Ban on small engines in California

[Gordon]

What was the goal of the California law? Reduce smog and pollution or reduce greenhouse gasses? This discussion seems to treat them both as equal. They are two different problems with different solutions.

 

[Zeb]

In the unlikely, but plausible event which takes out just a handful of chip makers along with our strained electric grids, many will be clamoring for help. All those engineers suffering from tinkeritis on our forums will be replaced with young graduates who don't know how to use a hand file.
There is little return on investment for banning the small engine hobby, mainly as a result of unintended consequences (surprise). I think though that renewed interest in induction would be great. Coil winding, wax/enamel vacuum processes, casting stators, are all very interesting and much a part of our hobby. I'd love to get my hands on a Tesla motor, strip it of its bloatware, and make an analog diesel-electric F7 that I can ride on at a local club. hehe

 

[Richard Hed]

Every solution comes with side effects, just like the drugs you oldsters have to buy. Even so, there are actually MANY solutions that seemingly have no relation to the problem. Two problems that would seem to be a side issue are the shi^^y educations our children are getting and the overharvest of the salmon on the Pacific. The crappy educations are due to the international banksters wanting our children for factory workers--that is, they do no want any upstarts to become trillionaires like themselves and have any control on world events which would cut into their profits. (BTW, that is why Kennedy was killt dead--he began to print USA notes--that is United States paper money over federal reserve notes which are a private bank note which wold have cut the feds profits by 100s of billions). That is why kids are now taught to 'socialize' not know where S. Africa or S. America is. Kids coming out of schools now cannot do basic arithmetic, can't form a coherent idea, but they seem to accept everyone who is 'different'.

That is certainly an oversimplification, it would take a book to explain it in detail.

Ever since the small tree harvesting companies in the 1880's started raping our left coast forests, the salmon have started dwindling. When the large tree harvesting companies took over the rape, the salmon dropped precipitously. There is not necessarily a correlation, hoever, I'm telling you that it is at least half the problem--the other being overharvest of the salmon. The rape of the forests causes several problems: 1) flooding of mud from the hills into the rivers. The mud comes because the forests have no roots to hold the soil. And mud smothers the eggs. 2.) the shade trees on the edges of the rivers have been cut or lost in some other way. The shade is necessary to keep the salmon eggs cool enough. 3.) when floating the logs back in the old days was legal, that method filled the rivers with tree bark which has natural poisons in it (natural insecticides). This killt the eggs and smolt. 4). Log jams destroy egg laying areas.

Naturally, the large tree harvesting companies take no responsibility for this, -- it 'isn't" Weyerhauser's fault, nor Georgia Pacific, nor Simpson, nor any other large corporation's fault--according to THEM! However, in reality, they know perfectly well that they have a heavy hand in this. Weyerhauser, in the 1960's killed the NW buzzards by using insecticides in their forests which made the buzzards sick and they died. (My dad workt in the forests and one day he brought a buzzard home--we tried to feed it but it would not eat and after a few days, it died. It was 40 years before I learned what happened.) Truthfully, no one seemed to notice that the buzzards disappeared.

So, this comes along with the shi^^y educations our children get. If you were to read one of John Taylor Gatto's books on this subject, I'm sure hyou would end up sharpening hyour guns, and loading your pitchforks. Gatto explains very credibly how the new schools work (or do not work), in that they are made to train factory workers, not people who form their own small businesses, nor people who know how to thimpfk for themselves. I mean really, have you ever seen a highschool which teaches students how to start a business?! NAUGHT! Gatto explains carefully that students are stopped from learning how to DO THINGS with their hands and that all the learning is herded toward 'reading' type of education. (At one time, the educational theory was to even remove the windows in the school rooms as the outside world was a distraction--this theory WILDLY backfired. )

