Ban on small engines in California

[Ken I]

There appears to be a political cognetive dissonance between what they are claiming to want to accomplish and the budgets required to achieve them.

If all transport and heating go electric, the national grid would need to be at least doubled and maybe as much as quadrupled.

The loud chorus of alarmists keep on insisting that we can move to a renewable energy powered future – I’m guessing these people are stymied by any mathematics that extends beyond counting on their fingers – otherwise they would realize this is impossible.

As an engineer, the basic math's tells me why this is quite simply impossible when you actually consider the magnitude of the problem vis :-

1.) A barrel if oil is approximately 1.7MWh energy equivalent –

Ref: Barrel of oil equivalent - Wikipedia

2.) The world consumes 100 million barrels of oil per day or times 365 days for barrels of oil a year. Ref: List of countries by oil consumption - Wikipedia

3.) Therefore the world consumes 100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 MWh of energy equivalent from oil.

4.) The world currently generates 25,000 x 1,000,000 MWh of electricity per year.

Ref: Electricity facts

5.) Approximately 92% of crude oil production is used for energy (fuels etc.) and 8% other products (plastics, chemicals etc.)

6.) Therefore we can divide 3.) by 4.) to find how much additional energy we need relative to what we currently generate – less the 8% non-fuels use.

100,000,000 x 365 x 1.7 x 0.92 MWh
———————————
25,000,000,000 MWh

Cancel out the zeros and we get the ratio.

570÷250=2.28

But 80% of the 250 is generated by fossil fuels (so that’s double accounting) so we get 250x80%= 200 which we can subtract from the 570 giving us :-

370÷250 = 1.48

But that’s just for crude oil – allowing for natural gas and coal as well (without going into the calculations – see following graphic) that comes to a further 138 million barrels of oil equivalent per day which adds a further 570 x (138 ÷ 100) = 786.6 MWh equivalent.

(We have already discounted the fossil fuels used for electricity generation as oil equivalent – so this figure needs no further adjustment)

This then brings our ratio up to :-

(786.6+370) ÷ 250 = 4.62

±4.6 times what we currently generate 460% extra electrical generation – by weather dependent energy (renewables) ?

So we need an increase of 4.62 times what we currently generate plus what we currently generate to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, assuming of course 100% efficiency everywhere.

Electric cars are overall – more efficient measured from source to output but heating via electrically generated power is far less efficient than direct heating – comparing fossil fuels to renewables. So for a quick and dirty approximation, efficiency can be ignored.

Do you really believe that we can grow our existing electrical generation and supply infrastructure by an additional 462% via “renewables” when it has taken 30 years of massive subsidies and monumentally wasteful expenditure to get renewables up to just 1% of world energy supply ? And that was whilst using fossil fuels to provide the colossal amount of energy needed to manufacture the renewable generators (mining, processing, fabrication and construction etc. etc.)

And the Greens want us to accomplish this whilst simultaneously eliminating nuclear and hydro by 2050 !

In 2019 nuclear in the USA was only 9% of installed “nameplate” generating capacity – yet provided 20% of all USA’s electricity – clearly the most efficient.

Battery storage is quite another matter. Consider Tesla, the world’s best-known battery maker: $200,000 worth of Tesla batteries, which collectively weigh over 20,000 pounds, are needed to store the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil, meanwhile, weighs 300 pounds and can be stored in a $20 tank (which can be refilled also). Those are the realities of today’s lithium batteries. Even a 200% improvement in underlying battery economics and technology won’t close such a gap.

Batteries are costly, it would take approximately 4000 completely free recharges of that battery to finally equal the energy you can buy for the price of a single barrel of oil. So if you used that battery for 11 years, draining and completely filling (again – filling for free), every single day, you’d finally break even. It is unlikely with that much use, that a Tesla battery will last more than 6-8 years.

A 500kg battery requires the mining of 500000kg of earth – its ecological footprint is huge, uneconomical and completely ignored.

Put another way a battery that could store the energy equivalent of a barrel of oil, requires 100 barrels of oil to construct the battery. Now even if it was charged from renewable (weather dependent) energy it will never repay its debt to the ecology. Since currently weather dependent energy is only providing 1% of total world energy demand – then it is obvious that batteries are a colossal waste of scarce resources.

