I understand that a company might skimp on reducing emissions, but why skimp on a carbon monoxide detector and an automatic shutoff? It would maybe increase the production cost by what, 5 dollars? But be good for marketing and avoiding the possible negative PR if one's branded generator would kill someone.
If the 'free market' can't even do the bare minimum, it's no wonder everything gets regulated to hell.
This is a not-insubstantial continuous cost adder. And given these modules are almost certainly proprietary, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer in terms of parts availability and cost.
I would expect manufacturers to love this; this has basically converted generators into a subscription service (albeit with a 5-7 year renewal period). And, a potential avenue for planned obsolescence. All they have to do is stop producing the replacement sensor, and those generators will be bricked.
And before you think about trying to disable it:
The regulations specifically require that the generator ensure the sensor is functional, or the generator must prevent itself from running.
The generator wiring etc must be tamper resistant, not accessible by regular tools, to prevent a user from attempting to bypass it.
So, now the generator will have some portion of it as tamper-resistant, by law. I wonder how that will affect reparability?
This is a perfect example of a market failure where you need some government intervention because the general public is not great at assessing risk level, or even knowing about some risks.
If companies could sell generators with a big sticker on them that says "with new feature that prevents shark attacks" now that might actually get people interested in buying it over the competition. But a CO shutoff probably doesn't get many people interested.
> This is a perfect example of a market failure where you need some government intervention because the general public is not great at assessing risk level, or even knowing about some risks.
No, it's a perfect example of how the government's standard response to a small number of people being stupid and irresponsible is to punish all of the not stupid, not irresponsible people. I don't need a CO detector and automatic shutoff on my portable generator because I have a clue and won't run it indoors. And, as other commenters have pointed out, a CO detector and automatic shutoff are now two more things that can break on my generator--probably right when I need it most, when the power is out. But if this regulation passes, I won't have a choice; I'll have to suffer the consequences of the cluelessness of others. How is that fair? How does it even make sense? Why penalize the actual mature adults just because a few people can't be bothered to be mature adults?
> It would maybe increase the production cost by what, 5 dollars?
If this rule passes, owners would need to replace their CO chemical sensor every 5-7 years, and it's likely that the manufacturers will charge more than $5 to ship the part. If I were making generators, I would encourage the CSPC to adopt the rule in order to create an ongoing "printer ink" style revenue stream.
Alternatively, they could just declare the generator EoL with no replacement sensor, so owners have to buy a new one after 7 years. They're saving lives and printing money, what's not to love?
A carbon monoxide detector is an expendable component that needs to be replaced every 5-7 years. If such a rule is enacted, the first step should be to define a standard interface for replaceable detector modules.
It’s the sensors themselves that have a limited life - the units that have a fixed battery have a battery life that exceeds the sensors useful life.
The common / low cost carbon monoxide detectors use a chemical reaction (either a fuel cell or one of a few reactions that produce a colour change in the presence of CO) - the chemistry degrades with time and exposure causing the sensitivity to drop off over time.
I’m not sure how much of a safety margin they have (like could it still detect dangerous levels at 2x it’s design life or something) but a quality generator would have a life of several times that of a CO sensor at least so replacement will definitely/hopefully be a design consideration.
50 Hz generators are exempt for some reason. Those can be perfectly usable with a variety of loads such as a home server lab...
I suppose that anybody running the generator properly would have to add a fan to the generator in order to reduce false trips. But false trips can still happen from CO sensor degradation over time, it's a single failure point.
It's a shame that everything has to be made worse just because some people think that you can run a generator indoors for some reason, despite it being covered in warning labels about exactly that.
If you read the proposed rule, there is mention of tamper resistance requirements and compliance with third party standards which were previously not enforced. It does seem a bit concerning. For example:
(f) Tamper resistance. (1) A portable generator system for controlling CO exposure shall be tamper resistant. The system is considered tamper resistant when any part that is shorted, disconnected, or removed to disable the operation of the system prevents the engine from running. In addition, all parts, including wiring, which affect proper operation of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure, must be (a) permanently sealed or (b) not normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools. It is permissible for different parts of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure to meet either option (a) or (b), provided all of the different parts meet at least one of these two options.
What is the correct way to send feedback/comments for this proposal?
In particular I'd like to see so-called "solar generators" or "power stations" be out of scope for requiring "carbon monoxide detection" features, since they're literally just batteries + inverters.
I had to do the “do you want to startup a semi in your living room?” example to get people to understand running a generator indoors is a huge mistake.
Just turn on a fan they say. Open a door.
The number of people who would without hesitation start a generator indoors is far too high. It’s against OSHA of course.
Over 1,300 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by portable generators between 2004 and 2021 alone. [1] Another 77,000 people were hurt in that same period. Worse yet, a quarter of all fatal incidents associated with portable generators involve multiple deaths at once, some involving entire families.[2]
Now let's run those numbers:
(2021-2004)*1000000000/(1300+77000) = 217,114
For this US rule to save $1B/yr then each incident must cost $217,114 for deaths and related injuries. I'm not buying it.
