Under the guise of reducing carbon monoxide ‘injuries’, this Proposes new generators shut down after emitting certain amount of carbon monoxide. Disregards most generators already have CO monitor where they shut down is CO levels get too high. this appears to propose new generators shut down after emitting a certain amount pf CO, rendering generators basically useless https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Su...df?VersionId=zxwp.NpJj8nNCxLf7CIp3zMVqLB1MrgE
It's 150 pages, and I didn't read the whole thing, but where does it say they have to shut down after a certain run time? There is a lot of talk about making CO detection manditory, and reducing CO output over all, but I didn't see where it says all generators have to shut down automatically, making them useless... It says "establish performance requirements for portable generators" ... "The draft proposed rule would have limited the CO emission rates of portable generators based on four different engine size categories." and "In particular, this SNPR adds requirements related to shutoff when high CO levels are detected, which have begun to achieve industry acceptance."
Oh ... I see, they are proposing an upper limit to the amount of CO any generator can produce per hour -OR- requiring an automatic shut off if the manufacture ignore the limits and the unit produces more than the allowed amount of CO within an hour ... Apparently, there is a lot of room for improvement, here, because some online reading I see ... "It's estimated that one portable generator can emit as much carbon monoxide as 400 idling cars. " That seems like a lot for a ~10HP engine. My guess, if this rule is passed, is most manufacturers will opt to meet the CO limit requirements, because generators programmed to shut down periodically are going to be hard to sell.
Maybe the preferred alternative is let Darwinism take its course by improving the gene pool since persons who run portable generators in their garages are obviously not the brightest lights.
I'm not usually against darwinism but I would just add that in my personal experience, sometimes people in high crime and impoverished areas run their generators in garages out of fear that they will likely be stolen otherwise. We ran a triple cardiac arrest after one of the hurricanes in recent years among a few others over the years for this reason.
That sucks. In that situation, do you have a warning system to tell you building isn't safe to enter due to the CO levels? I've heard of case where several construction workers died because one guy passes out in hole, then a guy goes downs to pull him out and passes out, then another guy goes down to pull both of them out ... not realizing the equipment running nearby is filling the hole with CO...
Only way for the CO to be reduced is to have an electronically controlled fuel injection system and a catalytic converter, which means price increases. This last hurricane, we were without power for 5 days in Winter Springs, and I didn't bother with one. Just lived out of a cooler and used candles. A lot easier and less work.
We just gear up in monoxide environments. Our SCBAs are sufficient. Below grade is a technical rescue issue and ventilation setups and rigging from special tech rescue teams will be deployed. Edit: we do have gas detectors that test for certain hazards including monoxide
I’m all in favor of reducing pollutants into OUR life support system. Given the comments about the paper linked; it sounds like no one is demanding all generators shut down based on CO produced. I can’t imagine even morons who question our impact on the earth running one in a contained environment. With that said; I’ve been looking for a heater that will work above 8500 feet. Can’t find one. The reason is the safety mechanisms. I value safety far above comfort.
You're lucky. Less work usually means more drama unless you are happily alone, especially as the entitlement builds until you learn by the 3rd or 4th day that the storm itself was your fault.