The Dirty Secrets of “Clean” Electric Vehicles

Beleive it or not I'm all for an all electric future - but there are serious problems that cannot just be wished away - but politicos are pledging our future in the belief that these problems can be solved by political diktat - colour me skeptical,

Regards, Ken

 

[vederstein]

Do you want to trade your electric washing machine for a gas powered one?

I think the issue here compared with the past is that the market came up with something better and the consumers purchased the better product.

In this case of the California small engine phase out, the phase out is dictated by government and people, generally, don't want to be controlled. Right now the performance of gas powered equipment is generally superior to that of electric (particularly battery powered) equipment. That doesn't mean that electric powered equipment will always have inferior performance. Once they do, the consumers will voluntarily transition.

A good example is the electric cars. Right now just about any gas powered car will go over 300 miles and can be refueled in less than 10 minutes. Technology just hasn't yet been developed for electric cars to meet or exceed that expected capability. Meet those minimum requirements with a similar price point and the public will flock to electrics.

Let the market dictate when a technology goes obsolete, not government controls.

...Ved.

 

[ajoeiam]

There's where the the math gets really messy, right?

To look at the efficiency of electric cars, do we need to get all the way back to sunlight, natural gas, oil, or coal? If so, do we need to go further back, to when it was in the ground, sky, etc? And do we need to do the same comparison with gasoline cars? What energy is required to refine gasoline? And emissions generated by the refining process? Or do we only need to look solely at the amount of energy put into the battery (consumed from the charger, including charger losses) versus miles driven? We wouldn't likely look at the pipeline or transportation losses that gasoline would encounter during it's trip to the pump, would we? So why consider it for electricity?

Somebody mentioned the total cost of ownership. And that really is the right metric to be using for many things. I used to work for a 1st tier supplier for a certain big yellow and black tool manufacturer. And that manufacturer changed the sourcing of a bunch of component parts from the USA / Mexico to China, because the part cost was cheaper. But a couple of years later they were moving it back to the USA and Mexico. Y'know why? Because the overall cost was higher. The parts were marginally cheaper, but with shipping going up and up, they basically got back to break even. And the killer was warranty returns for defective parts went for the moon. They couldn't afford to keep sourcing certain parts in China.

Thinking about this thread, the concept of TCO still applies. And maybe we need to apply it to emissions / green-ness. For example, oil production isn't exactly a clean business. But how clean is mining and refining lithium and the various rare earth elements used in today's electric cars? The good part (for CA) is that minimizing oil usage through mandating electric vehicles might help minimize oil related pollution in their state (they have a bunch of oil wells, but will they get shut down or will the production just get shipped to China). And move the production pollution to somebody else's backyard, as I don't think the USA has much in the way of lithium or rare earth reserves. Overall win for CA, right? But what is the overall global difference in environmental impact of building an electric car vs a gasoline one? I don't know, and I'm not sure that too many people do.

BTW, I'm a died in the wool IC guy and don't have any plans to buy an electric car. But I've got an acquaintance of mine who has a Tesla, and he has a pretty detailed spreadsheet of costs that he developed prior to purchasing his (he's an engineer too) and for his usage (probably 300 miles a week) the math worked out in favor of the electric car. It costs him less overall than the IC cars (US Hondas and Toyotas) that he looked at. Something to think about.

James

Well ----------- my efficiency bent is something I really haven't been able to unpack in a very long time.
The north american auto market has dictated that one of the most important factors in driving in acceleration capacity and overall power.
This is because few people seem to understand how to use an on ramp or a merge lane - - - this is based on observation - - - OK?
Then there is the ever increasing need of bling that is needed - - - - does one really have to have 10" (25 cm) wide tires on a 'car'?
Nor really - - - - at least the majority of the time I'd be willing to be that a reasonable tie that would be 6" (15 cm) wide would fully get the job done.
Except - - - - dat der scrawny tire donna look sexy - - - ja know.
And there we have the crux of the issue!
The consumer has been hood winked into believing all the advertising BS and then given the over the top me me me me attitude - - - well
a car just MUST have all kinds of junk attached and available. So that's how we get to 6000# (2500 kg) vehicles that are primarily status symbols and have the longevity of a gnat!

