[echopom]

> New portable gas-powered generators also must be zero-emissions by 2028

Fascinated by this large scale "green washing" taking place.

As of today 50% of the electricity made in california comes from natural gas...

On top of that an extra 37% of california electricity is imported from others states which are running mostly of natural gas...

You can also add an extra 30% of energy coming from petrol for cars , public transport and so forth.

Yet they go after "wind blower".

It baffles me.

[heypete]

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.

[simonsquiff]

Hydrogen fuel cell generators are one option. Pretty exotic today, but this is the type of move that will help them become more mainstream

[asdff]

Propane generators will also be banned in this bill.

[minitoar]

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”.

[LatinAmerican]

Your source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

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.

[verisimi]

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.

[minitoar]

It makes it illegal for the corporations to sell those products. Not sure how that’s not “resolving the problem at source”.

[clairity]

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.