best cake. Use all the ingredients, and come up with a long term plan that will work. 

 

 

 

 

[Ed Kennell 35,768]

Pumped Storage Hydro Power Plant - Electrical Power Energy    In the '60s, Allis Chalmers Turbine Lab. in York,Pa. developed 94% efficient reversable pump/turbines to be used as storage batteries for the planned switch from fossil to nuclear powered steam turbine plants in the world.     Then Three Mile Island and Chernobyl  ended this plan.

[lynnmor 6,776]

1 hour ago, Ed Kennell said:

Pumped Storage Hydro Power Plant - Electrical Power Energy    In the '60s, Allis Chalmers Turbine Lab. in York,Pa. developed 94% efficient reversable pump/turbines to be used as storage batteries for the planned switch from fossil to nuclear powered steam turbine plants in the world.     Then Three Mile Island and Chernobyl  ended this plan.

 

If this wind and solar generating continues to expand, I think that the pump storage will become the next environmental issue as it consumes considerable land.  It is simply a giant storage battery that will be pushed on sparely populated areas that have no political power.  It was tried in our area when a private company wanted to take land for their own greed.

[AMC RULES 36,945]

10 hours ago, roadapples said:

These tractors will probably outlast most of us...

Pretty sure mine will...

Here's hoping not Jay!

[stevasaurus 22,229]

Let's see...if I go into the Lawncare Business, I can hire and pay myself to mow my lawn and be eligible for these Government Subsidies and upgrades.  I can depreciate my equipment, I can run at a loss for 5 years, and I can claim my garage as my office.

Long Live Wheel Horse !!

   On the other side, I just bought 500 shares in a Dylithium Crystal Mine.  Imagine running your Garden Tractor on one little Dylithium Crystal forever.  Imagine then, having the room to also have a cassette deck with tapes of different hp Kohler engines running while mowing your lawn.  Imagine selling DVD's of "Kohler Engine Sounds in Dolby Stereo".  

  

 

[Snoopy11 5,713]

38 minutes ago, stevasaurus said:

On the other side, I just bought 500 shares in a Dylithium Crystal Mine.  Imagine running your Garden Tractor on one little Dylithium Crystal forever.  Imagine then, having the room to also have a cassette deck with tapes of different hp Kohler engines running while mowing your lawn.  Imagine selling DVD's of "Kohler Engine Sounds in Dolby Stereo".  

Now, that is funny.

 

Except... I might play the sound of a Ford Coyote 5.0...

 

Don

[Snoopy11 5,713]

40 minutes ago, stevasaurus said:

claim my garage as my office

Most of the time... my garage (i.e. shop)... IS my office... and living room, dining room... and everything but restroom... 

 

Don

[Ed Kennell 35,768]

2 hours ago, lynnmor said:

I think that the pump storage will become the next environmental issue as it consumes considerable land. 

Yes, a pumped storage plant does require a lake at a higher elevation than the water supply.   All forms of generation plants have some impact on the enviornment.

 

[SylvanLakeWH 24,130]

19 minutes ago, Ed Kennell said:

 All forms of generation plants have some impact on the enviornment

Wait… you mean we can’t get something for nothing…? 

[Handy Don 10,596]

1 hour ago, Ed Kennell said:

Yes, a pumped storage plant does require a lake at a higher elevation than the water supply.   All forms of generation plants have some impact on the enviornment.

   

 

We'll be facing a lot of new realities over the next decade. We will live in interesting times. But I will hold onto the Horses as long as I can!

Another risk of pumped storage described here: https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/FirstLight-to-halt-pumping-into-Candlewood-Lake-1389903.php

Also our village has just signed a contract to allow a company to "roof over" the parking lot at the train station with PV panels.

[lynnmor 6,776]

3 hours ago, Ed Kennell said:

Yes, a pumped storage plant does require a lake at a higher elevation than the water supply.   All forms of generation plants have some impact on the environment.

 

 

Just pointing out the fact that buying an electric car ain't as green as many think. 

[Ed Kennell 35,768]

1 hour ago, Handy Don said:

Another risk of pumped storage described here:

Zebra mussels from Canada and snakeheads from Asia  causing some concern.     The good news, snakeheads make delicious tablefare,  and zebra mussles are excellent crab bait.

