Lister Engine Forum

Lister Engines => Listeroid Engines => Topic started by: Tanman on January 21, 2020, 07:20:25 PM

Title: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 21, 2020, 07:20:25 PM
Have you guys read this:

EPA Regulations
§ 1068.315 Permanent exemptions for imported engines/equipment.
*** * *
(i) Ancient engine/equipment exemption.
If you are not the original engine/equipment manufacturer, you may import nonconforming engines/ equipment that are subject to a standard-setting part and were FIRST (emphasis mine) manufactured at least 21 years earlier, as long as they are still substantially in their original configurations.

Would the word FIRST there not make it legal to import replicas of engines over 21 year old!
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: sirpedrosa on January 21, 2020, 07:57:27 PM
Hi Tan

"If you are not the original engine/equipment manufacturer"... "as long as they are still substantially in their original configurations"

A replica its not "original" even after 21....25....or more years.

I think you can import a Lister (old iron) CS, JP, FR or other, but.... (see) but not a Listeroid.

But (again) nothing like to ask to your near customs how they read that article...

Cheers
VP
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: basewindow on January 21, 2020, 08:34:04 PM
I read that differently. I interpret it as saying that as long as you are not the OEM, you can import as long as they were first manufactured 21 year or more ago and substantially in original condition.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 21, 2020, 09:01:43 PM
I read that differently. I interpret it as saying that as long as you are not the OEM, you can import as long as they were first manufactured 21 year or more ago and substantially in original condition.

Same here, it says if YOU are not the original manufacturer..... not the engine itself.
If they wanted to ban clones and copies of old engines they would have omitted the word "first", so whoever at the EPA/importing is putting the kibosh on importing replicas of engines that were first manufactured at least 21 years earlier is overstepping the regulation. How does this ancient engine exemption not apply to clones?
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: broncodriver99 on January 22, 2020, 01:52:22 AM
I think it means anything over 21 years old is exempt. Not brand new versions of antique engines. Importing original CS engines is not a problem, never has been. I have had to submit paperwork for the ones I have imported breaking down the serial number to prove they were manufactured before emissions regulations were set for their class, which IIRC was around 2006.

It is also a question of what they mean by "first". Engines that have been rebuilt are considered to be and referred to as re-manufactured by the EPA, hence the verbiage about being substantially in their original configuration.

I think the verbiage about not being the OEM is to prevent a manufacturer with a warehouse full of non compliant but antique engines from importing them directly. Kubota could have a warehouse full of "remanufactured" engines that would be exempt and could therefore import as many non compliant engines as they wanted, so they exclude OEM's from the exemption to prevent it.

Speaking of Kubota. If one was to set up shop in any country outside the US popping out "replicas" of older non compliant Kubota designs that cannot meet the current emissions requirements do you really think they would be allowed to be imported, much less in any quantity. I don't think so.

A quick call to the EPA and/or Customs and Border Patrol should clear it up though. At the end of the day it is the officer who inspects the shipment who makes the call.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 22, 2020, 03:05:30 AM
That makes a lot of sense. I’m surprised an individual/small business isn’t importing pre 2006 Kubotas, Yanmars, and listers in by the container load. Nos and used engines like that have to be available in large quantities in parts of India and Asia.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 22, 2020, 03:57:06 PM
That is a good perspective Glort. I just get bent out of shape when the gov says you can't do something that is harmless and something the little guy wants. I'm literally paying them to tell me no lmao.

*I did have my lawyer look over the regulations and he said basically the same thing that broncdriver99 said.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 22, 2020, 07:37:40 PM
Two items:

It reads to me as it reads to broncodriver99.  Much like 25 year old automobile importation.

These engines are not harmless.  They do exhaust rather nasty particulates when operating on diesel.  I appreciate the tempest in the teapot aroma of this stand but just look at the air and water where there is NO or weak Environmental Protection Agency like programs.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: guest25219 on January 22, 2020, 09:01:28 PM
Two items:

It reads to me as it reads to broncodriver99.  Much like 25 year old automobile importation.

