https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 7:46:31 AM UTC-4, keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
Do you have a cite for that "may get 35 mpg"? The highest I can find for an all-gas
2017 Camry is 33 mpg. We all know no one will average even that 33 mpg from >LA to Denver. I'm not saying that CA's calculations are correct, but I'm not sure
that yours are either. Facts matter.
CA didn't "force" global warming on us. We all took care of that all on our own.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 7:46:31 AM UTC-4, keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
Do you have a cite for that "may get 35 mpg"? The highest I can find for an all-gas
2017 Camry is 33 mpg. We all know no one will average even that 33 mpg from LA to Denver. I'm not saying that CA's calculations are correct, but I'm not sure
that yours are either. Facts matter.
NYS does it by the hour:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/109428.html
"Emissions
The amount of CO (carbon monoxide) emitted from a typical backpack leaf blower for just 1 hour is equal to CO coming from the tailpipe of a current year
automobile operating for over 8 hours. For the other pollutants, the amounts are even greater."
~1100 miles/~70 MPH = ~16 hours. It would be interesting to see the calculation that
CA used. NYS's 8 hours is for CO, but states that other pollutants "are even greater".
Maybe CA used some sort of weighted average to get its numbers. Various pollutants,
various equipment, various conditions of equipment, etc., all factor in. Maybe NYS used
combined city/highway (27 mpg). Still, CA's numbers do seem high compared to NYS.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
CA didn't "force" global warming on us. We all took care of that all on our own.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>> emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
Leon wrote:
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal burner".
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one
hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from >>>> Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
On 10/11/2021 11:06 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 7:46:31 AM UTC-4, keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>> emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
Do you have a cite for that "may get 35 mpg"? The highest I can find for an all-gas
2017 Camry is 33 mpg. We all know no one will average even that 33 mpg from >> LA to Denver. I'm not saying that CA's calculations are correct, but I'm not sure
that yours are either. Facts matter.
NYS does it by the hour:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/109428.html
"Emissions
The amount of CO (carbon monoxide) emitted from a typical backpack leaf
blower for just 1 hour is equal to CO coming from the tailpipe of a current year
automobile operating for over 8 hours. For the other pollutants, the amounts >> are even greater."
~1100 miles/~70 MPH = ~16 hours. It would be interesting to see the calculation that
CA used. NYS's 8 hours is for CO, but states that other pollutants "are even greater".
Maybe CA used some sort of weighted average to get its numbers. Various pollutants,
various equipment, various conditions of equipment, etc., all factor in. Maybe NYS used
combined city/highway (27 mpg). Still, CA's numbers do seem high compared to NYS.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
CA didn't "force" global warming on us. We all took care of that all on our own.
And yet, global warming no longer exists, it is called, climate change,
what we have always witnessed all of our lives.
Follow the money!
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>> emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal burner".
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one
hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from >>>>> Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >>>>> period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 >>>>> miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >>>>> gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that >appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
On 10/11/2021 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that
period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half
gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
Unfortunately our society is turning into a bunch of idiots. They will >believe anything.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:25:42 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal burner". >>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one >>>>> hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from >>>>> Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >>>>> period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 >>>>> miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >>>>> gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?! >>>>
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us. >>>>WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that >appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.Again, like Tesla batteries, both the car type and the absurd power
So that is not helping the "Planet".
walls. We don't care if the rest of the planet turns into a gigantic
strip mine as long as it's the world's poor who have to put up with
it. That's liberalism (i.e. progressivism) at its core.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 14:16:49 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Yep all of us.
On Monday, October 11, 2021 at 6:20:36 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:25:42 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:Again, like Tesla batteries, both the car type and the absurd power
Leon wrote:
On 10/11/2021 1:16 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal burner". >> >>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one
hour
emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from >> >>>>> Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >> >>>>> period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 >> >>>>> miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >> >>>>> gallon.
...but how much pollution is a backyard gas grill cause? Charcoal?!
How about a typical California forest fire?
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us. >> >>>>WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Or a gas furnace and or fireplace?
AND the pollution to generate electricity?
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
walls. We don't care if the rest of the planet turns into a gigantic
strip mine as long as it's the world's poor who have to put up with
it. That's liberalism (i.e. progressivism) at its core.
I wonder about the political persuasion of the owners of those strip mines.
