I had an electric lawn mower it was great compared to gas mainly due to it being so quiet.
Charging wasn't too bad at first one battery for the front yard and one for the back. But then one battery would not charge as much or run for as long as when new. The store had moved on to new models so I couldnt buy a battery in store. Even if I could it was expensive $100, the mower cost $250. Online even the manufacturer seemed to have moved on and not have the battery type. But if it did price plus shipping and tax would be high.
It cut grass OK but if it was too long it would eat up the battery or stall. The grass catcher bag would also require more from the battery.
One day at three years old thw mower just quit. The good battery is OK so it must be the mower motor.
I looked at electric but the new ones are $500 they took a big jump in price. I bought a new gas mower.
That's one of the reasons I went with corded... It's a little annoying, but a fraction of the cost, never runs out of juice, I never forget to charge it, and only thing I've had to do in years is replace the blade.
In most of these types of articles, no one mentions the problems that batteries are going to cause... (environment and convenience)
I bought an Ego+ leafblower in Home Depot about 7 or so years ago. It was around $500 and the best garden related purchase I made so far. It is still going strong, there is literally no maintenance to perform, it's quiet, does not smell, starts instantly. I don't have to remember to discard fuel at the end of the lawn mowing season, no need to do oil changes etc.
A+ will buy again.
The battery issue is why I’ll only consider companies that make the OPE (outdoor power equipment) as a side part of their main battery powered tool business.
Milwaukee’s M18 mower is coming out next year and I’ll be getting that.
If you’re not a professional landscaper, consider getting a plug-in lawnmower. I used them throughout the 2000s and 2010s when one of my childhood chores was lawn mowing. I never encountered any of these problems.
The part of this that is actually worrying to me is this also includes gas, diesel, and propane powered electric generators.
My parents live multiple hours north of the bay in the woods along the border of Jackson state forest and rely on their generator a few times a year. Their property is heavily wooded (lots of coastal redwoods) and on the north facing side of a mountain (it’s in the shade most of the day for most of the year), making both home solar and wind impractical.
With PG&E doing power cuts, they need some way to power the fridge, furnace, and sump pump. They had their power cut for two weeks at the beginning of this year because of a winter storm, and had to run the generator a bunch. It’s one thing to have backup batteries to cover a day or two without power, but they’d need half a megawatt hour of batteries to cover the multiple week outages they’ve already experienced.
It’s one thing to convert equipment from gas to electric where it makes sense, a wholesale ban on fuel powered equipment regardless of the situation is a bit asinine.
The article mentions that the restrictions for generators aren't planned to take effect until much later (2028), and that can be postponed by CARB. Also, it's only for portable generators. If you're relying on generator power multiple times per year, it probably makes sense to get one permanently installed.
So, if the landscaping company can't operate a portable generator in their truck bed, how are they supposed to charge all the batteries they need on the job?
OP was concerned about bans where it is impractical to get electricity otherwise. I was providing another example that happens every day that would also be affected by this restriction on portable electricity generation, a landscaper at a client's job site.
I was going to say this. Many of the people up here don't have an energy demand high enough to warrant a full scale generator.
The portable generator my parents have has hookups to connect it to the main breaker panel of your house. The only thing it lacks is autostart on power failure.
I agree with all of this simply on grounds of noise pollution. My neighbor had been running a fucking 2 stroke pressure washer engine all weekend. I'm sure he thinks he's being helpful cleaning all that concrete that people drive on, but it's hell to live next to. At what point do you get to call the cops on someone for this?
Not always feasible. Imagine this as if it were a recurring weekly thing manifesting itself in all manner of different activities as well. At this point its probably easier to just put the house up for sale and move.
Berkeley was getting pretty aggressive with their ICE leaf blower enforcement last time I visited, which led me to wonder what happens when gardeners start buying ICE generators and plugging AC electric equipment into those. AFAICT these laws don't affect that.
These can be made to be far quieter than the engine strapped to a human's back. A truck-bound genset can weigh 2000lbs+ no problem, which means it can house the same engine you would see in a honda civic, along with all of the same emissions and noise control devices.
