Proposed US Rule for Portable Generators Will Save Thousands of Lives and $1B/Yr
cpsc.gov
cpsc.gov
If the 'free market' can't even do the bare minimum, it's no wonder everything gets regulated to hell.
If companies could sell generators with a big sticker on them that says "with new feature that prevents shark attacks" now that might actually get people interested in buying it over the competition. But a CO shutoff probably doesn't get many people interested.
No, it's a perfect example of how the government's standard response to a small number of people being stupid and irresponsible is to punish all of the not stupid, not irresponsible people. I don't need a CO detector and automatic shutoff on my portable generator because I have a clue and won't run it indoors. And, as other commenters have pointed out, a CO detector and automatic shutoff are now two more things that can break on my generator--probably right when I need it most, when the power is out. But if this regulation passes, I won't have a choice; I'll have to suffer the consequences of the cluelessness of others. How is that fair? How does it even make sense? Why penalize the actual mature adults just because a few people can't be bothered to be mature adults?
A vocal minority will complain, this will get built into the supply chain, and a decade or two from now, only older folks will complain. For everyone else, they’ll wonder why they didn’t have them before. So it goes. Notice how much safer cars are versus decades ago.
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/21/generators-carbon-mo...
> Portable generators are one of the deadliest consumer products on the market, killing about 80 people in the U.S. each year and poisoning thousands of others.
No, they don't, they "protect" the irresponsible at the expense of everyone else.
> Your inconvenience is someone else surviving.
That's the wrong way to describe the situation. First, it might be more than an inconvenience to me: the CO detector or automatic shutoff might break when my power is out, and now my generator, which would have worked perfectly fine without this stupid regulation, is gone in the middle of an outage when I was depending on it working. And that can have serious consequences.
Second, you don't know for sure that the irresponsible will survive even with this regulation. As someone else upthread pointed out, someone irresponsible enough to run their generator indoors will still do it even with these protective devices (in fact they'll be more likely to because they are stupid enough to think that the devices make it safe, which it isn't), and that could still kill them.
> So it goes.
Indeed, that's how it's been going for decades in the US. And as a result our society is a mess. When people no longer have an incentive to not be stupid, you will get more and more stupid people. Not a good recipe for a functioning society.
You bought a toy for your kid that happened to include lead. Too bad. You were IRRESPONSIBLE! You should have read all the fine print before buying it.
Your local baker’s muffin has arsenic in it and you ate it and died? IRRESPONSIBLE. You should have known that the presence of arsenic is a possibility. You should have checked with the baker if they added it.
That’s a ridiculous approach.
Also, this isn’t new fangled technology. It exists and is widely deployed and there’s no evidence it increases failure by any meaningful amount.
No, it's only their responsibility to read and follow the manufacturer's instructions. That's very different from having to independently research and identify hidden or unknown dangers.
When they are explicitly stated in the user manual? Yes. That's part of being a responsible adult.
Your examples are of cases where the seller is not telling you material facts about the product. (Unless you think that toy makers who put lead in their toys or bakers who put arsenic in their muffins actually do state that explicitly somewhere in their "fine print". Which of course they don't.) That's a completely different situation, which we already have a name for: fraud.
> That’s a ridiculous approach.
No, what is ridiculous is to make a completely invalid comparison as though it were a valid argument.
> there’s no evidence it increases failure by any meaningful amount
A number of other posters in the thread have posted evidence to the contrary. Your naive confidence in the power and goodness of regulations is sadly misplaced.
That doesn't even seem to register compared to that other deadly consumer product, the personal automobile.
Yeah, and then during a disaster there's a fault with these new components that render the generator unusable during a critical time that results in someone dying.
>Notice how much safer cars are versus decades ago.
Cars tend to work even if the modern features are broken. Imagine if the car would stop its engine if it couldn't detect that your seatbelt was on. Eg during a drive the detector malfunctions and suddenly your car loses power in the highway.
A generator working can be very important at a time when other stuff tends to break. Making it less likely to work is going to cause problems.
Having models with these protections is splendid. Making it mandatory on all of them is not.
You could make the same argument for many, many safety related things (seatbelts, air bags, house related code requirements for electrical, etc). It's just the burden we all have agreed to bare.
No, just that it's a risk that I would not choose to take for myself, but would be forced to take because of other people's irresponsibility if this regulation passes.
> In reality, they largely will be fine and may add marginal cost to each system.
Who gave you the right to make this tradeoff for me? Why can't you focus on the actual irresponsible people and figure out how to help them be less irresponsible? Why put a regulation in place that just gives them even less of an incentive to be responsible (because after all Big Brother is watching over them so they don't need to be)?
> It's just the burden we all have agreed to bare.
No, it's the burden that do-gooders have forced on the rest of us for no good reason, but simply because, in our current political system, they can.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222366/
"There are more than 38 million residential carbon monoxide detectors installed in the United States. We tested 30 detectors in use and found that more than half failed to function properly, alarming too early or too late. Forty percent of detectors failed to alarm in hazardous concentrations, despite outward indications that they were operating as intended."
