Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

This only applies to sales of new equipment starting in 2024. Existing equipment isn't banned.

Good move, IMO. Electric yard equipment is now good enough that gas alternatives aren't necessary in most cases. Lawn care professionals will have to make a moderate investment in batteries up front, but even those are becoming more affordable and easier to charge on the go.

The combination of multi-battery chargers and vehicles with built-in AC inverters (new electric F-150 is brilliant) means the batteries can even be charged straight off of the truck, eliminating the need to carry gasoline around or even stop at gas stations at all.

View on HN

> Electric yard equipment is now good enough that gas alternatives aren't necessary in most cases.

Have you used any? The batteries last 100x less than the tiny amount of petrol you pour into. You have to recharge 3x just to mow the whole (moderately sized) lawn. Hopefully newer models are better, but given the slow progress of car batteries, I doubt they're much better.

Yes, I use them every week and they're great.

They've come a long way in the past few years. If your only experience is from several years ago then it's nothing like modern tools. Definitely don't have to recharge to mow an entire lawn, or even recharge every week.

I expect they'll progress even more in the next few years before this law goes into effect.

The argument is we shouldn’t be dumping air quality externalities on everyone to have attractive landscaping.

Everyone is collectively used to burning fossil fuels without paying the true cost, and wrings their hands when they have to pay for their use case with zero emissions technology. The value of clean air is proven from scientific research on emissions.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution...

No, the real problem is no one wants to corral the chief contributors, so people try to go after the little people first who can't hire lobbyists to babysit legislators.

And you think that a piece of equiptment that uses a quart of gas every other week is a significant contributor? Why not focus on where the real progress can be made (or the real cost contributors) instead of forcing a scenario with poor cost benefit tradeoff.

I think you misunderstand the statistics. Modern cars are so clean that the two-strokes powering lawn tools really are most of the smog in some cities. Getting rid of them will be a big improvement for many people.

Source?

From a CARB publication dated 2017 (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-c...):

> In the early 2020s, however, total smog-forming emissions from small engines are projected to exceed those from passenger cars in the South Coast Air Basin because passenger car emissions will continue to decrease. By 2031, small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars.

And from the bill itself (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...):

>In 2020, California daily NOx and ROG emissions from SORE were higher than emissions from light-duty passenger cars. SORE emitted an average of 16.8 tons per day of NOx and 125 tons per day of ROG. Without further regulatory action, those emission levels are expected to increase with increasing numbers of SORE in California. Regulations of emissions from SORE have not been as stringent as regulations of other engines, and one hour of operation of a commercial leaf blower can emit as much ROG plus NOx as driving 1,100 miles in a new passenger vehicle.

Ok, so that's a forecast. Not something happening now (that you claim).

And how about planes, generation plants, etc?

I didn't claim it's happening now. The state legislature of California did: "The Legislature finds and declares all of the following..." I don't know for sure that the legislators who drafted this law verified that the predictions from several years ago have held up based on newer data, but it's really not much of a stretch think that they actually did check with the experts.

As for airplanes, power plants and other large-scale users of fossil fuels: like cars and unlike gas-powered lawn tools, they tend to more carefully manage combustion to burn cleaner, and power plants can treat exhaust (like cars do with catalytic converters). So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people.

Ah, I see that you responded with a source on behalf of the person making the claim. Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim.

"So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people."

Per gallon. Lawn equipment is is a tiny fraction compared to these others. Airports tend to be in cities, power plants tend to be close to population centers, most people have a road in front of their house... sounds like those are close to people, output more overall, and are used more frequently than once every week or two.

> Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim.

It does. If you don't believe the source, then take that up with CARB. But don't act like information provided by a government regulator is hearsay.

Can you show me where CARB says it's currently happening? You only posted a link to and quote about a prediction made in 2017.

The California government has a track record of declaring “facts” like this to push their agenda. The fact that a government agent claimed something does not automatically make it true.

The vast majority of lawn mowers are not 2 stroke.

Lawn mowers, no. But those are far from the only gas-powered lawn tools.

(Also, I've never seen a catalytic converter on a four-stroke lawn mower.)

They are the primary one.

No reason they can't put catalytic converters on.

If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?

> No reason they can't put catalytic converters on.

The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries.

> If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?

Grow up.

"Grow up."

Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument.

"The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries."

The ECU is a joke, and not a necessary part of using a catalytic converter. You can run a pi zero or audrino as an ECU.

The catalytic converter would be more expensive than not having one, but not that expensive. You might be assuming they would cost the same as one for a car, but they would be drastically scaled down. You can find new catalytic converters for small cars for under $100.

> Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument.

You don't deserve a real argument. "Why not require reel mowers?" isn't a serious question. Figuring out an answer takes only a few moments of thought, or reading the first section of the law in question, wherein the legislature lays out the rationale and justification for the regulation. (The whole law is just over 600 words, so reading it is quick and easy.) The question is just a cheap rhetorical trick.