These engines are not harmless.  They do exhaust rather nasty particulates when operating on diesel.  I appreciate the tempest in the teapot aroma of this stand but just look at the air and water where there is NO or weak Environmental Protection Agency like programs.

I was thinking it read a lot like the automobile importation rules as well.

And yeah these engines exhaust isn't great. I definitely was rubbing my eyes, and my nose was running for several hours after I was running the engine with a less than perfect exhaust. Yeah the EPA makes rules that can be frustrating at times. But in the grand scheme of things, they have done a lot of good for the environment, and general health of the population. 
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: AdeV on January 22, 2020, 09:24:01 PM
These engines are not harmless.  They do exhaust rather nasty particulates when operating on diesel.  I appreciate the tempest in the teapot aroma of this stand but just look at the air and water where there is NO or weak Environmental Protection Agency like programs.

If everyone in the US was messing about with an old Lister[oid], then yes - you'd have a fairly major pollution problem.

10,000 of the things in the hands of amateurs isn't worth a fart in space.

I'm sure that, if there was ever a civil servant anywhere on the planet with more than 1 1/2 brain cells to rub together, [s ]he would come to the same conclusion and allow a limited number of annual imports, e.g. on a "not for resale" basis.

Even our godforsaken EU (crafters of some of the most stringent regulations in the solar system) recognised that one could import "an item for personal use" which didn't meet EU standards (for safety, emissions, or whatever). You just couldn't bring in a container full & sell them.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: AdeV on January 22, 2020, 09:46:46 PM
... completely ignoring the emissions of places like china and india whom emit magnitudes more than we do.

I saw someone argue today - with a straight face, no less - that because the US/UK's "per capita" emissions were higher than China's "per capita" emissions, we needed to put our own house in order first, before humbly begging the Chinese to do something.

Never mind that China alone is responsible for something like 30% of ALL "pollution" emissions on the planet. Because there's 1.4bn of them, that makes it OK apparently.

Oh yeah, I read it in the Guardian of course - the UK's official hand-wringing liberal-lefty rag... and annoyingly the only news forum that's both free to use & that I haven't been banned from yet...
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: guest25219 on January 22, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
Remember when people would say. "Lead by example?"

 (https://memecrunch.com/meme/BYB01/pepperidge-farms-remembers/image.jpg?w=400&c=1)

Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: guest25219 on January 22, 2020, 10:22:25 PM
Again, people right here on this forum will sell you a new rebuilt engine done right but from what i read, they cant find any takers?

Get out of here with that logic Glort! How can we get upset and be angry at others when you say stuff like that?
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: dkmc on January 24, 2020, 12:06:55 AM
Let them stage ther protests for a week. Out in the hot sun, the rain and storms, fouling ther own pants and sitting in it.

Great. I spit my low grade malt all over the monitor.
LOL
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 24, 2020, 09:21:32 PM
Wisdom without end. 

I haven't seen the study where folks that use diesel or wood for heat and / or power have different health outcomes.  Sounds like a masters thesis to me.

In honor of "Catch 22":  "If everyone did it that way then I'd be crazy to do it any other way."

Slightly askew.  When I was about 12 the damn futurists decided to start reclaiming Lake Washington that touches up against Seattle.  There were consistent spots where swimming was not allowed at any time.  60 years later you can swim anywhere in the lake you want except for when the public sewers break.  And the lake is healthy enough to absorb those spills in a week or so.  Same trip on Cedar River - a tributary of Lake Washington.  I drank the water as a kid and had become careful about how I played in the river only 30 years later.  In moves the libratards and now I can see the salmon even in the deep areas.  No I don't drink it anymore.  But then we've got a well now rather than a water line that runs up the holler and catches whatever out of the creek.  That move was the same year we found a VW Beetle upside down right smack dab in the middle of the crick.