[953 nut 51,670]

6 hours ago, stevasaurus said:

..if I go into the Lawncare Business, I can hire and pay myself to mow my lawn and be eligible for these Government Subsidies and upgrades.  I can depreciate my equipment, I can run at a loss for 5 years, and I can claim my garage as my office.

If the business is in your wife's name she will qualify for minority business credits so she can give you a pay raise!          

[wh500special 2,053]

I've been seeing lots of references to this new California law on the various automotive, fishing, and tractor enthusiast forums I peruse.  Most of the responses are predictable in their indignation and anticipated for their content. This was the first thread I've seen that actually posted a link to the legislation rather than just make oblique references to what was assumed to be defined in the law.  Kudos to Steve for that.

 

Bear with my scattershot organization and poor writing as I move along, I was a bit distracted while pounding this out...

 

There are a lot of interesting points both in the law and in the myriad posted opinions.  But a few things jump out at me:

 

First, the law is written in amazingly plain language.  I was all geared up to be infuriated by the complexity of the document yet found it was easy to breeze right through.  I'm impressed that the California lawmakers kept us common folk in mind when they crafted this thing.

 

Second, I can infer from what I've read about this law and its implementation that there was actual research that went into gathering facts and data to support what they want to do.  Certainly they cherry-picked the scenarios that make their case easier to sell, but we all do that in every aspect of our lives and work.  As we learn more about how seemingly unrelated things interact, we redraw conclusions as to what our best actions should be.  And we tend to use supporting data that best makes our case.

 

Third, a lot of folks are framing this as a climate change initiative but I don't view it that way at all.  While eliminating individual CO2 emissions at the point-of-use location is certainly an end, the law pretty clearly defines this as a non-CO2 pollution issue. They're focusing on localized pollution emissions...smoke, smog, vapors, fumes, etc.  These things have real acute and chronic health effects - which have societal costs - and I believe that is the immediate intent of what's going on here.  And all of these things really weren't practically solvable until battery powered tools evolved to their current state.

 

Not many members of this forum live in California.  That's not a surprise as suburban lawns there aren't quite what they are in the eastern half of the US.  Couple that reality with the facts that Wheel Horse's biggest distributor served the PA and Mid Atlantic area and the company itself was a Midwestern centralized entity.  So what happens in CA is, for most of us, a spectator activity.  But they are our most populous state and the 5th largest economy in the world, so what they do eventually affects us all.

 

From my distant perspective, it's hard to embrace the realities of California's geography, topography, climate, and population distribution.  The key point in this whole regulatory reach looks to be a means of curbing the excessive pollution emissions small engines pose.  These simple, cheap engines don't have any kind of emissions controls and tend to run with much more crude combustion dynamics than any auto since the late 1970's.  This is spelled out by the law specifically mentioning Nitrogen oxide and reactive organic compounds being emitted.  These are the very things that create ground level Ozone and smog.  And these are the things that pool in valleys and tend to linger in the very stable atmosphere that they have out there.

 

Without saddling these small engines with computer controls and catalytic converters, there isn't any hope of cleaning them up.  Sure, you can make them run lean and sort of clean but then you force them to produce more NOx.  Richen them up a little bit to correct this, and they belch a comparatively high amount of unburned fuel.  It's also hard to seal their fuel systems to prevent evaporative emissions without charcoal canisters, fuel pumps, and fuel injection.

 

We could hang a catalyst on the exhaust I suppose.  But those require tight engine control and cost a bunch.  We could add fuel injection to curb the evaporation, but carburetors are cheaper and lighter, both of which matter in these applications. 

 

Combustion engine technology is straight forward and proven, but the cost increases on a small device like a leaf blower or lawnmower would be tough to swallow.  Surely their prices would make the electric alternatives really the only current solution.  And even with these updates these little engines probably would continue to be comparative gross polluters due to their unusual duty cycle. 

 

Essentially, mandating battery electric power fast forwards the whole operation a few steps and avoids an intermediate stage that would probably create more wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

I wonder if the 25 hp cutoff is where they expect that equipping a device with a smarter and cleaner engine becomes economically viable.  Equipment sized for an engine this large is going to be expensive anyway, so perhaps the thought is the internal combustion engine - thusly equipped - represents a competitive alternative to an electric solution.  And this is also probably a power output range where battery technology doesn't offer adequate bang for the buck.