If you actually have trouble coming up with an answer to that question, or if you think banning all forms of powered mowers would actually be a sensible public policy, then you're welcome to share your thoughts on the matter in more detail. Until then, there's no reason for anyone to take such a silly and provocative question at face value.

Why attack me and put down my worth instead of provide an answer? You are assuming my question is a rhetorical trick, which is also against HN's policy that states you should read people's comments in a charitable way.

That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. Reel mowers don't produce emissions, don't require batteries which harm the environment, don't require electricity to be generated and transmitted, don't require copper or electronics, and they force people to get exercise. The arguments here have been that batteries are good enough for most lawns because most lawns are small. If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well. If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.

> That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. [...] If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.

Yes, there are potential benefits to your Modest Proposal. But none of them provide any further improvement to the specific harms that the law in question explicitly seeks to reduce. Instead, you ignore those stated objectives and pretend that the law has (or should have) much broader goals, so that you can propose a much more radical alternative. And you haven't tried to explain how your proposal would be a reasonable tradeoff given its obvious and considerable downsides. You've also thrown in a bit of a straw-man ("If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well"). I'm still not seeing a reason to take you seriously.

We (our entire society) should really be reconsidering lawns and "attractive lawns" in general. The care and maintenance of Kentucky bluegrass is a tremendous drain on resources, a significant cause of pollution (air and water), and destroys the habitats of native plants, insects and animals. It is just bad all around.

This, this, this. It's ridiculous that we emulate British royalty who started this trend to show how rich they were by not needing useful crop.

Maybe we should instead tax CO2/fossil fuels, and let people decide how they change their behaviour?

(In particular, there is a usecase for artificially made fuel from air-captured CO2 - superior energy density and durability compared to batteries.)

This law isn't about reducing CO2 emissions. It's more specifically about reducing the forms of pollution that are disproportionately produced by small engines, which are often two-stroke and (AFAIK) never have catalytic converters. Taxing gasoline would be a failed attempt at a one size fits all solution, when there are very different categories of engines burning that fuel with drastically different emissions profiles.

I have a 10k sq foot lot and can mow the entire thing in one charge of the battery with my Ego mower. It sounds like you're the one who's never actually used one. They also have hot swappable batteries.

They wouldn’t recharge to finish a lawn… they’d keep a bunch of batteries on their truck they’d recharge every night.

I have a Milwaukee leaf blower with an M18 battery. It lasts about fifteen minutes. Then 45 min recharge.

> means the batteries can even be charged straight off of the truck

Get a bunch of long extensions cords on those crank reels and put em in the back of the truck. Batteries are a huge waste of money/time/environment if a corded tool will do the job. You would probably still keep a few cordless on the work truck just in case you need to get to some place far away or high up (e.g. the chainsaw example).

There aren't any self propelled walk behind electric mowers that can handle non-flat ground.

this seems like a potential area for innovation; Self propelled consumer ICE lawnmowers are plagued by open differentials, front wheel drive, and a complex drive system (belt and clutch attaching to a constant speed motor)

Electrics, on the other hand, could easily have independent front and rear motors, if not each wheel; an independent ramping and traction control system from the main motor -- and even an isolated electrical system (via capacitor) such that grass load and wheel speed are indepedent.

Is that a large market segment?

Everyone who can't justify an electric riding mower or doesn't have a place to charge it. I'm guessing you've never had to maneuver an umpowered push mower on slopes.

No, I have, but I was young and am not small.

But for instance, the town here doesn't have slopes, which is a common thing, for developed land to have been flattened out.

I'd rather not pay $500+ for a push mower with enough batteries to so my lawn. It seems like the negative impact is much higher than the marginal benefits. Why not focus on vehicles (especially planes) and the grid instead?

A non-disposable gas mower also cuts $500+ these days. Sure you can get cheaper ones, but they are junk that doesn't last.

This simply isn't true. A decent push mower can be had for about $180. Cheaper ones are about $130. Do you have a source for $500+ gas push mowers? I'd imagine they are very niche companies or models.

This also ignores the used market. Mine was used for $30.

The cheapest Honda push mower at home depot (today in the midwest) is $420, the second cheapest is $550.

They will easily go 20 years without much maintenance. Nobody I know buying $180 mowers gets more than a few years out of them and they are off to the landfill.

Perhaps they don't know how to take care of them. I have a mower that's 30 years old and another that's over 10. They are not high-end models (neither exist today to check prices). It's a shame people throw our perfectly good equipment because they can't keep it running, lawnmowers or otherwise.

If your argument is that a decent mower can go 20 years, then that excludes battery powered ones. You'll need to replace the batteries.

What is a disposable mower? That number is way off, checking my local hardware store a brand new mower is $150AUD.

Mowers are very simple machines. A little bit of maintenance goes a long way. I've only ever used what $50 gets me on craigslist and have never pined for anything better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com