And then you see the photos of SE Asia and the sub continent.  Holly cow!  Pun intended.  Makes you appreciate the war on one use plastics.

https://honolulu.craigslist.org/big/cto/d/honaunau-bio-diesel-cooker-plant/7048078605.html (https://honolulu.craigslist.org/big/cto/d/honaunau-bio-diesel-cooker-plant/7048078605.html)
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 25, 2020, 12:37:23 AM

Again, people right here on this forum will sell you a new rebuilt engine done right but from what i read, they cant find any takers?

I think the main reason listeroids aren't moving is because the demand is dropping, like you said before there are other higher performance modern options (Kubota 2 and 3 cylinder engines) that can be had for $750-1000 all day long. But most folks still want $2,200+ for their listeroid like during the first 10 years of the ban. I would love listeroids to become more affordable for the average guy (one reason I like to look for loopholes in the regulations, more supply = lower prices) they are unique and do what they do well, but I think prices more inline with what we are seeing lightly used Kubota going for would be more realistic. I think everyone got excited when people were willing to pay $3,000+ for a listeroid in the near past, and it's tough when they are selling for less than that today and probably less next year. We will see what the "free" market does I guess.......
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 25, 2020, 07:04:21 PM
SOLAR vs All The Time and Trouble
and
Running Costs
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: mike90045 on January 25, 2020, 09:25:11 PM
>  SOLAR vs All The Time and Trouble and Running Costs

except when solar is not:
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Tanman on January 26, 2020, 05:40:28 AM
Any tips on where to get panels cheap?
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: AdeV on January 26, 2020, 12:05:38 PM
Any tips on where to get panels cheap?

Australian dumpsters, by the sounds of it!
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 26, 2020, 05:07:38 PM
Let me clarify.  Solar is replacing generators.  Especially big heavy units that put out less than 5 KW.  I believe it's called a disrupted market.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 27, 2020, 05:09:02 PM
The world is transitioning.  There are solar systems without generators showing up more frequently as time marches by.  Just like cars.  If I had suggested 15 years ago that there would be battery powered autos not too uncommon on the road you would have been doubtful.  Today it is a fact.  Ten years ago if I reported that there were battery based solar homes you would have held the same doubt.

I'm offering one of the reasons, a growing one, that our old (technologically for sure) friends are losing their market share and popularity.  Perhaps we could write a science fiction movie about the remaining people being saved by a Lister diesel generating enough electricity to keep the incandescent lights on in the growing warehouse to feed and maintain the circadian rhythms to maintain life.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: StrawHat on January 28, 2020, 07:42:31 AM
I think many are missing the simple and obvious about why EPA regs seek to outlaw the Listeriods. Our gubberment doesn't want anyone living off grid! Why? Simply put, they make tax money on every watt you buy off the grid. That's it!
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: AdeV on January 28, 2020, 07:59:49 AM
Any tips on where to get panels cheap?

Australian dumpsters, by the sounds of it!  :laugh:

As Ironic as your well meaning sarcasm is Ade, You are dead right!

Wasn't sarcasm - just wry humour :)


The hard to get bits are the inverters. Panels last decades, the early inverters were lucky to last 5 years and here thanks to the wonderfully beneficial ( to me) laws, If an inverter goes belly up you can't replace it.
Well you can, but only with the same inverter.... which being 5+ years old of course are long obsolete and out of production so you have to install an entire new system. This is where pretty much all my panels have come from bar the last lots.


Good effing grief. Just when I think we must have reached peak Government stupidity - along comes something which proves me dead wrong. So basically, the laws in Australia (or your bit of it at least) mean that if a 5-year-old inverter goes pop, you have to rip off panels which would be good for at least another 20 years, because you can't change inverter?!?! No wonder you're finding stacks of good used panels for nuppence. I bet there's a rule the panels can't be re-sold either.

