California to ban portable gasoline-powered generators by 2028!

Discussion in 'General' started by duc995, Dec 16, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2Fer

    2Fer Is good

    Which crisis is that?
  2. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    This is much ado about nothing though isn’t it? We’re acting like laws actually matter in California. Stealing and robbery are legal for all intents and purposes.

    People will just buy the gas stuff in other states, and other people will sell it out the back of their shops instead of the front. Online shops in other states that don’t give 2 shits will still ship them to California.

    This will just be another feel good measure that oppresses people without means while everyone with a little more money can buy whatever they want. It’s on brand.

    My only concern is that they’re waiting so long. I’d love to go have some fun in Nevada or Arizona, bring back 5 generators and sell them each at a 400% markup. This will be even better than cigarette smuggling, and you don’t have to risk the ATF battering down your door.

    Maybe someone will organize a flash mob robbery of gas weed whackers before they become verboten.
    tl1098 and tophyr like this.
  3. Saiyan66

    Saiyan66 Stand your ground

  4. baconologist

    baconologist Well-Known Member

    Duh, the existential one.
    cav115, R Acree and pickled egg like this.
  5. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

    Are you being Sartrecastic?
  6. baconologist

    baconologist Well-Known Member

    Nah, just quoting the poster
  7. tophyr

    tophyr D200 Reverse Track Guy

    I don't really give a shit either way, but this is a common fallacious argument. The idea that electric cars, or electric power in general, are more ecologically-expensive than gas/coal/petrol-powered counterparts is based on considering the supply chain of electric components much farther back than their equivalent fossil-fuel components.

    "If you consider the requirements to build a Tesla battery, electric cars are far worse than gasoline ones!" Well... if you're gonna count in the infrastructure required to create batteries, you should count in the infrastructure required to refine and deliver petroleum fuels.

    "Batteries use rare earth elements that require massive mining operations!" Actually, lithium is about 1.5x as common as lead, and 2x as common as boron, both of which are mined at 100x the amount. Boron steels are particularly used in automaking for their high strength.

    "What do you think makes electricity? It all comes back to fossil fuels anyway!" No - the types of people and places that are trying to get onto electric powertrains are also the types of people and places making strong efforts to utilize renewable (or extremely long-cycle) power sources like wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. They're not that stupid.

    , electronic components such as lithium batteries (and even standard dry-cells like AA etc) are exceptionally recyclable - potentially further reducing their ecological impact. They are not commonly actually recycled, which is unfortunate, and the primary reason for that is convenience and economics. However, solutions to that tie into the same strategy being used here: If the "green" option cannot be made cheap enough to compete, then the "tradtional" option can be made more expensive. (Remember, in this case, "generators" are not being banned - generators that do not conform to certain emissions requirements are. Which happens to be basically all generators, but the CA legislature has deemed that Not Their Problem.)

    Now, you could argue that legislatively increasing something's price into prohibition is dictatorial and Big Brother-esque, and I'd agree with you. You could argue that small engines are a miniscule concern in the grand picture of things, and after looking into it I might agree with you there also. You could argue that these controls will unpredictably, and unfairly, drive up costs for many portable service businesses and uses, and I would definitely agree with you. I think this is probably a long-term flop too, and I'm going to continue running my diesel (which is exempted, comically) generator as much as I please. But please don't use the "electric power is just as, or more, expensive as traditional power" argument. It ain't.
  8. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    Not seeing many clamor for more nukes. If they were, I might listen to some of their other arguments.
    jd41, crashman, pickled egg and 2 others like this.
  9. tophyr

    tophyr D200 Reverse Track Guy

    Agree, but even "cHeRnObYl ThReE mIlE iSlAnD" concerns aside, waste disposal is a pretty strong argument-killer for most of it. Even ultra-high-efficiency reactors don't really solve the disposal problem, they just reduce the amount of it. Eventually, the waste has to go somewhere, and there aren't really any great solutions to that yet that don't involve some pretty severe localized ecological hypocrisy.
  10. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    Unfortunately, the popular "renewables" will not meet current demand, much less the increases required for charging. Factor in some states removing hydro dams and taking fossil plants offline to save the planet and you have a disaster brewing. We need a comprehensive energy plan. What we have is incoherent feel good knee jerk actions.
    jd41, tl1098, cav115 and 2 others like this.
  11. kenessex

    kenessex unregistered user

    I thought we were just putting all the nuclear waste in northern Nevada or Utah or someplace where it can be out of sight and out of mind.:Poke:
  12. SGVRider