 

I'm not philosophically of the persuasion that regulation is the first course of action we should take as a society.  I'd rather see people be given the chance to "do the right thing" on their own.  However, there are things we tend not to do for ourselves without being nudged.  Think speeding, texting behind the wheel, not having insurance, dumping used motor oil on the ground, etc.  We have a long history of taking shortcuts when the environment is concerned.  We also tend not to worry about health effects to other people until there is a smoking gun involved...figuratively or literally. 

 

Sadly, this is an area where our states - and sometimes the feds - have had to take the reigns in the past.  It is usually upsetting, is sometimes disruptive, often it hurts, and it always costs me money in some way.  But we adapt. 

 

I'm old enough to remember all the Chicken Little cries that the sky was falling when we were planning to do away with leaded gas and stick a catalytic converter under the family's Dodge Diplomat, but the world didn't end.  Cars got cleaner and measurably better as we found ways to make it work.  We discovered that we really didn't need to be breathing lead for the sake of our valves. 

 

I think this law is analogous to that.

 

One of the things our society has focused on lately is the ability for our states to take the lead in issues where the federal government really shouldn't be sticking its nose.  This California measure is, essentially, a real-life lesson in that sensibility.  I'm not sure all states will follow the CA lead on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see the other states who usually adopt CA's automotive emission standards quickly sign up for the same measures.

 

Fourth, there is a surfeit of these "where is the electricity going to come from?" sorts of comments. Interestingly, the law explicitly tells the Air Resources Board that this is something they need to evaluate when devising their regulations and plans.  I would guess that research and assumptions probably indicated that for household use that most battery power would be used during the day and recharged during lower demand periods.  It won't work everywhere for everybody, but the laws of large numbers probably smooth the added load on the grid from this.

 

It's also curious to me how up-in-arms we often get about the added electric demands from charging batteries from the grid when most of us live our lives with plenty of extra junk plugged-in and wasting energy for no reason 24/7.  I'm sure the average household is constantly burning a few extra lights, has a few wall warts plugged in wasting power, has a fridge in the basement or garage keeping a few beers and pops cold, and has the the thermostats set to an ideal level all day and night.  We - and I mean me too - like to cherry pick our concerns.

 

California has been and probably will remain a net importer of power.  There isn't much impetus to build new fuel-fired or nuclear plants and there is only so much we can do in a reasonable amount of time with solar and wind.  We know they suffer from the combined effects of an aging grid and exploding development. Scheduled and emergency blackouts are a way of life for millions.  Contrary to our gut opinons, Industry isn't just idly standing by since there is money to be made in providing the needed power.  You can bet they are making plans and motions to do what they can to capitalize.  The big bet is on the rate of ramping up and if we can get there fast enough.

 

This law also mentions studying generators.  Surely, this is in preemptive response to the musings that grass mowing contractors will be riding around with dirty generators in the backs of their trucks.  I think this reveals that this wasn't just a "let's shake things up and see what falls out" sort of thing.  It actually - again from an outsider's perspective - looks like a lot of thought and consideration went into this. Thoughts and considerations don't make it actionable I realize, but it takes away the sting of it being arbitrary.

 

When I heard about this law I instinctively thought to myself "here we go again. California lawmakers are still dictating to their people from their ivory tower..."  But then I thought about it.  CA consistently has, over the last several decades, been doing things like this.  They continue to have elections and have the same revolving door approach to politicians that all of the rest of our states do, and yet they have - with few exceptions - been way out in front on environmental issues.  I can conclude a lot of sarcastic things about this, but the one thing that keeps popping back in my mind is that this sort of thing must be what the people of CA want.  So whether I like it or not, they continue to push the ball down the field toward this same goal line.

 

I could probably go on forever, but I'm running out of wind and interest for now.  So I'll skip over the "what about those toxic chemical batteries" and "yeah, but China is building all these coal plants..." arguments.  There are plenty of challenges and disasters going around.  Chipping away at them is really all we can do at this point.

 

Is this law ideal?  No. 

Is it going to solve all of our pollution issues?  No. 

Is it what I want?  Probably not. 

Is it a reasonable step forward despite these things?  It sure looks that way.

 

There are a lot of variables at play.  On the face of things this seems like a stupid, intrusive law.  But given a little thought and consideration of the big picture, maybe it isn't completely off target.  And it's apparently representative.  We'll see.

 

Your mileage and thoughts will certainly vary.

 

Steve

Edited October 28, 2021 by wh500special