If you look at Figure 2, some of the sensors failed safe (generators die) others unsafe (people die)
You frame this as stupidity, but I think a more accurate characterization would be ignorance. Not everybody has the education of the average HN contributor. Also, some people have mild mental/intellectual deficiencies or simply below-average IQ (I guess that's the people you call "stupid", but they are people too - and one day you might end up learning a bunch from one of them)
It’s hard for me to fathom how somebody could possibly think operating an internal combustion engine inside of a building is not going to kill them.
Lastly, a generator is used in emergency situations. If a safety feature that is unnecessary for 99.99% of people means your generator can’t start, that’s not good either.
You are assuming that "we" have to draw a line somewhere. "We" don't. Individual people should be making their own decisions about these things.
> It’s hard for me to fathom how somebody could possibly think operating an internal combustion engine inside of a building is not going to kill them.
It's hard for me too. But for a small number of people, it seems to be the case. As the saying goes, "You can't make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
But it's even harder for me to fathom how, given the above, people still somehow believe that government regulation will magically fix the problem, and ignore the fact that such regulations, as I've said, punish all the rest of us who are responsible adults for the irresponsibility of a tiny few.
Ok, then yes. We draw the line based on observed effects.
The observed effect is it’s costing the US $1Bn every year and the additional cost will pale in comparison.
If you want to disagree with those numbers fine.
If you think saving $1bn per year and tend to hundreds of lives at the cost of a few hundred thousand is not worth it. Fair enough. That’s why you elect legislators who have to approve and/or can disallow these rules.
The lines are drawn by your elected representatives based on costs and benefits.
That’s where you draw the line.
Given the number of people involved, which, as I've posted elsewhere in this thread, is miniscule (1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries over 17 years, which equates to 77 deaths and 4529 injuries per year), I have extreme difficulty believing this number. It looks like a number pulled out of someone's orifice for FUD.
> The lines are drawn by your elected representatives based on costs and benefits.
Not if they are based on numbers that don't seem to have any relation to reality.
Not to mention the fact, which has already been pointed out by several posters in this thread, including me, that the numbers involved are tiny compared to the numbers for traffic deaths--and automobile safety is already regulated up one side and down the other. Which should give anyone pause regarding the claimed "savings" due to regulation.
Ignorance of safety precautions that are explicitly stated in the user manual that comes with the generator? To me that's stupidity.
> Not everybody has the education of the average HN contributor.
Anyone who is reasonably literate should be able to properly understand "don't run this generator indoors".
> some people have mild mental/intellectual deficiencies or simply below-average IQ
In a sane society, such people would be wards of other people who were responsible for looking after them and ensuring their safety. Of course, we don't live in a sane society.
But in any case, such people probably won't have portable generators because they won't be planning ahead that much.
> I guess that's the people you call "stupid"
Not at all. I call a person stupid who knows enough to buy a portable generator as a precaution, but can't be bothered to learn how to properly use it.
but yeah, they're just stupid. not an issue of their circumstances - they're just stupid.
Uninformed does not necessarily mean stupid. Besides that, where would you draw the line? Can't this argument be made more or less for every safety-feature ever? Why dictate seatbelts when you can just drive safely and not be stupid. Why have protective equipment etc?
Nobody who buys a portable generator is uninformed about the required safety precautions. They're stated explicitly in the user manual.
> Can't this argument be made more or less for every safety-feature ever?
Yes. And the answer is the same for all of them. The fact that in our current society, many such regulations are already in place, does not make those regulations good ideas. It just means our society is not a sane society. Which should be obvious to anyone paying attention anyway.
Not everyone using a generator in a crisis bought the generator. Not everyone where a generator is being used in a crisis even speak the same language.
You say you have a clue, but unfortunately, someone looking at you can't tell if you actually have a clue or if you're an idiot that doesn't. And idiots without a clue will happily claim that they have one. The device is already covered in very clear warning labels that someone without a clue could use to get a clue. (The problem is people who are too smart, and think they have a clue but actually really don't. Which is unfortunate because they look the same as the other people, but loudly think the rules don't apply to them.)
Which leads to the other way we accomplish this, which is to allow people to sit through a course and take a test in order to get a license to do certain things, like drive or fish or remove asbestos or have pyrotechnics.
The challenges of modeling exactly sufficient airflow accurately isn't a short course, so regulation requiring a sensor is the least bad answer.
If this rule passes, owners would need to replace their CO chemical sensor every 5-7 years, and it's likely that the manufacturers will charge more than $5 to ship the part. If I were making generators, I would encourage the CSPC to adopt the rule in order to create an ongoing "printer ink" style revenue stream.
Alternatively, they could just declare the generator EoL with no replacement sensor, so owners have to buy a new one after 7 years. They're saving lives and printing money, what's not to love?
Wen, $53: https://wenproducts.com/products/gn625ix-1430-co-sensor-modu...
Generac, $169: https://gen-parts.com/products/generac-generator-part-100000...