Now we get to electric cars - - - - they are supposedly so efficient - - - except well - - - - if you're looking for basic transportation for the process of getting from point a to point b - - - - well - - - - those electric cars are designed to compete with the top end IC vehicles.
I've owned or own diesel pickups, single axle trucks, tandem axle straight trucks and even semis and then everything from a 78' Honda Civic to a 80' Rabbit Diesel. Dunno if you've noticed the trend - - - - I buy things for use - - - - not for status - - - I buy for application - - - - not to keep some advertising developed urges under control.

You engineer buddy - - - - he was NOT comparing looking at a mode of transportation - - - - he was comparing looking at status first (comparable vehicle) and then at use.

I can tell you within a few percentage points of what it costs to drive every vehicle I've got on the place - - - and that's on a per unit driven TCO. (This includes repairs, depreciation, insurance besides fuel and lube - - - it helps that I do most of my own work.) I looked at a Chevy Bolt (IIRC the model), Nissan's Leaf and Huydai's electric car this spring. The lowest markup moving from IC to electric was 60% - - - and up to 100%. I couldn't get the low cost of operation to even put a dent in the TCO until I was looking past 30 year minimum ownership - - - - - that's quite unrealistic given the way new vehicles are built. New vehicles are built to force exchange in a maximum of 6 to 8 years. Socially one is considered a dead beat driving a 12 year old vehicle. I wish I could have kept my 68' Mercedes 220D - - - I think I could have taken that thing to its 75th birthday! I could get 40 mpg (Imp) at 50 mph with that tank.
Could you please explain again what I'm gaining by moving to a new electric vehicle?

 

[TR5T]

False. There is no evidence the Scottish Government has bought 20 Tesla cars ahead of COP26. Jaguar Land Rover was announced in September as an official transport partner for COP26 and is providing over 200 electric vehicles for use at the summit.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here .

You are correct. Thank you for setting the record straight.

It is a pity that people like GrahamJTaylor49 abuse the trust of this forum to spread politically motivated disinformation.

 

[JLaning427]

You engineer buddy - - - - he was NOT comparing looking at a mode of transportation - - - - he was comparing looking at status first (comparable vehicle) and then at use.

In my friends case, and this was 2 years ago, and he did run the numbers.

But you are correct, he was comparing new cars. Old cars likely have a lower total cost of ownership, but only when they're in good condition. Those older vehicles are much more likely to need expensive maintenance at the most inopportune times. After all, the people getting rid of that car likely did so for a reason. Sometimes that reason is "this car seats 4, and I need one that seats 5" or "the ashtray is full" (common line from the 50's right?). But other times it is "this car is costing me too much" or "it's in the shop too often and I can't rely on it" which are related thoughts, usually. And having (2) 15 year old cars to try to ensure availability is not a solid investment. Additionally a 15 year old car will not have some of the newer safety features. I'm kinda happy that my 75 year old dad's 2018 Hyundai has adaptive cruise and lane keeping assistance, as it helps keep him out of trouble.

But if we're comparing new cars, the math works out as nearly a wash, at least in my friends case it did.
New 2022 Toyota Camry V6 = $35k. Or $630 a month on a 60 month loan.
New 2022 Tesla 3 = $42k. Or $750 a month on a 60 month loan.
Assuming we drive 300 miles a week and the Toyota gets 26mpg, we're looking at fuel costs of about $150 a month at ~$3 a gallon.
My friend teaches at several campuses of a State college. Benny is that he gets free electric vehicle charging. He rarely charges at a Tesla charger or at home.
I don't know how insurance rates compare between the 2, but I'll assume they're similar. But you know what assuming does.
And I don't know what the projected maintenance costs are for each of them over 5 years. But the Camry will at least need regular oil changes. Don't have a clue what the Tesla needs.
And what are the residual values after 5 years and 80,000 miles? And is that the right time to sell? Or keep it until the wheels fall off, then put them back on again and drive them for another 100,000 miles?


The point of the rambling here is that comparing new cars, the electric car isn't 60% or 100% more expensive (and there are reasons to pick a new car over a 15 year old car that aren't strictly keeping up with the Jones'). Cost to operate is likely to be close, or maybe in favor of the electric car. Could you buy a less expensive new car? Absolutely. But you could also compare against a significantly more expensive car, if you're looking to match performance (again, not necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't desirable). Comparing the Tesla to a new MB or BMW would probably have the Tesla costing significantly less.