Obviously this rule is a Good Thing - I'm not disputing that and I'm not disputing it should be adopted. I'm disputing this yellow journalism claim that adopting it is going to save us $1 billion per year. Even with the hight cost of medical care in the US it's easy to see this isn't the case.
Do we really need to increase the cost of generators by adding safety features against gross negligence?
Adding that feature in will makes people think that it’s safe to run generators indoors because the sensor will cut off when it’s not. Except inevitably the sensor will fail or the co will end up moving to a basement and killing someone
I’m not sure I understand - you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe?
I’ll wager people run the generator without any thought as to whether there’s a cut off or not and that’s why they die. It seems like a real on the margin case that someone thinks “I can run this indoors safely because the safety mechanism will cut off once it’s unsafe” and simultaneously the failsafe malfunctions. Comparatively to “I’m not very smart and the power is off so I’m going to run a gasoline engine inside my house” seems to be pretty common today.
Without any data on how much such a failsafe costs it’s hard to evaluate if the cost of the safety feature is that burdensome, but for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house.
> you’re saying if the failsafe fails someone might die (presumably not common event), yet without the failsafe many people are assured to die (apparently a common enough event), so therefore we shouldn’t have the failsafe?
No, he's saying that the failsafe adds no value for the vast majority of generator users, because they take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences and learn how to properly use their portable generators. So requiring the failsafe by regulation is punishing all of the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible people. That doesn't make sense. The people who should suffer the consequences of being irresponsible are the people who are irresponsible, not everybody else.
> apparently a common enough event
1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries--over 17 years. That's not common at all; it's miniscule. From what I can gather, about 10% of households have portable generators. That's 30 million of them in the US alone.
In the same period of time, roughly 510,000 people in the US died in traffic accidents (roughly 30,000 a year times 17 years). And that's even after decades of government regulations imposing safety features on vehicles. So not only is regulation like this unfair and nonsensical, it doesn't even work. People who insist on being irresponsible will find a way to do it no matter what regulations you impose. The rest of us should not have to suffer the burden of ever-increasing regulations that don't even work.
> for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house
This kind of reasoning does not justify a government regulation. It only counts the benefit to the miniscule number of people who can't be responsible on their own. It doesn't count the cost, both in the ever-increasing burden of regulations we all have to deal with, and the ever-increasing power we are forced to give the government on such grounds, which then gets misused in more and more ways.
It increases risky behavior because it’s now assumed to be less dangers that I’m not convinced a generator mounted cut off will fully mitigate. Also it increases costs and presumably false shutoffs due to stagnant outside air conditions or similar when the sensor cuts off.
I could easily see a person now choosing to run an indoor generator and relying on the cutoff to trigger when the levels are too high. In a hurricane situation I could even see taking that risk myself under desperate circumstances.
The old economist joke is that if you really want to prevent crashes, don't put airbags and seat belts, put a spear on the steering wheel pointing right into the driver's face.
Yes, adding safety features to cars does make people more likely to engage in risky behavior, and as a result the accident rate goes up. Look up "moral hazard".
Readit News
If the 'free market' can't even do the bare minimum, it's no wonder everything gets regulated to hell.
Wen, $53: https://wenproducts.com/products/gn625ix-1430-co-sensor-modu...
Generac, $169: https://gen-parts.com/products/generac-generator-part-100000...
This is a not-insubstantial continuous cost adder. And given these modules are almost certainly proprietary, you're at the mercy of the manufacturer in terms of parts availability and cost.
I would expect manufacturers to love this; this has basically converted generators into a subscription service (albeit with a 5-7 year renewal period). And, a potential avenue for planned obsolescence. All they have to do is stop producing the replacement sensor, and those generators will be bricked.
And before you think about trying to disable it: The regulations specifically require that the generator ensure the sensor is functional, or the generator must prevent itself from running. The generator wiring etc must be tamper resistant, not accessible by regular tools, to prevent a user from attempting to bypass it.
So, now the generator will have some portion of it as tamper-resistant, by law. I wonder how that will affect reparability?
If companies could sell generators with a big sticker on them that says "with new feature that prevents shark attacks" now that might actually get people interested in buying it over the competition. But a CO shutoff probably doesn't get many people interested.
No, it's a perfect example of how the government's standard response to a small number of people being stupid and irresponsible is to punish all of the not stupid, not irresponsible people. I don't need a CO detector and automatic shutoff on my portable generator because I have a clue and won't run it indoors. And, as other commenters have pointed out, a CO detector and automatic shutoff are now two more things that can break on my generator--probably right when I need it most, when the power is out. But if this regulation passes, I won't have a choice; I'll have to suffer the consequences of the cluelessness of others. How is that fair? How does it even make sense? Why penalize the actual mature adults just because a few people can't be bothered to be mature adults?