    SGVRider Well-Known Member

    That’s a pretty complex issue in itself. Most of the energy in nuclear “waste” can be recovered through reprocessing. The US made a political (and probably correct for the time) decision to not reprocess fuel so as to encourage other countries not to use it. It’s a weapons proliferation risk. It’s also more expensive and environmentally nasty, but most of the energy can be recovered and the waste reduced. I believe France and Japan reprocess, probably Russia too.

    Creating a central secured repository for the waste is a perfectly reasonable and safe solution, but the US politically just can’t figure out how to get it done.

    No energy solution will be without second order effects. You have to decide what you’re willing to accept. These nutbags can’t get that through their skulls though, and think there’s magically some industrial activity we can undertake that has zero consequences.

    If carbon dioxide is the dire problem they claim, nuclear waste disposal is a very minor issue to contend with in comparison.

    If this whole screed were actually about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the same people screaming about it would be screaming to go full force into nuclear energy. That’s how you know they don’t fully believe it themselves or it’s about a lot more than they claim.
  13. TWF2

    TWF2 2 heads are better than 1

    Not in Nevada. They are stored wherever plants are, Utah, South Carolina, Texas, Washington.
  14. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    Savannah River site has a bunch of stored waste. Ramping up to process the waste is a huge business. It's less than 30 miles from the house.
  15. baconologist

    baconologist Well-Known Member

    The bait today is tasty, what’cha using?
    SuddenBraking and pickled egg like this.
  16. ChemGuy

    ChemGuy Harden The F%@# Up!

    There was supposed to be a US long term (think thousands of years) a 100mi or so from Vegas. They scientists (Trust the Science) say its the most geologically stable place in the US and not near major population or anything else important. The plan was to vitrify (turn it into glass) and then store the waste in vaults underground. The vitrify is nice so it cant leak even if the over engineered storage casks crack somehow.

    But all the enviro wackos and politicians stopped it.

    My thoughts are a certain segment of the population doesnt want it to happen because the lack of long term storage is a major detriment to new nukes being built. If that was solved then they have one less argument against nuke plants.

    So old fuel rods are stored at the plants, or other less secure sites. Some for decades now. That seems smart. Just leave old fuel rods laying around all over the place.....
  17. cu260r6

    cu260r6 Well-Known Member

    This is pure unsubstantiated idiocy. The entire world could be powered by the energy from simply covering half the Sahara with solar panels.

    Obama appointed a nobel prize winning scientist to run the DoE to create the plan you mentioned. Trump replaced him with Rick Perry who has called for the elimination of the Department of Energy for years. Keep voting Republican and hoping for that national energy strategy.

    Colorado has a 25% renewable energy standard and is doing great. Meanwhile, Texas can't keep the heat on in the winter when running on coal.
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2021
  18. Greg ZX6R

    Greg ZX6R Well-Known Member

    Early Christmas gift: The Dungeon is back.
    tophyr, motoracer1100, tl1098 and 4 others like this.
  19. R Acree

    R Acree Banned

    :crackup::crackup::crackup::crackup::crackup::crackup::crackup::crackup:well you've obviously given this a lot of thought. BTW, the population of CO is less than 6 million, TX is close to 30, but I don't suppose that is even remotely a factor.
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2021
    crashman and cav115 like this.
  20. TWF2

    TWF2 2 heads are better than 1

    NV is around 30% (solar, geothermal and hydro). Rest is natural gas. Coal is pretty much gone, think one plant left.
    cu260r6 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page