James

 

[L98fiero]

deleted

 

[lohring]

"I think the issue here compared with the past is that the market came up with something better and the consumers purchased the better product. "

The market has come up with something better in cars, you just haven't realized it yet. Try owning a Tesla for three years. Starting in November you could rent one from Hertz for a few days for a taste. Like I said. it took 20 years for the transition out of horses and you could argue that it took a lot longer for the infrastructure to catch up. Gas stations and decent roads weren't available outside urban areas intill well after WW II. The same is true for electric vehicles today. Let's check back in 2030 (if I'm still around) and revisit this topic.

Lohring Miller

 

[Ken I]

Man this is getting to be a fun post as long as we keep the exchange real and avoid ad-hominem slanging.

I prefer to stick with the numbers (links provided) rather than opinion but here goes.....

Ignoring all the possible subsidies and tax breaks etc. (which as per Norway mentioned in post #75 above make a huge difference). I’m going to look at just the “fuel” costs in U$ per km. as viewed from a European perspective.

A Polestar 2 EV uses ±37kWhr per 100 km and at average European electricity price in 2021 = ±U$0.2571 per kWhr you get U$0.095c per km.

Considering that against an ICE car with similar performance say around 7.5l per 100 km at an average fuel price of U$1.08 per litre we calculate our ICE engine car costs U$0.084c per kilometre just for fuel.

So on just the energy cost, there is not a lot in it.

Next point - an EV requires a lot less maintenance (apart from tire wear which is higher because they're heavy) – at least until the battery packs up in 8 to 10 years at which point the car is generally scrapped – no seriously – consider a 2013 Nissan Leaf (purchase price U$30000) which in 2021 has a value of U$2400 to U$6000 – entirely dependent on the condition of the battery – because a new battery in 2021 will cost you $5500 pretty much more than the car is worth.

That would cover an awful lot of the supposed “higher maintenance costs” of an ICE vehicle

And if all that isn’t bad enough, as weather dependent energy (renewables) intrude further into the grid and older reliable plants are retired – there are going to be ongoing abnormally high cost escalations in the price of electricity as well as electricity rationing (which will euphemistically be called “demand side management”).

E-car chargers will turn off to prevent blackouts

Typically this will take the form of turning off non-essential use to shed load – so when you wake up in the morning and find your car isn’t charged and your hot water is cold because it was turned off by the utility company during the night to protect the grid – then don’t tell me I didn’t warn you!

How much does it cost to buy, own, and run an EV? It’s not as much as you think

Average European electricity price 2021 = €0.2134 = ±U$0.2571 (as of 5th May 2021)

Electricity prices around the world | GlobalPetrolPrices.com

Electric vehicles have been hyped as the “future” for over 120 years

And in spite of that have made little real progress – even in California where you can get $7000 worth of subsidies and tax breaks, EV’s still only make up 6% of sales, mostly to people with double the average household income. (EV’s make up just 2% of US passenger vehicle sales overall.)

Unplugging The Hype Over Electric Vehicles - Climate Change Dispatch

Besides that – where is all the electricity going to come from ? I don't see budgets that cover even a fraction of the requirements.

From the above article “Indeed, attempting to electrify transportation makes little sense given the ongoing fragilization of our electric grid.”

Oh Dear !

Regards, Ken

 

[Robert Simons]

I read a post here referring to China not attending the climate meeting in Scottland.

It seems to me that if the rest of the world decides to reduce emissions to nett 0 by 2050,
At a high cost to their economies, and China stays on their path.....
Then eventually they will be the richest, and strongest economicly, and power, super power on this earth.
And with their fingers in ownership of may major areas of other countries fields of economic growth,.....???!!.
I feel that this is all for nothing. Infact plays in to the hands of communist powers.

 

[Zeb]

I don't really see the ban affecting the small engine hobby per se. Very few (PM research) can scrape a living competing with Chinese engines and the ban is basically affecting those who sell them. Californians can decide how they want to vote (in exchange for staying out of my business).