Ya think they all voted for The Squad?
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >>period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >>gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
Can we just ban California?
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in >news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >nicely.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in >news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As longI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from
Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >>period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35
miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >>gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
Can we just ban California?
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >>> slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>> nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question...
TIA
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very nicely.
Puckdropper
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:I had heard that years ago, but not sure whether it was urban legend...if so, sure makes one wonder why the push for battery driven equipment...
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>> nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question...
TIA
A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
The products were a comparison of the Toyota Prius and the Hummer.
The Hummer was better for the planet.
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >> >slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very
nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question...
TIA
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can
charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As
long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out
very
nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
battery driven equipment?
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are
reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my
question...
TIA
A study was performed...
On 10/12/21 10:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can
charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As
long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out
very
nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
battery driven equipment?
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are
reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my
question...
TIA
A study was performed...
Which study?
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
You did not provide a citation to the study. The internet is
at your fingertips and it shows that your myth was debunked over a
decade ago.
Here's the original study from 2002 (which is from a marketing research company).
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf
And here are the rebuttals from 2007 and 2009.
https://www.cnet.com/news/dust-to-dust-is-dust-prius-uses-less-energy-than-hummer/
https://www.autobytel.com/toyota/prius/2009/reviews/emissions-showdown-toyota-prius-vs-hummer-h2-105357/
As far as battery disposal goes - the materials in the batteries are far too valuable to discard - they're re-used (for stationary uses), remanufactuered (into new batteries) or the materials are recycled.
https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html
"The nickel-metal hydride batteries found in hybrid vehicles
are basically "zero-landfill" products. Whatever can't be
recycled is consumed in the recycling process, leaving no
trash behind. The primary metals recovered are nickel, copper
and iron. The principal rare earths are neodymium and lanthanum."
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:03:16 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:I had heard that years ago, but not sure whether it was urban legend...if so, sure makes one wonder why the push for battery driven equipment...
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>>>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>>>> nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question...
TIA
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
The products were a comparison of the Toyota Prius and the Hummer.
The Hummer was better for the planet.
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
You did not provide a citation to the study. The internet is
at your fingertips and it shows that your myth was debunked over a
decade ago.
Here's the original study from 2002 (which is from a marketing research company).
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf
And here are the rebuttals from 2007 and 2009.
https://www.cnet.com/news/dust-to-dust-is-dust-prius-uses-less-energy-than-hummer/
https://www.autobytel.com/toyota/prius/2009/reviews/emissions-showdown-toyota-prius-vs-hummer-h2-105357/
As far as battery disposal goes - the materials in the batteries are far too valuable to discard - they're re-used (for stationary uses), remanufactuered (into new batteries) or the materials are recycled.
https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html
"The nickel-metal hydride batteries found in hybrid vehicles
are basically "zero-landfill" products. Whatever can't be
recycled is consumed in the recycling process, leaving no
trash behind. The primary metals recovered are nickel, copper
and iron. The principal rare earths are neodymium and lanthanum."
On 10/12/2021 12:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
You did not provide a citation to the study. The internet is
at your fingertips and it shows that your myth was debunked over a
decade ago.
Actually my son showed me the article. It was published in either Road
and Track or Car and Driver. As accurate as any other study.
Here's the original study from 2002 (which is from a marketing research company).
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf
And here are the rebuttals from 2007 and 2009.
https://www.cnet.com/news/dust-to-dust-is-dust-prius-uses-less-energy-than-hummer/
https://www.autobytel.com/toyota/prius/2009/reviews/emissions-showdown-toyota-prius-vs-hummer-h2-105357/
On 10/12/2021 7:49 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>You forgot your basic chemistry. The energy in an organic molecule
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >>> slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>> nicely.
I am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
comes the the carbon atom, as it reacts with an another element. ie C
to CO, CO2. There will be addition intermediate molecules formed as it >burns. It takes the same number of carbon atoms in natural gas as it
does gasoline to produce similar energy.
So it makes no difference if you you natural gas or gasoline the same
amount of CO2 will be produced for the same amount of energy.
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 1:03:16 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:I had heard that years ago, but not sure whether it was urban legend...if so, sure makes one wonder why the push for battery driven equipment...
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:A study was performed comparing the damage to the planet from
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment?