Many new work trucks (F150 electric-only, for instance) output 240v, which would be more than enough to run a wide range of yard equipment (at the same time).
Alternatively, I'll agree that my yard guys can plug into my outside power outlets when they are doing the yard. I'll even let them plug in for my neighbor's yard too, if its more convenient for them. This level of intermittent use is negligible on someone's bill.
This only applies to sales of new equipment starting in 2024. Existing equipment isn't banned.
Good move, IMO. Electric yard equipment is now good enough that gas alternatives aren't necessary in most cases. Lawn care professionals will have to make a moderate investment in batteries up front, but even those are becoming more affordable and easier to charge on the go.
The combination of multi-battery chargers and vehicles with built-in AC inverters (new electric F-150 is brilliant) means the batteries can even be charged straight off of the truck, eliminating the need to carry gasoline around or even stop at gas stations at all.
> Electric yard equipment is now good enough that gas alternatives aren't necessary in most cases.
Have you used any? The batteries last 100x less than the tiny amount of petrol you pour into. You have to recharge 3x just to mow the whole (moderately sized) lawn. Hopefully newer models are better, but given the slow progress of car batteries, I doubt they're much better.
The argument is we shouldn’t be dumping air quality externalities on everyone to have attractive landscaping.
Everyone is collectively used to burning fossil fuels without paying the true cost, and wrings their hands when they have to pay for their use case with zero emissions technology. The value of clean air is proven from scientific research on emissions.
We (our entire society) should really be reconsidering lawns and "attractive lawns" in general. The care and maintenance of Kentucky bluegrass is a tremendous drain on resources, a significant cause of pollution (air and water), and destroys the habitats of native plants, insects and animals. It is just bad all around.
This law isn't about reducing CO2 emissions. It's more specifically about reducing the forms of pollution that are disproportionately produced by small engines, which are often two-stroke and (AFAIK) never have catalytic converters. Taxing gasoline would be a failed attempt at a one size fits all solution, when there are very different categories of engines burning that fuel with drastically different emissions profiles.
No, the real problem is no one wants to corral the chief contributors, so people try to go after the little people first who can't hire lobbyists to babysit legislators.
And you think that a piece of equiptment that uses a quart of gas every other week is a significant contributor? Why not focus on where the real progress can be made (or the real cost contributors) instead of forcing a scenario with poor cost benefit tradeoff.
I think you misunderstand the statistics. Modern cars are so clean that the two-strokes powering lawn tools really are most of the smog in some cities. Getting rid of them will be a big improvement for many people.
> In the early 2020s, however, total smog-forming emissions from small engines are projected to exceed those from passenger cars in the South Coast Air Basin because passenger car emissions will continue to decrease. By 2031, small engine emissions will be more than twice those from passenger cars.
>In 2020, California daily NOx and ROG emissions from SORE were higher than emissions from light-duty passenger cars. SORE emitted an average of 16.8 tons per day of NOx and 125 tons per day of ROG. Without further regulatory action, those emission levels are expected to increase with increasing numbers of SORE in California. Regulations of emissions from SORE have not been as stringent as regulations of other engines, and one hour of operation of a commercial leaf blower can emit as much ROG plus NOx as driving 1,100 miles in a new passenger vehicle.
I didn't claim it's happening now. The state legislature of California did: "The Legislature finds and declares all of the following..." I don't know for sure that the legislators who drafted this law verified that the predictions from several years ago have held up based on newer data, but it's really not much of a stretch think that they actually did check with the experts.
As for airplanes, power plants and other large-scale users of fossil fuels: like cars and unlike gas-powered lawn tools, they tend to more carefully manage combustion to burn cleaner, and power plants can treat exhaust (like cars do with catalytic converters). So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people.
Ah, I see that you responded with a source on behalf of the person making the claim. Although my sentiment still stands - the source doesn't support the claim.
"So those sources are cleaner per gallon of fuel than a gas-powered leaf blower, and they don't exhaust quite as close to living, breathing people."
Per gallon. Lawn equipment is is a tiny fraction compared to these others. Airports tend to be in cities, power plants tend to be close to population centers, most people have a road in front of their house... sounds like those are close to people, output more overall, and are used more frequently than once every week or two.