Panels here in the UK are still relatively expensive, and you very very rarely see 2nd hand ones on the market - I think our gov't would rather see existing panels in service as long as possible, and the electrical side being as modern as possible... so no such rule here.

Then again, we get the square root of bugger all in the way of sunshine, compared with most of Oz. We'd be better off with micro hydro systems in our drainpipes I reckon...
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: guest25219 on January 28, 2020, 11:00:04 AM
Panels here in the UK are still relatively expensive, and you very very rarely see 2nd hand ones on the market - I think our gov't would rather see existing panels in service as long as possible, and the electrical side being as modern as possible... so no such rule here.

Then again, we get the square root of bugger all in the way of sunshine, compared with most of Oz. We'd be better off with micro hydro systems in our drainpipes I reckon...

Just a slight difference in specific yield  ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/VGn6X6M.jpg)
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: AdeV on January 29, 2020, 01:07:35 PM
From the way I'm reading it, some coastal areas seem to get less radiation than inland.

Coastal areas tend to have more cloud cover than non-coastal; especially if there's hilly/mountainous land close to the coast (e.g. North Wales). So whilst the solar flux (is that the right word?) is just as strong as anywhere else on that lattitude, it mostly bounces off the top of the clouds...
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: LowGear on January 29, 2020, 05:12:33 PM
I can't believe the amount of gain my solar system is putting out now compared to two years ago when we were having VOG (Volcano generated SMOG).  It is amazing.

We face the same forced obsolescence here in Hawaii.  I wouldn't be able to put my inverter on a system seeking licensing today even though being twelve years old it's purring right along.  This regulation is just a door stop the Hawaii Electric Company uses to discourage wider use of solar.  It is not a function of government code.

At the same time if I increase my system size I must switch from a watt for watt exchange program to a wholesale out and retail in program for the existing system as well as the additional capacity upgrade.  The working but older inverter would be Okay for the old system but could not be used in the upgraded part.  Kind of makes you appreciate extra soft tissue paper.
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: Hugh Conway on January 30, 2020, 10:51:32 PM
@ Glort.... re the cloud edge effect. I have noticed that myself, occasionally in summer. Here in the North Pacific winter ar 50*N, the clouds don't have edges........in fact "clouds" is a misnomer.......it is just CLOUD (as  in one all-encompassing cloud) most of the time! My solar panels are useless then.
Bless the listeroid! It is running right now charging up the battery bank.
Otherwise, it would be kerosene lamps at noon.
Cheers,
Hugh
Title: Re: EPA Regulations
Post by: mikenash on January 31, 2020, 06:20:40 AM
Quote:

"    A grid size Lister is known as a coal fired power plant
and without exception is the most reliable, dependable and cheapest form of grid qty power . . . ."

I guess this is the same process that is used by politicians - especially during elections years:  Say something moronic, simplistic & inaccurate - but sound definite and informed and demonstrate your readiness to shower words & invective over anyone who disagrees - and most people will either believe you or at least realise that challenging you is more hassle than it's worth.

However:

Down here at the bottom of the world we're sneaking up on 89% renewable (hydro, wind, smidgens of solar here & there, playing with wave stuff etc etc)

If it wasn't for the (depending on the harshness of the winter) eight to eleven days every year when it's really cold & we use lots of power and burn some gas or coal to make up the shortfall, and for the ecologically inefficient but fiscally efficient decision-making of the generating companies (running the hydro lakes lower than optimum while turning the windmills off cos it's more profitable to use hydro than wind)  we could be 100% renewable and with energy to spare

Of course, our situation is unusual in that we're a small, mountainous country with good hydro potential

On a global scale I offer as proof of my assertion the (as of statistics available early last year) the 99.997% of all the electricity ever generated anywhere by nuclear plants which have never had a "leakage" scare, a spill, an explosion, a melt-down, a catastrophe - or anything worse than a bit of bad press

Those are the real cheap, reliable, dependable generators . . .

Just saying :)