Once the cheap stuff stops flowing from Asia (which could possibly happen), prices will go way up on items we were purchasing for nothing. Who knows, maybe people who can work with their hands (small engine tinkerers) will start gaining more return for their labor. I could see something similar in California, where there'd be more emphasis to clean carbs contaminated with that subsidized ethanol crap (hehe) instead of throwing entire engines away. It'll be interesting to see how it all works out.

 

[Bazzer]

I just want to say that this is one of the most interesting message threads I have ever seen, keep up the good work.

 

[vederstein]

Norway is often held up as a shining example of a successful “green revolution” in that it has the highest percentage of electric vehicles (18%) on its roads.

That's funny to me because oil and gas is a huge portion of Norways economy (about half of all their exports). I guess they prefer to sell it than use it.

...Ved.

 

[vederstein]

does one really have to have 10" (25 cm) wide tires on a 'car'?

This is speaking as an American rube:

WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!

That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying. That's why mask requirements are so annoying. That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying. That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!

Watch the movie "The World's End". It's British, but the sentiment is the same. We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.

The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition). Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down. Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.

Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them. We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.

...Ved.

 

[davidyat]

This is speaking as an American rube:

WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!

That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying. That's why mask requirements are so annoying. That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying. That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!

Watch the movie "The World's End". It's British, but the sentiment is the same. We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.

The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition). Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down. Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.

Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them. We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.

...Ved.

I learned this a long time ago, "You can't legislate morality".

 

[Steamchick]

Comparing Norway and California is as useful as comparing Nevarda or Sahara with Alaska or Siberia... Surely they don't compare? Likewise comparing China with Russia or the USA.
But it strikes me very clearly, that if Mankind can change the global climate (for better or worse) then it will take a united strategy by ALL countries to do so. To ignore anyone will make any strategy futile.
In the 1960s, my Geography teacher taught me that electricity was "King"... except it isn't a fundamental power source, just a means of transporting power from where it is generated to where it is used. Carboniferous fuels, nuclear fuels, solar, wind, hydro (gravity) and tidal are sources of energy....
So we should exploit all sources within reasonable safety and practical limits. E.g. It isn't practical to make a dam in the desert where there is no water... or have a nuclear reactor in every house. And we cannot stop the roving tribes from burning camel dung for cooking and night-time heat in their tents. But would you want to do that?
But maybe the "global" taxman can make it cost effective to pursuad us to not waste fuel - especially on gas-guzzling vehicles - as did OPEC in 1974....??
Then the customer can decide how to make his living and on what to spend his dollars....
Or maybe the next pandemic will be far more destructive than the recent COVID, and we won't worry anyway....?
I'm not contributing anything useful here.....
K2

 

[OrangeAlpine]

Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility? Social responsibility. Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want. Not driving drunk. Not polluting. Not carrying a preventable disease. Usually complying with what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from society.
Bill

 

[ajoeiam]

In my friends case, and this was 2 years ago, and he did run the numbers.

But you are correct, he was comparing new cars. Old cars likely have a lower total cost of ownership, but only when they're in good condition. Those older vehicles are much more likely to need expensive maintenance at the most inopportune times. After all, the people getting rid of that car likely did so for a reason. Sometimes that reason is "this car seats 4, and I need one that seats 5" or "the ashtray is full" (common line from the 50's right?). But other times it is "this car is costing me too much" or "it's in the shop too often and I can't rely on it" which are related thoughts, usually. And having (2) 15 year old cars to try to ensure availability is not a solid investment. Additionally a 15 year old car will not have some of the newer safety features. I'm kinda happy that my 75 year old dad's 2018 Hyundai has adaptive cruise and lane keeping assistance, as it helps keep him out of trouble.

But if we're comparing new cars, the math works out as nearly a wash, at least in my friends case it did.
New 2022 Toyota Camry V6 = $35k. Or $630 a month on a 60 month loan.
New 2022 Tesla 3 = $42k. Or $750 a month on a 60 month loan.
Assuming we drive 300 miles a week and the Toyota gets 26mpg, we're looking at fuel costs of about $150 a month at ~$3 a gallon.
My friend teaches at several campuses of a State college. Benny is that he gets free electric vehicle charging. He rarely charges at a Tesla charger or at home.
I don't know how insurance rates compare between the 2, but I'll assume they're similar. But you know what assuming does.
And I don't know what the projected maintenance costs are for each of them over 5 years. But the Camry will at least need regular oil changes. Don't have a clue what the Tesla needs.
And what are the residual values after 5 years and 80,000 miles? And is that the right time to sell? Or keep it until the wheels fall off, then put them back on again and drive them for another 100,000 miles?


