Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#391

Post by lokar »

ryandrake wrote: post #385
tptacek wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be right, but the site is explicit about the Fremont plant being exempted, and opens with the claim that there are facilities grandfathered in.

The concept of "grandfathering" rule breakers has always seemed like naked corruption to me. OK, we think this thing is so bad , that we're passing a law to ban it, BUT everyone who was already doing this bad thing can keep doing it forever because... because... because putting an existing company out of business is apparently the worst thing in the world. If our elected officials think something is bad enough to ban…

It's not great, but it's political and legal reality.

Re: Banned in California

#392

Post by lokar »

gorfian_robot wrote: post #378
barelysapient wrote: post #361

Should California be treated differently than the rest of the world? In addition to banning these manufacturing processes in California, we should ban the products manufactured with these processes from California. This would require products to "green up" in order to access California's vast market. By allowing dirty products manufactured elsewhere, we've simply moved the problem and its harms out of our line of sig…

this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.

Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.

Re: Banned in California

#393

Post by tzs »

raddan wrote: post #221
mjamil wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.

I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen. Their website says > We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable…

> My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.

It's an induction stovetop. It doesn't itself get hot, other than whatever heat gets transferred to the top of the stove because it is in contact with the hot pot or pan sitting on top. I don't know about this one specifically but with most induction stovetops that just makes it warm to the touch in the area right under the pot or pan.

That's not going to be hot enough to be a problem for the battery even if for some reason they mounted it in contact with the bottom of the top surface, which I doubt they did.

Re: Banned in California

#394

Post by lokar »

drewda wrote: post #317
danlitt wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities. Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this. Of course, for things…

That's exactly why the Bay Area Air Quality Management District exists (established decades before the federal EPA): > Charged with regulating stationary sources of air pollution emissions, the Air District drafted its first two regulations in the 1950s: Regulation 1, which banned open burning at dumps and wrecking yards, and Regulation 2, which established controls on dust, droplets, and combustion gases from certai…

Yep. And it's why it's hard to paint cars in the Bay Area, but you can do it in less populated areas with better average air quality.

Re: Banned in California

#395

Post by lokar »

XorNot wrote: post #279
danlitt wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities. Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this. Of course, for things…

Fossil are not equally polluting. There's a difference between living next to a generator with exhaust at ground level, a properly designed smoke stack, and just being further away so the reactive emissions can dilute and degrade. CO2 might be a long term problem, but it isn't the core health concern of living near combustion facilities - moving those away from residential areas isn't passing the buck, it's just good…

Depends on the fossil. Coal emits all kinds of poison in the smoke.

Re: Banned in California

#396

Post by parineum »

gorfian_robot wrote: post #378
barelysapient wrote: post #361

Should California be treated differently than the rest of the world? In addition to banning these manufacturing processes in California, we should ban the products manufactured with these processes from California. This would require products to "green up" in order to access California's vast market. By allowing dirty products manufactured elsewhere, we've simply moved the problem and its harms out of our line of sig…

this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.

For example, the ubiquity of backup cameras in cars is because it is a requirement in CA.

Re: Banned in California

#397

Post by object-a »

It would be nice if the site cited the regulations and costs that make the different facilites impossible — are they outright banned? Are there environmental regulations that don’t exist elsewhere? Is it a long process for permitting with tons of inspections?

Re: Banned in California

#398

Post by lokar »

rbliss wrote: post #125
mparkms wrote: post #48

The creator of the website is the CEO of a battery-powered induction cooktop company. ( https://x.com/sdamico ) He clearly has an agenda against what he perceives as onerous environmental regulations: https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026536815902208479 https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026552845294792994

I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not. His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues. The electric induction cooktop he and his tea…

What should be the basis for comparison? The locality with the most permissive rule on each aspect of manufacturing? Is there any absolute floor on the morality? Should California allow slavery to be used in factories if some other locality allows it?

Re: Banned in California

#399

Post by lokar »

overfeed wrote: post #134
ixtli wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.

The Silicon Valley founderati is chock-full of (right wing) libertarians. I can't tell if they were always that way, or are increasingly disgruntled by state-taxes the wealthier they get.

Yep, fake libertarians. They personally get to do whatever they want, not pay taxes, and everyone else needs to follow the rules.

Re: Banned in California

#400

Post by casey2 »

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Gen Z spends less than 30 minutes outside a day, that's with 1/5 having no job/school at all. The choice is obvious, they aren't swimming either way.

Green manufacturing tech is much closer in viability, now is the best time to re-industrialize. 1/5 of people having no work is a crisis, how can they support their family?

Post reply on HN