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >> >>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >> >>> nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question...
TIA
manufacture to the fuel used during the life of the product and finally
the disposal of the product.
The products were a comparison of the Toyota Prius and the Hummer.
The Hummer was better for the planet.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in >>news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal
burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge >>slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>nicely.
I am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:46:27 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour >>>emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from >>>Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that >>>period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 >>>miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half >>>gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
Can we just ban California?
Feel Free. You need California more than California needs you.
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 4:06:24 PM UTC-4, Beeper wrote:
On 10/12/21 10:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com>Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can >>>>>> charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As >>>>>> long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out >>>>>> very
nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load >>>>> power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes >>>>> less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
battery driven equipment?
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are
reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my
question...
TIA
A study was performed...
Which study?
The one that was performed.
On 10/12/21 1:30 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 4:06:24 PM UTC-4, Beeper wrote:
On 10/12/21 10:03 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:25 AM, Brian Welch wrote:
On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 7:49:28 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckd...@yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote:Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote inI am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8...@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else. >>>>>>> So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can >>>>>> charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As >>>>>> long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out >>>>>> very
nicely.
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load >>>>> power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes >>>>> less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84% >>>>> carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels. >>>>>
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
battery driven equipment?
Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are
reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my
question...
TIA
A study was performed...
Which study?
The one that was performed.Please provide a citation. Thank you.
On 10/12/2021 8:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:52:06 -0400, knuttleUnless you have a coal fired car, we are not talking about pure carbon.
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 7:49 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>You forgot your basic chemistry. The energy in an organic molecule
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>>>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>>>> nicely.
I am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
comes the the carbon atom, as it reacts with an another element. ie C
to CO, CO2. There will be addition intermediate molecules formed as it
burns. It takes the same number of carbon atoms in natural gas as it
does gasoline to produce similar energy.
So it makes no difference if you you natural gas or gasoline the same
amount of CO2 will be produced for the same amount of energy.
Sorry, but I did not "forget my basic chemistry", I remembered my
graduate level combustion theory.
To produce 1000 KJ of energy from octane releases 774 grams of CO2, to
produces that same 1000 KJ from methane rleases 594 grams. And to
produce it from pure carbon releases 1341 grams.
Why the difference? Because there is this other substance called
"hydrogen" that that also forms part of those molecules and releases 4
times as much energy per gram as carbon.
Yes there are other compounds produced as the C is converted from H
bonds to O bonds. CH2O
But H does not produce CO2. If the Religion of Climate Change were not >concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, there never would be a question
about which organic we used to fuel our equipment.
On 10/12/2021 8:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:52:06 -0400, knuttleUnless you have a coal fired car, we are not talking about pure carbon.
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 7:49 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com>You forgot your basic chemistry. The energy in an organic molecule
wrote:
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else.
So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long >>>>> as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very >>>>> nicely.
I am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load
power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes
less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84%
carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels.
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable
sources increases, this will improve.
comes the the carbon atom, as it reacts with an another element. ie C
to CO, CO2. There will be addition intermediate molecules formed as it
burns. It takes the same number of carbon atoms in natural gas as it
does gasoline to produce similar energy.
So it makes no difference if you you natural gas or gasoline the same
amount of CO2 will be produced for the same amount of energy.
Sorry, but I did not "forget my basic chemistry", I remembered my
graduate level combustion theory.
To produce 1000 KJ of energy from octane releases 774 grams of CO2, to
produces that same 1000 KJ from methane rleases 594 grams. And to
produce it from pure carbon releases 1341 grams.
Why the difference? Because there is this other substance called
"hydrogen" that that also forms part of those molecules and releases 4
times as much energy per gram as carbon.
Yes there are other compounds produced as the C is converted from H
bonds to O bonds. CH2O
But H does not produce CO2. If the Religion of Climate Change were not >concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, there never would be a question
about which organic we used to fuel our equipment.
On 10/13/2021 6:07 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:30:43 -0400, knuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 8:34 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 17:52:06 -0400, knuttleUnless you have a coal fired car, we are not talking about pure carbon.
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 7:49 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 08:31:30 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper@yahoo.com> >>>>>> wrote:You forgot your basic chemistry. The energy in an organic molecule
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:gtGdnU2PNJVINvn8nZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 10/11/2021 4:02 PM, G Ross wrote:
My neighbor has a battery powered lawn mower. I call it a "Coal >>>>>>>>> burner".