Lastly, we can all see how this most likely has at least SOME relationship to pollutions and CO2 buildup. There is a way to help, at least make an experiment, to bring back the over harvested salmon and many other Pacific fish. The Pacific Ocean is a HUGE salten lake that is largely unable to produce anything at all. the major portion of the Ocean is empty--and I mean empty of fish, plankton, anything other that salty water. The reason is simply that there is no fertilizing agents in the ocean. Plankton need nitrogen based fertilizers and one of th eother fertilizers (phosphorus or the other 'p'word--can't thimpfk of it now). We could try at test to simply spray fertilizer in a big 100 mile long 'X' along with some seed plankton to see what happens. If it is successful, it will provide fish food and use up CO2. If it is successful, the solution then would be to stir up some ocean sediments to the surface. The most productive section of the oceans is in the Northern hemisphere where the tides stir the bottom continuously.

All this is IMNSHO. We would have to see wha tthe side effects of fertilizing the Pacific would be. I'm sure there would be some problem created. It also would hopefully mitigate some of the 'pollution' problem. OK OK, time for me to pollute--pollute the air and pollute my own lungs--cigarette time. Anybody object to that?

PS, I forgot to mention that we send the school kids out to repair the damage caused by other people, that is, plant trees on the river sides, help to get rid of the log jams, create better spawning areas, and get fertilized eggs from the hatcheries and plant them in efvery stream, estuary, river and back yard pond. THAT is a better education than the crap they are recieving now. they can still read a book too.

 

[Richard Hed]

In the unlikely, but plausible event which takes out just a handful of chip makers along with our strained electric grids, many will be clamoring for help. All those engineers suffering from tinkeritis on our forums will be replaced with young graduates who don't know how to use a hand file.
There is little return on investment for banning the small engine hobby, mainly as a result of unintended consequences (surprise). I think though that renewed interest in induction would be great. Coil winding, wax/enamel vacuum processes, casting stators, are all very interesting and much a part of our hobby. I'd love to get my hands on a Tesla motor, strip it of its bloatware, and make an analog diesel-electric F7 that I can ride on at a local club. hehe

When the NWO gets it's way, you oldsters will simply be killt off. Some peeps thimpfk that this covid, HIV, the other deadly African virus' are all practice for the killing of the world (see about the so called Georgia Guide Stones).

Even tho' I do not consider those peeps on this forum as 'useless eaters', a term the nwo uses, and I understand why, I know such people, they really are useless and worthless--they produce nothing but are capable of at least picking up garbage or mowing lawns, but they won't as society picks up their tab and they don't need to do anything. Even so, the nwo is very likely to believe that anyone without a job, even tho' they have their pensions from work, are useless eaters and are to be eliminated as a drag on all the resources. Once robots are able to pick fruit, build houses, and do all the other labor, you and I will no longer be needed. This is NOT science fiction.

 

[djswain1]

In the UK & EU emissions for this sort of engine (NRNM) Non Road Mobile Machinery are regulated by EU Type approval EU 2016/1628 (now Stage V).
Since BREXIT this has been a retained regulation until 01/01/2022 at the earliest.
These regulations apply only to items "placed on the market" I.e. sold for commercial gain. It does not affect us hobbiests. I would be surprised if the situation was not simlar with CARB and EPA.

 

[Henry K]

Politicians write laws like this one. They are mostly lawyers and they rely on experts in various fields to generate the specifics of what has to be done to accomplish their general plan. They cannot be experts in all fields. They cannot design new bridges, inspect old bridges, determine who can be a licensed engineer, MD, plumber, electrician, etc. They wisely pass the details to experts in various fields to accomplish the goal of the law without creating bigger problems. They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous. Any enforcement actions have to be balanced by the reasonably available resources and benefits to the state. Nobody will arrest you for running your 10cc engine 20 minutes a year -that is ridiculous and the politicians and CARB people know this. The law might be 10 pages, the CARB regulations on this will probably be in excess of 1,000 pages.
Remember the song, "Don't worry - be Happy" - make chips.