The California government has a track record of declaring “facts” like this to push their agenda. The fact that a government agent claimed something does not automatically make it true.
> No reason they can't put catalytic converters on.
The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries.
> If we really want to be green, then why not require reel mowers?
Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument.
"The cost of the catalytic converter itself, plus the advanced ECU necessary to make it work properly would make gas-powered lawn mowers more expensive than an electric plus a pile of spare batteries."
The ECU is a joke, and not a necessary part of using a catalytic converter. You can run a pi zero or audrino as an ECU.
The catalytic converter would be more expensive than not having one, but not that expensive. You might be assuming they would cost the same as one for a car, but they would be drastically scaled down. You can find new catalytic converters for small cars for under $100.
> Responses like this violate the rules for the site and undermine HN as a place of discussion. I would love to hear a real argument.
You don't deserve a real argument. "Why not require reel mowers?" isn't a serious question. Figuring out an answer takes only a few moments of thought, or reading the first section of the law in question, wherein the legislature lays out the rationale and justification for the regulation. (The whole law is just over 600 words, so reading it is quick and easy.) The question is just a cheap rhetorical trick.
If you actually have trouble coming up with an answer to that question, or if you think banning all forms of powered mowers would actually be a sensible public policy, then you're welcome to share your thoughts on the matter in more detail. Until then, there's no reason for anyone to take such a silly and provocative question at face value.
Why attack me and put down my worth instead of provide an answer? You are assuming my question is a rhetorical trick, which is also against HN's policy that states you should read people's comments in a charitable way.
That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. Reel mowers don't produce emissions, don't require batteries which harm the environment, don't require electricity to be generated and transmitted, don't require copper or electronics, and they force people to get exercise. The arguments here have been that batteries are good enough for most lawns because most lawns are small. If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well. If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.
> That's not rhetoric. It's a real question. [...] If it was really about the environment and people's health, then they should be pushing reel mowers.
Yes, there are potential benefits to your Modest Proposal. But none of them provide any further improvement to the specific harms that the law in question explicitly seeks to reduce. Instead, you ignore those stated objectives and pretend that the law has (or should have) much broader goals, so that you can propose a much more radical alternative. And you haven't tried to explain how your proposal would be a reasonable tradeoff given its obvious and considerable downsides. You've also thrown in a bit of a straw-man ("If most lawns are small, then reel mowers are a suitable replacement as well"). I'm still not seeing a reason to take you seriously.
They've come a long way in the past few years. If your only experience is from several years ago then it's nothing like modern tools. Definitely don't have to recharge to mow an entire lawn, or even recharge every week.
I expect they'll progress even more in the next few years before this law goes into effect.
I have a 10k sq foot lot and can mow the entire thing in one charge of the battery with my Ego mower. It sounds like you're the one who's never actually used one. They also have hot swappable batteries.
> means the batteries can even be charged straight off of the truck
Get a bunch of long extensions cords on those crank reels and put em in the back of the truck. Batteries are a huge waste of money/time/environment if a corded tool will do the job. You would probably still keep a few cordless on the work truck just in case you need to get to some place far away or high up (e.g. the chainsaw example).
this seems like a potential area for innovation; Self propelled consumer ICE lawnmowers are plagued by open differentials, front wheel drive, and a complex drive system (belt and clutch attaching to a constant speed motor)
Electrics, on the other hand, could easily have independent front and rear motors, if not each wheel; an independent ramping and traction control system from the main motor -- and even an isolated electrical system (via capacitor) such that grass load and wheel speed are indepedent.
Everyone who can't justify an electric riding mower or doesn't have a place to charge it. I'm guessing you've never had to maneuver an umpowered push mower on slopes.
I'd rather not pay $500+ for a push mower with enough batteries to so my lawn. It seems like the negative impact is much higher than the marginal benefits. Why not focus on vehicles (especially planes) and the grid instead?
Mowers are very simple machines. A little bit of maintenance goes a long way. I've only ever used what $50 gets me on craigslist and have never pined for anything better.