Electric anything only helps the air where you use that
appliance/car/tool/etc. The pollution continues somewhere else. >>>>>>>> So that is not helping the "Planet".
I think solar and lawn mowers would make a good pairing. Mowers can charge
slowly because they only need to be run once maybe twice a week. As long
as the batteries aren't murdered by the chargers, it would work out very
nicely.
I am getting tired of people whining about how "the pollution
continues somewhere else".
(1) Internal combustion engines are far less efficient than base load >>>>>> power plants. For a given output, the base load power plant consumes >>>>>> less fuel and thus emits less carbon.
(2) Internal combustion engines burn gasoline, which is roughly 84% >>>>>> carbon by mass. The most common fossil fuel for electric power
generation is natural gas, which is only 74% carbon by mass.
(3) Only 60% of US electric power production is from fossil fuels. >>>>>>
So using electricity instead of gasoline _does_ reduce carbon
emissions. And as the percentage of electric power from renewable >>>>>> sources increases, this will improve.
comes the the carbon atom, as it reacts with an another element. ie C >>>>> to CO, CO2. There will be addition intermediate molecules formed as it >>>>> burns. It takes the same number of carbon atoms in natural gas as it >>>>> does gasoline to produce similar energy.
So it makes no difference if you you natural gas or gasoline the same >>>>> amount of CO2 will be produced for the same amount of energy.
Sorry, but I did not "forget my basic chemistry", I remembered my
graduate level combustion theory.
To produce 1000 KJ of energy from octane releases 774 grams of CO2, to >>>> produces that same 1000 KJ from methane rleases 594 grams. And to
produce it from pure carbon releases 1341 grams.
Why the difference? Because there is this other substance called
"hydrogen" that that also forms part of those molecules and releases 4 >>>> times as much energy per gram as carbon.
Yes there are other compounds produced as the C is converted from H
bonds to O bonds. CH2O
But H does not produce CO2. If the Religion of Climate Change were not
concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere, there never would be a question
about which organic we used to fuel our equipment.
Where do you see the words "pure carbon" in "To produce 1000 KJ of
energy from octane releases 774 grams of CO2, to produces that same
1000 KJ from methane rleases 594 grams"?
last sentence 2nd to last paragraph, in the post I replied to.
And to produce it from pure carbon releases 1341 grams.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
On 10/11/21 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.This is the answer:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228033258/http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/11/21 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:
This is the answer:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228033258/http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
The very definition of "too much time on your hands”. :-)
On 10/18/21 7:31 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/11/21 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:
This is the answer:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228033258/http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
The very definition of "too much time on your hands. :-)
It fairness, that was written years ago and can now only be found on the internet
archive. Still, I think the tone of this is perfect ...
Keep an eye out for those Saturday Night Drill Specials ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:41:31 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <in...@tundraware.com> wrote:
On 10/18/21 7:31 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/11/21 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:The very definition of "too much time on your hands”. :-)
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us. >>> This is the answer:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228033258/http://www.allmax.com/MILT/ >>
It fairness, that was written years ago and can now only be found on the internet
archive. Still, I think the tone of this is perfect ...
Keep an eye out for those Saturday Night Drill Specials ...Are the drills live?
On 10/18/21 7:31 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 10:40:05 AM UTC-4, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/11/21 6:46 AM, knuttle wrote:
This is the answer:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/california-law-to-eventually-ban-gas-powered-lawn-equipment
"Now, state officials say running a gas-powered leaf blower for one hour emits the same amount of pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Denver, a distance of about 1,100 miles."
A gas powered leaf blower uses less that a half gallon of gas in that period. (At least my Makita BHX 2500 does) A 2017 toyota may get 35 miles per gallon. so 1100 miles divided by 35mpg = 31 gallons.
burning 31 gallons of gas produces less pollution that burning a half gallon.
That is the logic that they are using to force global warming on us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170228033258/http://www.allmax.com/MILT/
The very definition of "too much time on your hands”. :-)
It fairness, that was written years ago and can now only be found on the internet
archive. Still, I think the tone of this is perfect ...
Keep an eye out for those Saturday Night Drill Specials ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:46:02 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,627 |