 

[Richard Hed]

Politicians write laws like this one. They are mostly lawyers and they rely on experts in various fields to generate the specifics of what has to be done to accomplish their general plan. They cannot be experts in all fields. They cannot design new bridges, inspect old bridges, determine who can be a licensed engineer, MD, plumber, electrician, etc. They wisely pass the details to experts in various fields to accomplish the goal of the law without creating bigger problems. They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous. Any enforcement actions have to be balanced by the reasonably available resources and benefits to the state. Nobody will arrest you for running your 10cc engine 20 minutes a year -that is ridiculous and the politicians and CARB people know this. The law might be 10 pages, the CARB regulations on this will probably be in excess of 1,000 pages.
Remember the song, "Don't worry - be Happy" - make chips.

about 5 years ago congress passed a law with 9000 pages. Believe me that law was filled with gobbledy gook in order so that you and I could not know what it qwas about, but no doubt giving pork to specific corporations. A reporter asked nancy pelosi what was in the bill before it was passed. Her reply was, "We won't know untill it is passed". Sorry ladies, but that creature must be an alien reptar from outer space.

 

[SmithDoor]

I agree
In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.

What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel and then charging a car.

Dave

Below is a quote from Ford's CEO Jim Farley to Ford employees:

That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.

Lohring Miller

 

[Richard Hed]

Will steam engines now make a come back?

Absolutely. Just thimpfk, a steam generator can heat your drinking and hot water needs, cook your food, heat your house and power your electric needs. If done correctly, there is virtually no pollution from the system. Now, do you thimpfk for one moment that the power companies are going to allow such systems? NOt if they can help it. However, necessity is necessity is the muther of invention.

 

[Richard Hed]

I agree
In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.

What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel and then charging a car.

Dave

Dave,
a whole lot of Califonia's electricity comes from the Soviet of Washington. We have excess production which we sell all over the west. Oddly, these are PUDs. You would thimpfk WE would be getting really good electric prices, but we are not. The PUDs are OWNED by the local publics.

 

[SmithDoor]

Steam from the sun is great.
Each square yard will produce about 750 watts or 2,500 BTU'S.

I can more in the future.

Dave

Absolutely. Just thimpfk, a steam generator can heat your drinking and hot water needs, cook your food, heat your house and power your electric needs. If done correctly, there is virtually no pollution from the system. Now, do you thimpfk for one moment that the power companies are going to allow such systems? NOt if they can help it. However, necessity is necessity is the muther of invention.

 

[Richard Hed]

California is trying redesign cows so do not produce pollution.

The electric cars are great till you need a new battery. Now you have a $40,000 object in front yard. But you are on feet again in the fresh air getting your new transportation system aka buss.

I think will know what everyone here would do , build a engine for object in front yard. On the road again.
Now your wife is happy for your hobby as she drives to store in AC or heat again.

Dave

California should pass a law requiring farm animals to wear clothes. and once that is in place, they can require all the wild animals to wear at least pajamas. Don't ou agree?

 

[Ken I]

They also have to balance the resources of the state with the benefits to its society. People will be safer if a maned fire truck is parked in front of everyone's home - cost considerations say this is ridiculous.

As Shakespeare said: "Therein lies the Rub!"

When last did you see an alarmist even attempt to quantify the benefits of Carbon ? (Answer: They almost never do!)

The Social Cost Of Carbon

We have various think tanks of Thermogeddonists calculating the “social cost of carbon dioxide” and that this should be the basis of various forms of mooted carbon taxes or cap and trade deals.

All of this is nonsense economics since they only consider the costs of CO2 but never the benefits.

So a cost benefit analysis that ignores the benefits is clearly arrant nonsense.

“Mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies that are expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable.” Lord Lionel Monkton of Brenchley

The Social Benefit Of Carbon

Which shows the benefits can be conservatively estimated at U$4000 per tonne or if you are stupid enough to go for energy impoverishment of the planet as a solution to a non-existent problem you will destroy wealth to the tune of U$3960 for each tonne of carbon “saved”. (Based on the UN calculated “Social Cost of Carbon” as U$40 per tonne.)

And

Where Have All The Disasters Gone?