This simply isn't true. A decent push mower can be had for about $180. Cheaper ones are about $130. Do you have a source for $500+ gas push mowers? I'd imagine they are very niche companies or models.
This also ignores the used market. Mine was used for $30.
The cheapest Honda push mower at home depot (today in the midwest) is $420, the second cheapest is $550.
They will easily go 20 years without much maintenance. Nobody I know buying $180 mowers gets more than a few years out of them and they are off to the landfill.
Perhaps they don't know how to take care of them. I have a mower that's 30 years old and another that's over 10. They are not high-end models (neither exist today to check prices). It's a shame people throw our perfectly good equipment because they can't keep it running, lawnmowers or otherwise.
If your argument is that a decent mower can go 20 years, then that excludes battery powered ones. You'll need to replace the batteries.
Totally second this but on a different ground. It's simply the noise it makes.
Many people have been left trapped at home, working remotely as a result of Covid. A noisy machine, such as a gas-powered leaf blower, can disrupt a peaceful neighborhood day. Imagine your neighbor to your left mowing the lawn at 8 a.m., then neighbor to your right at 9 a.m., then another cross the street started at 10 a.m., and on and on.. It made our already dismal lockdown, stay-at-home life even more despised!
We are in dire need of much quieter neighborhood leaf blower.
> in dire need of much quieter neighborhood leaf blower
It's called a broom.
In general, to the other contributions which could have been sarcastic: noise is harmful. Many people do not even perceive it, but that is because numbness has become a value (though perception is) - and numbness will reveal its non-efficacy as an armour the moment one's nerves will be worn out enough. I will repeat: noise is something some people sneer at - until they break. So, there has to be a proportionate justification to be noisy.
«The day will come when man will have to fight noise as inexorably as cholera and the plague»
I'm a wildly optimistic person; could you suggest all your neighbours (including yourself) do these jobs at the same time? A sort of "preferred noise hour" for machinery. Even if its not a hard and fast rule, I'd hope most people would see the point and in turn enjoy the benefit in a world where many want the option to work remotely.
And maybe drugs too. The drugged up people during weekends are massive nuisance in cities, yelling and being violent at streets. Really we should close down all bars and bring back prohibition...
What about education, which should make such behaviour evidently inappropriate, and policing, so that that the yellers - "Oh! Sorry you broke a fully legitimate and reasonable law" - and violent - "Oh! Another"...
Some people seemingly like living in anarchy. Which may seem "nice" until it tramples you.
There is no need to close the bars. There has always been a need to correct bothersome and damaging behaviour, obviously, even when we keep experiences open. Ever heard of moderation? Self control? The appellative of 'Mister' (master over what)? Of the values of consciousness and awareness?
So, quantitative definition: noise from X, benefit, social context (responsibility) and avoidability of X, for each X - children, blowers, dogs, stereos... I do not see the discrimination too difficult. What can be avoided, what should be avoided, what should be replaced, what should be regulated...
While I can get on board with restricting 2-stroke engines in most cases (there’s still many situations where there’s no viable substitutes), I’m puzzled how they expect to have gas-powered generators be zero emission. That seems to defy the laws of physics and chemistry.
By definition, people use generators when there’s no source of mains power, whether that’s during a power outage or needing to use electric devices in a remote area, job site, etc. I don’t see how requiring such things to work on battery power (from where would they charge their batteries?) would be viable in any way.
That said, I wish they’d consider the use of alternative fuels (like propane), particularly for things like generators and larger equipment like riding mowers. Most 4-stroke engines can easily run on propane and dual-fuel devices like generators are already commonly available. Propane burns very cleanly, efficiently, is inexpensive, widely available, easy to store, and doesn’t go stale like gasoline.
All new car and truck sales in the state must be electric by 2035. San Jose had already mandated new residential construction to be electric only. There are solar incentives. It’s not just “wind blowers”.
Power conversion inefficiency, distribution matrix maintenance, demand pressure on local energy price, adding toxic batteries and more complex machines to the system, not accounted for.
Its about socialising and shifting blame onto the consumer rather than resolving the problem at source, ie with the corporations.