This is a not-insubstantial continuous cost adder. And given these modules are almost certainly proprietary, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer in terms of parts availability and cost.
I would expect manufacturers to love this; this has basically converted generators into a subscription service (albeit with a 5-7 year renewal period). And, a potential avenue for planned obsolescence. All they have to do is stop producing the replacement sensor, and those generators will be bricked.
And before you think about trying to disable it: The regulations specifically require that the generator ensure the sensor is functional, or the generator must prevent itself from running. The generator wiring etc must be tamper resistant, not accessible by regular tools, to prevent a user from attempting to bypass it.
So, now the generator will have some portion of it as tamper-resistant, by law. I wonder how that will affect reparability?
The common / low cost carbon monoxide detectors use a chemical reaction (either a fuel cell or one of a few reactions that produce a colour change in the presence of CO) - the chemistry degrades with time and exposure causing the sensitivity to drop off over time.
I’m not sure how much of a safety margin they have (like could it still detect dangerous levels at 2x it’s design life or something) but a quality generator would have a life of several times that of a CO sensor at least so replacement will definitely/hopefully be a design consideration.
I suppose that anybody running the generator properly would have to add a fan to the generator in order to reduce false trips. But false trips can still happen from CO sensor degradation over time, it's a single failure point.
It's a shame that everything has to be made worse just because some people think that you can run a generator indoors for some reason, despite it being covered in warning labels about exactly that.
(f) Tamper resistance. (1) A portable generator system for controlling CO exposure shall be tamper resistant. The system is considered tamper resistant when any part that is shorted, disconnected, or removed to disable the operation of the system prevents the engine from running. In addition, all parts, including wiring, which affect proper operation of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure, must be (a) permanently sealed or (b) not normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools. It is permissible for different parts of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure to meet either option (a) or (b), provided all of the different parts meet at least one of these two options.
In particular I'd like to see so-called "solar generators" or "power stations" be out of scope for requiring "carbon monoxide detection" features, since they're literally just batteries + inverters.
/!\ Unable to send email. Contact the site administrator if the problem persists.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/20/2023-07...
It's wonderful how the public doesn't actually find out about these things until it's too late.
Just turn on a fan they say. Open a door.
The number of people who would without hesitation start a generator indoors is far too high. It’s against OSHA of course.
People smart enough to run generators correctly on the other hand now have to pay for safety features they do not require.
Over 1,300 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by portable generators between 2004 and 2021 alone. [1] Another 77,000 people were hurt in that same period. Worse yet, a quarter of all fatal incidents associated with portable generators involve multiple deaths at once, some involving entire families.[2]
Now let's run those numbers:
(2021-2004)*1000000000/(1300+77000) = 217,114
For this US rule to save $1B/yr then each incident must cost $217,114 for deaths and related injuries. I'm not buying it.
Obviously this rule is a Good Thing - I'm not disputing that and I'm not disputing it should be adopted. I'm disputing this yellow journalism claim that adopting it is going to save us $1 billion per year. Even with the hight cost of medical care in the US it's easy to see this isn't the case.
Adding that feature in will makes people think that it’s safe to run generators indoors because the sensor will cut off when it’s not. Except inevitably the sensor will fail or the co will end up moving to a basement and killing someone
I’ll wager people run the generator without any thought as to whether there’s a cut off or not and that’s why they die. It seems like a real on the margin case that someone thinks “I can run this indoors safely because the safety mechanism will cut off once it’s unsafe” and simultaneously the failsafe malfunctions. Comparatively to “I’m not very smart and the power is off so I’m going to run a gasoline engine inside my house” seems to be pretty common today.
Without any data on how much such a failsafe costs it’s hard to evaluate if the cost of the safety feature is that burdensome, but for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house.
No, he's saying that the failsafe adds no value for the vast majority of generator users, because they take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences and learn how to properly use their portable generators. So requiring the failsafe by regulation is punishing all of the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible people. That doesn't make sense. The people who should suffer the consequences of being irresponsible are the people who are irresponsible, not everybody else.
> apparently a common enough event
1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries--over 17 years. That's not common at all; it's miniscule. From what I can gather, about 10% of households have portable generators. That's 30 million of them in the US alone.
In the same period of time, roughly 510,000 people in the US died in traffic accidents (roughly 30,000 a year times 17 years). And that's even after decades of government regulations imposing safety features on vehicles. So not only is regulation like this unfair and nonsensical, it doesn't even work. People who insist on being irresponsible will find a way to do it no matter what regulations you impose. The rest of us should not have to suffer the burden of ever-increasing regulations that don't even work.
> for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house
This kind of reasoning does not justify a government regulation. It only counts the benefit to the miniscule number of people who can't be responsible on their own. It doesn't count the cost, both in the ever-increasing burden of regulations we all have to deal with, and the ever-increasing power we are forced to give the government on such grounds, which then gets misused in more and more ways.
I could easily see a person now choosing to run an indoor generator and relying on the cutoff to trigger when the levels are too high. In a hurricane situation I could even see taking that risk myself under desperate circumstances.