Commentary on another estimate of U$68 per tonne for the social cost of carbon.

Without going into the calculations that would amount to U$98 Trillion dollars in costs – based on our consumption of fossil fuels since 1950.

But if you add all the recorded climate catastrophes together (for the same period) with their costs as listed in Wikipedia,
then you get a total of on U$2 Trillion ?

As a crude approximation let us assume all the smaller catastrophes add up to as much again and additionally make a gross assumption that CO2 was “responsible” for as much as 10% of this, then we get a social cost of carbon of only U$0.28c per tonne.

Once again showing how out of whack alarmist calculations are with reality. If not outright lying it is at least over exaggerated to the point of falsehood

Even the IPCC reports calculate that the “do nothing” scenario will wipe out 2% of GDP by 2070 – but fails to reconcile that against other UN agencies calculating we will all be 365% richer by then.

You would not have to do much damage to the economy to wipe out “all” you have saved – and in all likelihood, do very much worse.

As I point out frequently this is not just economic suicide – people will die in very large numbers if we continue down this lunatic pathway.

William Nordhaus (Yale) co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel prize for economics – for his work on the societal cost of carbon – he recommends a carbon tax to deal with (his perceived) market failure to combat climate change – but in spite of this comes to the conclusion that the IPCC recommendations will be far more costly than the “do nothing” scenario – and somewhat sheepishly admitted that even under the “do nothing” scenario there would be nett benefits up to 4°C – which is where his “break even point” occurs.

William Nordhaus versus the United Nations on Climate Change Economics - Econlib

However there are other studies which suggest that carbon is a nett benefit rather than a cost and therefore the “social cost of carbon” is in fact a boon to society.

On Externalities, Integrated Assessment Models, and UK climate policies

Social Cost of Carbon

Since 4°C is at the upper end of the unlikely high end scenarios of the IPCC the only conclusion I can come to is that the “do nothing” scenario is the best option.

The correct response to a non-problem is to do nothing in any case.

”Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool”. ~ Plato.

“We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, towards those who disagree with us.”– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924).

“Politics is the art of Authority without Merit.” — PJ O’Rourke

Regards, Ken

 

[GrahamJTaylor49]

That is absolutely what clean air, rivers and nature is all about - I wholeheartedly agree.

My digression is that CO2 is not a pollutant - The EPA by sleight of its own hand declared CO2 to be within its purview - thus giving them self appointed power to act against it.
CO2 is the "gas of life" - the EPA can now act against anything it might perceive as an infraction.

That can lead anywhere and I recognize the thin end of wedge when I see one.

Where do we go from here ? Lets look at a few suggestions :-

Banning all non-essential burning of fossil fuels - end all motor racing, power boating and air shows.

Since the "carbon footprint" of spectators to and from major sporting events is equally massive we should terminate attendance - mandatory watching on TV instead.

I didn't even make those up, I have seen them mooted - I have pages of such hare brained ideas on how to save the world which I won't bore you with here.

The EPA and CARB have overstepped their mandate - thankfully I don't live there and when it all ends in tears, it will be hard not to gloat.

You have created a bureaucratic monster that is going to inflict the flagellation you apparently so desire.

So yes it is relevant to our hobby when the law is an invitation to meddling busybodies to report their neighbor's for running their model engines.
View attachment 130724
Poster from the fabulous Red Dwarf episode "Back To The Reality"

Regard - Ken

Sounds a bit like "1984". George Orwell.

 

[Ken I]

George Orwell is often quoted with respect to this subject:-

Failing scientific evidence to support their case, advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis have turned to the “Precautionary Principle,” which argues that uncertainty—ignorance about the situation—requires immediate action. That is a political principle, not a scientific principle, and the appropriate citation for it is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

or Canada’s Orwellian sounding “Climate Change Ministry” has produced reports (for policy makers) with 100 years of past climate data omitted and replaced with modelled historic data (which they freely admit).

Specifically this was done to eliminate all temperatures that were higher than current maxima – they are lying their donkeys off!