Corporations have lobbists to ensure that they will not be out of pocket as people transition to 'green energy' - in fact they hope that this will be a new growth opportunity.
yah, this is the type of thing that i’d nominally support (hate the twice weekly immersion in unburnt pollution wafting into my apartment), but it’s so far down the list of things that can meaningfully reduce pollution, it’s farcical. but lawmakers are going to pat themselves on the back and toot their own horns like they’d saved the world once again.
this kind of law is straight up distraction. energy production and transportation (and industry after that) are where we’ll have actual, material impact, and where our sole focus should be in this regard.
Unless I’m misinterpreting the article, this isn’t banning leaf blowers in general - only those which are gas powered. Electric leaf blowers still carry the annoyance you’ve mentioned.
Landscaping companies will pass their transition costs on to their (generally rich-ish and/or corporate) customers, who have been benefiting disproportionately from what is essentially a commons, for a long time. The majority of people meanwhile, mow their own lawns, and will find the typical battery-powered mower cost-effective, adequate to the task, quieter, and more convenient because there's no need to bring fuel from off site.
I recently bought a new house where I had to care for the yard (previously owned in a HoA which handled yard care) and tried an electric leaf blower. It made it no more than 10 mins on a charge and the batteries took 8-10 hours to get back to 100%.
Professional lawn crews will use professional tools. I don't know what you bought, the Ego equipment is actually pretty good and has fast-ish chargers available.
These engines are not great and I don’t mind the ban in my town. That said it was temporarily an excuse for people to be incredibly rude to folks who keep our homes maintained. I paid a my landscaper’s fine while they figured out the ordinance.
Reading a little further this is a comprehensive ban on an engine class…I wonder if the CA legislature understands that small engine chainsaws are an essential tool in wildland firefighting?
It's funny that people who go out of their way to announce their "support" for marginalized people don't bother asking the gardeners who use them why they use them.
In California those are overwhelmingly Mexican, and they're working in the hot sun to feed their families. They use a leaf blower because it lets them get done faster and make a little more money.
Currently they bring their own fuel to worksites. What happens when there's no outlet for them to plug into? There are large numbers of landscaping scenarios where this will be the case. Do they bring a diesel generator?
All of my yard tools, including my lawnmower, are electric. For reasons of both cost and power, I went with corded rather than battery powered. Battery tech is constantly improving and maybe at some point it will get to the point where it is viable for a yard like mine but for people who are doing a large number of properties per day, it's going to be quite a while.
Seems like the better interim solution would be making the small engines used by these tools emit less. This would of course increase the complexity and cost but seems like a better tradeoff than extension cords with large voltage drops, diesel generators, or lugging around half a dozen times more batteries than devices.
The Ford F-150 aims to solve that problem (and I guess other EVs will have / has similar capabilities).
> With an electric motor mounted on each of its axles, the vehicle will offer more torque — in effect, faster acceleration — than any previous F-150 and will be capable of towing up to 10,000 pounds. Its battery pack can power a home for about three days during an outage, according to Ford.
For contractors and other commercial truck users, the Lightning will be able to power electric saws, tools and lighting, potentially replacing or reducing the need for generators at work sites. It has up to 11 power outlets.
Which are evidently going to be banned under this same bill a few years later in 2028. What happens then? Follow the work truck with a second box truck that's absolutely full to the brim of batteries?
It seems like commercial should be granted an exemption here. It's just not realistic to run battery operated hand tools like it is if you are only maintaining one single family home sized lot for all the reasons you mentioned. Plus gardeners can repair and maintain their own gas powered tools themselves, can't do that with electronic equipment that is built to be disposed of rather than fixed.
While you jest, a generator running at a relatively constant speed and load (loads can be extracted to capacitors) should reduce noise, maintenance, and emissions (albeit, overall weight would increase and mechanical efficiency would decrease)
Modern battery technology is way better than it used to be. Today, you can use the same battery you use to power your cordless drill to power radios, vacuum cleaners, circular saws/table saws, chainsaws, trimmers, and even lawnmowers. DeWalt's 20V MAX system in particular is pretty neat.
Electric equipment is just not practical or realistic for these landscaping operations where you are working 50-60 hours a week. They would have to replace batteries constantly as they get worn out from being constantly depleted and charging. Not to mention you would have to run your chargers off a generator in the truck bed anyhow, negating any green benefit since these things are noisy and pollute just as much as a hand tool. If they didn't need power offered by commercial grade gas equipment, they would be using cheaper handheld blowers rather than heavier and more expensive backpack models. Plus brands like STIHL are practically bulletproof in terms of reliability.
> Not to mention you would have to run your chargers off a generator in the truck bed anyhow, negating any green benefit since these things are noisy and pollute just as much as a hand tool.
One big engine is cleaner, more efficient, and quieter than a bunch of small 2-stroke engines.
A big engine they have to run 100% of the time they are parked to keep the juice flowing. A blower is only running when it's being ran which is just one portion of the job.
The obvious solution is to use something like the hybrid Ford F-150, which will only run the engine as-needed while still providing continuous 7.2kW power for battery charging or directly powering tools.
That's going to be a tough sell for landscapers currently getting by with a 25 year old F150. If the state is forcing these costs onto working people like this, they should also subsidize the cost to get newer legal equipment. The state of california already offers funding for wealthy people to buy Teslas, they should do something for day laborers too.
Landscapers currently getting by with a 25 year old F150 can continue to also get by with their existing tools. They won't need a new F-150 to serve as a generator until they are well into the process of retiring their gas-powered tools in favor of electric tools. And there will even be a grace period of several years where they can start migrating to electric tools and buy a separate generator. Because these rules are about what's legal to sell new, no what's legal to have and use.
(Also, based on CARB's definition of "Small Off-Road Engines" which is what the law applies to, diesel generators of any size will not be affected.)
Leaf blowers are used by firms and public agencies because it lets the work get done with fewer labor-hours, reducing labor costs and overall labor demand. By number of firms that may mostly be small independent gardeners, but weighted by CO2 output its probably not.
(Pigovian taxes would be better, ignoring implementation and administration costs, than a straight ban, but simple gas taxes either overcharge cars or undercharge tools like this, which are vastly worse per gallon of gas consumed.)
Why is it, then, that whenever there's a city hearing about this (and Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and other affluent cities), the gardeners always show up and testify against it?
Then, are you considering power converting inefficiencies, relying in a distribution matrix, burdening the local power production, maybe making prices go up, and adding toxic batteries that end up in a land fill ?
But for people money and beautiful grass is more important than the environment
I'm guessing this also affects ultralight aircraft (offroad small engine). It would be nice if CA is going to pursue this if they could also make a push to increase the FAA allowed weight limit to 300lbs (equivalent of 254 lbs empty + 5 gal fuel, not counting ballistic parachute). Battery weight makes it tricky to meet the weight limit.
It would be more significative to REDUCE the spent power, instead of changing the power storage from hydrocarbon to battery, e.g. change the grass to something that doesn't require trimming as often, or at all, like clovers.
But for people, beautiful grass is more important than the environment.
I haven’t read the law but usually these bans are announced ahead of time and are bans on purchases of new equipment. So they do result in gradual phase outs.
I read the article. The ban goes into effect in 3 years. And there is a carve out for zero emission gas ones too.
Seems entirely reasonable. The state of corded and even cordless tools is pretty solid these days with lithium ion and 48V batteries etc.
Ethanol? Actually probably isn't even that much more expensive to run. I think reasonably we could already find suitable alternative and then somehow brand it zero emission or net zero...
Maybe, but there clearly will be less. People are lazy, and aren’t going to go through this much work.
See incandescent light bulbs. Most people bought over LED before the ban. You can buy them from China still, but most people don’t. So in the end it wins without doing some kind of crazy enforcement,
Incandescents are engineered to have a short life. Abandoning them is a no brainier. Gas power equipment still has endurance and power that eclipses electric alternatives.
How to get around the paywall: in UBlockOrigin, select Block element, select the annoying paywall popup, Create in UBlock, then print the page in your browser (don't actually print), you can read the website in your print dialog.