The point of the rambling here is that comparing new cars, the electric car isn't 60% or 100% more expensive (and there are reasons to pick a new car over a 15 year old car that aren't strictly keeping up with the Jones'). Cost to operate is likely to be close, or maybe in favor of the electric car. Could you buy a less expensive new car? Absolutely. But you could also compare against a significantly more expensive car, if you're looking to match performance (again, not necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't desirable). Comparing the Tesla to a new MB or BMW would probably have the Tesla costing significantly less.

James

Your friend's criteria are still for luxury transport.
What about a Corolla? Yaris? Does he really NEED the v6 (like he's towing a boat regularly or something)?
With that change we're down to the low $20k.
Financing on websites - - - - down to very low $400/month.

Tesla takes very regular software updates/upgrades and from I hear they're not cheap.

Well - - - if you're only comparing on performance - - - - electric will work.
Now if your comparing based on TCO per unit traveled - - - - electric still isn't even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Especially if you want to pick up more than 2 hand totes of groceries - - - grin!)

 

[ajoeiam]

This is speaking as an American rube:

WE DON"T WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO!!

That's why this CA small engine phase out is so annoying. That's why mask requirements are so annoying. That's why mandatory vaccines are so annoying. That's why any mandate or law restricting what we can do pisses us off!!!

Watch the movie "The World's End". It's British, but the sentiment is the same. We want to do what we want to do when we want to do it.

The U.S. 19th amendment outlawed the sales and transport of alcoholic beverages (prohibition). Because of this, alcohol consumption went up, now down. Only in 1933 did the amendment get repealed.

Let the market and the people decide what is good or bad for them. We don't need busy body controlling types to force "goodness" on us.

...Ved.

I agree with your exclaimed statement - - - - except - - - - I'm expecting you to all be responsible for any and all outcomes of ALL of your actions.

My experience has been that most everyone wants not to be told anything.
Yet the most common expectation is that the 'gooberment' must protect me (even from my own less than good actions).

I for one am tired of paying for other people's (bluntly put) bloody stupid actions!

So if you're as willing to cover the consequences of your actions as you are to want the right to do them - - - - well fly at 'er.

If not - - - - well then you don't have the right to do what ever it is that you want to do that requires me to pay for it - - - doesn't matter what it is!

Hmmmmmmmmmm - - - if mandatory vaccines really bug you then I have a suggestion for you.
1. refuse ALL vaccines (M3 (mumps measles and rubella IIRC)), diphtheria, polio, smallpox, tetanus, whooping cough are ones that come to mind)
2. your kids will also get a 10 to 30 day holiday when those vaccines are administered
3. if you or your kids get sick as a result of not being vaccinated - - - - well - - - you carry 100% of the cost burden
4. if anyone else gets sick because of #3 - - - you are also responsible for their costs (100% of them - - - including funeral costs if it comes to that - - - I'd allow you to welsh on the lost opportunity costs so no legal costs)
5. you and your family also no longer get access to any antibiotics - - - for any reason

Now if you like all them apples - - - - why - - - - fly at 'er.

(I hope you hate at least some of those results - - - - hopefully enough to understand that there is some really lousy logic at work in the position of anti-vaccination!)

 

[ajoeiam]

Instead of talking about freedom, how about responsibility? Social responsibility. Like not driving as fast as you want when/where you want. Not driving drunk. Not polluting. Not carrying a preventable disease. Usually complying with what you are told to do is best for society and in your best interest in order to avoid being segregated (read "jailed") from society.
Bill

If you ever look at food production the standards for not carrying a disease are a LOT tougher!

 

[Zeb]

But this is about small engines. I'd like to build small engines someday that could pay for the hobby. I could sell across the (state) border. Sort of like how folks go to reservations for fireworks. Probably the only illegal trade I'd participate in. ha

Are there options, solutions, implications when it comes to building and operating engines after laws like these pass? Maybe the before could be discussed on facebook.

As for the climate, I fear for us....