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act !" - George Orwell

Regards, Ken

 

[ajoeiam]

Below is a quote from Ford's CEO Jim Farley to Ford employees:

That's why you are going to switch to electric power; not because it's green but because it's better.

Lohring Miller

Right now new vehicles in general are only good an siphoning dollars from my pocket for UNNEEDED and UNWANTED complexities.
Rather than spending a pile of $$$$ on infotainment - - - a way to link a stupid phone would suffice for one.
I actually prefer a manual transmission and due to knowledge experience and skill there are a lot of times when I can better any automatic transmission I've ever run into. (But then I'm not an average driver! There are only a small number of vehicles that I'm not licensed to operate.)
I had occasion to rent a vehicle for a trip - - - - I was wishing I could shut off the modern 'assists' within an hour or driving. Even the parking assist was a pain.
When I back into a parking stall I want my rear tires to hit the curb - - - - nope had to be away from the curb - - - dunno why - - - except some idiot software team thinks that's good parking - - - - I won't go on but - - better - - - - I'd be quite happy to run vehicles from the 80s without all the 'better' hung onto them always costing more and delivering little at best!

 

[ajoeiam]

George Orwell is often quoted with respect to this subject:-

Failing scientific evidence to support their case, advocates of the dangerous manmade global warming hypothesis have turned to the “Precautionary Principle,” which argues that uncertainty—ignorance about the situation—requires immediate action. That is a political principle, not a scientific principle, and the appropriate citation for it is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

or Canada’s Orwellian sounding “Climate Change Ministry” has produced reports (for policy makers) with 100 years of past climate data omitted and replaced with modelled historic data (which they freely admit).

Specifically this was done to eliminate all temperatures that were higher than current maxima – they are lying their donkeys off!

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act !" - George Orwell

Regards, Ken

Messieurs Orwell and Huxley were rather prescient it would seem.

 

[RM-MN]

I agree
In California is producing electricity from gas and oil.

What difference of using fuel in car or making electricity from fuel and then charging a car.

Dave

Using fuel in a car has varying efficiencies. Best efficiency come from a wide open throttle but most cars have so much excess horsepower that that condition rarely applies. On the other hand, a power station is run to be the most efficient it can as that maximizes the profit. A car going down the road has only a catalytic converter to more completely burn the fuel while a power station has all kinds of filters to remove the pollutants from the exhaust stream. That's why there is a difference.

 

[RM-MN]

Right now new vehicles in general are only good an siphoning dollars from my pocket for UNNEEDED and UNWANTED complexities.
Rather than spending a pile of $$$$ on infotainment - - - a way to link a stupid phone would suffice for one.
I actually prefer a manual transmission and due to knowledge experience and skill there are a lot of times when I can better any automatic transmission I've ever run into. (But then I'm not an average driver! There are only a small number of vehicles that I'm not licensed to operate.)
I had occasion to rent a vehicle for a trip - - - - I was wishing I could shut off the modern 'assists' within an hour or driving. Even the parking assist was a pain.
When I back into a parking stall I want my rear tires to hit the curb - - - - nope had to be away from the curb - - - dunno why - - - except some idiot software team thinks that's good parking - - - - I won't go on but - - better - - - - I'd be quite happy to run vehicles from the 80s without all the 'better' hung onto them always costing more and delivering little at best!

I agree that new vehicle have unneeded complexities and I don't need a cell phone connected to the car but along with that complexity come things like anti-knock sensors to increase the engine efficiency, fuel injection that give the precise amount of fuel for combustion, and minor things like tire pressure sensors that notify you of under-inflation that takes extra fuel.

 

[SmithDoor]

They want to put gas mask on there butts.
This state that has blackouts due to lack of power wanting everyone to use batteries. That will fix the problem.

I am glad I can build engines even they run on 200 prof

Dave

California should pass a law requiring farm animals to wear clothes. and once that is in place, they can require all the wild animals to wear at least pajamas. Don't ou agree?