Battery Operated Yard Tools California style

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Brian Welch]

Is there any verifiable documentation on the carbon footprint of battery driven equipment? Batteries, both in their manufacture and their disposal, are reportedly less than environmentally-friendly, to what degree is my question... TIA

[Scott Lurndal]

Feel Free. You need California more than California needs you.

[Leon]

Except for the pollution of disposing with the batteries... ;~(

[Leon]

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.

[Brian Welch]

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...

[Scott Lurndal]

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).

And here are the rebuttals from 2007 and 2009.

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.

"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."

[J. Clarke]

Don't conflate "environmental friendliness" with "carbon footprint".

And don't conflate "now in China" with "in the US once the grid is all renewable".

And there isn't any verifiable documentation. There are numerous studies based on models and on small scale production but none based on actual results from a large scale battery manufacturing complex.

[Beeper]

Which study?

[DerbyDad03]

The one that was performed.

[Leon]

IIRC Road and Track conducted that study.

Follow the money and these things are often sold as earth friendly. Earth friendly will often lure those that do not think past their little worlds.

[Leon]

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.

[knuttle]

Has the enegery and the polution from the chemical processes required to recover the nickel, lithium, etc been considered.

As a chemist, I would probably recover the nickel by disolving it in an acid solution and recovering the nickel from the resultion solution. One way to recover the nickel from solution would be to plate it out on an electrode, which requires a lot of electricity.

The metals could be separated using a membrane, but this creates a lot of water which has to be disposed of.

I have not checked the physical chemistries, but in some case exterme tempertures can be used as a recovery method.

[knuttle]

You forgot your basic chemistry. The energy in an organic molecule 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.

[Scott Lurndal]

Perhaps your memory is faulty. I can't find any such story at either Road & Track or Car & Driver on their on-line properties.

All the search results point to the marketing study referred to below.

The cites below show that the analysis by the marketing company that did the "study" was inaccurate. And it was almost two decades ago.

[J. Clarke]

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.

[krw]

If you don't like facts...

If you want to burn coal, I have no objection. The problem is that the greenies don't want to burn anything. Solar and wind don't and can't work.

Don't forget transmission and distribution. People don't want generation anywhere near them. They don't want transmission lines anywhere near them either.

Greenies don't like nukes, either.

How much additional capacity would it take to replace all gasoline/diesel? Who's going to get the permits?

[krw]

There are few things worse, environmentally, than the mining of lithium. There is probably nothing worse strategically.

[krw]

Bullshit.

[Beeper]

Please provide a citation. Thank you.