If this rule passes, owners would need to replace their CO chemical sensor every 5-7 years, and it's likely that the manufacturers will charge more than $5 to ship the part. If I were making generators, I would encourage the CSPC to adopt the rule in order to create an ongoing "printer ink" style revenue stream.
Alternatively, they could just declare the generator EoL with no replacement sensor, so owners have to buy a new one after 7 years. They're saving lives and printing money, what's not to love?
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
The common / low cost carbon monoxide detectors use a chemical reaction (either a fuel cell or one of a few reactions that produce a colour change in the presence of CO) - the chemistry degrades with time and exposure causing the sensitivity to drop off over time.
I’m not sure how much of a safety margin they have (like could it still detect dangerous levels at 2x it’s design life or something) but a quality generator would have a life of several times that of a CO sensor at least so replacement will definitely/hopefully be a design consideration.
I suppose that anybody running the generator properly would have to add a fan to the generator in order to reduce false trips. But false trips can still happen from CO sensor degradation over time, it's a single failure point.
It's a shame that everything has to be made worse just because some people think that you can run a generator indoors for some reason, despite it being covered in warning labels about exactly that.
(f) Tamper resistance. (1) A portable generator system for controlling CO exposure shall be tamper resistant. The system is considered tamper resistant when any part that is shorted, disconnected, or removed to disable the operation of the system prevents the engine from running. In addition, all parts, including wiring, which affect proper operation of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure, must be (a) permanently sealed or (b) not normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools. It is permissible for different parts of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure to meet either option (a) or (b), provided all of the different parts meet at least one of these two options.
In particular I'd like to see so-called "solar generators" or "power stations" be out of scope for requiring "carbon monoxide detection" features, since they're literally just batteries + inverters.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/20/2023-07...
It's wonderful how the public doesn't actually find out about these things until it's too late.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2006-0057-0118
/!\ Unable to send email. Contact the site administrator if the problem persists.
Just turn on a fan they say. Open a door.
The number of people who would without hesitation start a generator indoors is far too high. It’s against OSHA of course.
People smart enough to run generators correctly on the other hand now have to pay for safety features they do not require.
Over 1,300 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by portable generators between 2004 and 2021 alone. [1] Another 77,000 people were hurt in that same period. Worse yet, a quarter of all fatal incidents associated with portable generators involve multiple deaths at once, some involving entire families.[2]
Now let's run those numbers:
(2021-2004)*1000000000/(1300+77000) = 217,114
For this US rule to save $1B/yr then each incident must cost $217,114 for deaths and related injuries. I'm not buying it.
Obviously this rule is a Good Thing - I'm not disputing that and I'm not disputing it should be adopted. I'm disputing this yellow journalism claim that adopting it is going to save us $1 billion per year. Even with the hight cost of medical care in the US it's easy to see this isn't the case.
Adding that feature in will makes people think that it’s safe to run generators indoors because the sensor will cut off when it’s not. Except inevitably the sensor will fail or the co will end up moving to a basement and killing someone
I’ll wager people run the generator without any thought as to whether there’s a cut off or not and that’s why they die. It seems like a real on the margin case that someone thinks “I can run this indoors safely because the safety mechanism will cut off once it’s unsafe” and simultaneously the failsafe malfunctions. Comparatively to “I’m not very smart and the power is off so I’m going to run a gasoline engine inside my house” seems to be pretty common today.
Without any data on how much such a failsafe costs it’s hard to evaluate if the cost of the safety feature is that burdensome, but for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house.
No, he's saying that the failsafe adds no value for the vast majority of generator users, because they take responsibility for their own actions and their consequences and learn how to properly use their portable generators. So requiring the failsafe by regulation is punishing all of the responsible adults because of a few irresponsible people. That doesn't make sense. The people who should suffer the consequences of being irresponsible are the people who are irresponsible, not everybody else.
> apparently a common enough event
1300 deaths and 77,000 injuries--over 17 years. That's not common at all; it's miniscule. From what I can gather, about 10% of households have portable generators. That's 30 million of them in the US alone.
In the same period of time, roughly 510,000 people in the US died in traffic accidents (roughly 30,000 a year times 17 years). And that's even after decades of government regulations imposing safety features on vehicles. So not only is regulation like this unfair and nonsensical, it doesn't even work. People who insist on being irresponsible will find a way to do it no matter what regulations you impose. The rest of us should not have to suffer the burden of ever-increasing regulations that don't even work.
> for each of those “not smart going to run a generator” that doesn’t kill their entire family, there will be at least someone who got a good bargain on the feature by not killing everyone in their house
This kind of reasoning does not justify a government regulation. It only counts the benefit to the miniscule number of people who can't be responsible on their own. It doesn't count the cost, both in the ever-increasing burden of regulations we all have to deal with, and the ever-increasing power we are forced to give the government on such grounds, which then gets misused in more and more ways.
I could easily see a person now choosing to run an indoor generator and relying on the cutoff to trigger when the levels are too high. In a hurricane situation I could even see taking that risk myself under desperate circumstances.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment