Hacker News Reader

Comment by gjsman-1000 | Hacker News Reader

But even CO2 producing cars, have you ever heard of a gas-powered leaf blower or chainsaw? Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.

You aren't going to motivate people to be better for the environment (by, say, buying a more expensive 40MPG vehicle instead of a 35MPG one), when it can so easily be wiped away by a guy just leaving a tool on for a few minutes more. Same situation with banning straws - nobody cares about the 1.6 billion masks in the ocean now (literally).

View on HN

> 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver

Maybe in terms of particulate pollution, but in terms of CO2 that's absolutely unimaginable.

NOx might be the bulk of it.

Naw, volatile organics.

Compression ratio isn't great on these things since half the time the gas is terrible -> no pressure, no NOx

But they are two stroke so a little but of gas and oil leak out on every stroke.

Can you cite your source on the leaf blower thing? I'm guessing they're talking about air quality, not CO2 emissions. Obviously, nobody's feeding their leaf blower 40 gallons of gas per hour.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/13/its-time-to-ban-gas-pow...

Air Quality, yes; but I will admit CO2 is not compared.

To determine CO2, you can just look at the amount of fuel consumed. That'll get you close enough.

A leaf-blower running for one hour will burn roughly 1/2 gal. of fuel. A 40mpg car going from LA to Denver will burn about 25 gallons of fuel.

That car trip will generate around 50 times as much CO2 as the blower

Pretty darn close! It should be well within 90% of the right answer. For a car probably about 99.9%

NOT CO2 emissions

Its worse in volatile organics, particulates and NOx. Mostly volatile organics due to the two stroke cycle.

But not because a chainsaw is particularly bad, but because a Camry is exceptionally good.

Why is the Camry good? Because it has a four stroke, fuel injected, computer controlled engine and $300 of catalysts breaking everything down. The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.

> The smoke of the Camry's emissions is water condensing out.

Not just water. A lot of CO, CO2, particulates and NOx are also emitted, especially at lower engine temperatures.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697...

I was referring to smoke specifically the visually imposing clouds car produce which forms our image of car emissions. Of what you listed, only particulates add to the smokiness of a modern engine and then only when its cold. Unless its broken.

> Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.

That cannot possibly be true. That's a 16 hour drive through 1000 miles of mountainous terrain, requiring multiple tanks of gas, vs an hour of a small two-stroke engine spinning a little turbine.

According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), it's true (except for CO2).

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engi...

@roarcher: They still emit lots of CO2 due to decreased efficiency, but the numbers aren't compared (so I'm not sure what they are), which I apologize for as I got CO2 confused with the other several gases being compared.

> except for CO2

Considering this entire thread is only about CO2, not air quality, perhaps that would have been worth mentioning in your original comment.

A leaf blower is about 11 lbs of CO2 per hour of use.[1]

A car produces about a pound per mile. Let’s say that is +- 30% depending on variables of trip.

[1] https://www.quietcleanpdx.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gas...

"per hour" vs "per mile" is an odd comparison. A car probably travels 60 miles in that hour.

Or 5 in LA

And how many miles and hours to Denver? There’s your comparison.

> Even though efficiency has improved, in 2016 California reported that just 1 hour of a gas-powered leaf blower was the equivalent of taking a Camry from LA to Denver.

That sounds like nonsense.

(FWIW I support banning gas-powered leaf blowers. But your claim is still bogus.)

It is bogus, because the OP talks about "efficiency" therefore implying CO2 emissions (since energy is the product of making CO2). The OP has confounded the CO2 emissions and volatiles.

Where leaf blowers' emission fall apart is volatile organics.

Why do you support banning gas powered landscaping equipment? In cities like LA, sure. But how are utilities going to maintain brush around remote power lines without gas powered equipment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com