Hacker News Reader

Comment by blackeyeblitzar | Hacker News Reader

I think above causal duty, the power of a gas tool still is unmatched. A proper gas Stihl is incredibly powerful and makes processing wood easy. At least the electrical ones I’ve seen wouldn’t work on a 12” log.

Regarding regulations - the solution is to not ban things. States like California love to use hard bans as solutions to everything but it is better to just incentivize some things and allow choice to still exist. After all, if what you’re prescribing is truly better wouldn’t people naturally choose it?

View on HN

The top-of-the line electric Stihls are 2.8kW (MSA 300 C-O), the 24" Husqvarna is 2.7kW (3.62hp).

There are some caveats. Electric chainsaw's top performance falls slightly as the battery is depleted.

There's an interesting review here, with data tables: https://nordicwoodjournal.com/deep/testing-the-stihl-msa-300...

> At least the electrical ones I’ve seen wouldn’t work on a 12” log.

I have cut 12" logs on a small electric chain saw with batteries and it works pretty damn well. Much better than a small gas powered chain saw of similar size because of the ample amounts of torque available.

But of course the small saws have a limited capacity and for hard forestry work you should opt for a tool suitable for the job.

As pointed out by another commenter, there is no ban on large gas powered chain saws (contrary to what TFA suggests), only the small ones which are in the same category with the electric ones.

> After all, if what you’re prescribing is truly better wouldn’t people naturally choose it?

No, not really. People are very bad at choosing the thing that will result in the best outcome for themselves, let alone for the rest of us.

Wouldn’t this apply to both voters and legislators who push for bans? Shouldn’t the default favor individual freedom since everyone is bad at choosing things?

> Regarding regulations - the solution is to not ban things. States like California love to use hard bans as solutions to everything but it is better to just incentivize some things and allow choice to still exist.

How would you incentivize using electric tools? Slap a really high tax on gasoline might work; I'm sure all the car owners will understand. /s

> After all, if what you’re prescribing is truly better wouldn’t people naturally choose it?

No, because pollution is a typical collective action problem (or negative externality, if you like to think in terms of economics). When only you use your gas car and chainsaw, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. And maybe you do it because for you personally those really are better than the electric alternatives? But when everybody does it, you get smog and climate change.

Gasoline is cheap, compared to inflation the gas prices are going down. Some people (Americans cought) like to drive heavy cars that use a lot of gas. Instead of taxing gas you could tax gas tools depending on how much they pollute, in order to incentive research in catalyst systems.

tools emissions are a in totally different ballpark to begin with. Heck, virtually no push behind mower would have an EFI. 2stroke chainsaws are just that - gas burners. Pretty much everything uses carburetors, at some point the tuning of the latter was 'disabled' The injection/catalyst/particulate filter, etc. would add non-trivial amounts of weight and cost. Stihl MS 500¡ has a fuel injection system[0], but it's quite pricey (~1400euro)... and sort of unique in this regard.

EU has a hefty tax on the gas (both excise and VAT) - that doesn't do much to prevent the use of petrol engines (both 2 and 4 stroke) in gardening equipment (zero ethanol is just standard at the pump, though). However, the large heavy cars are not common.

[0]: https://donegan.ie/product/stihl-ms500i

Reply on news.ycombinator.com