Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

username-1787 t1_je61ot2 wrote

Reply to comment by threwthelookinggrass in Yo! When’s your first grass cut gonna happen this year? by Pancake108

Electrifying lawn equipment should be priority #1 as opposed to electric cars

EV has to happen too, but if we can make a similar emissions reduction with products that are well within the budget of your average family ($50 leaf blower vs $50,000 car) and have a battery that is several hundred times smaller than your average EV that is a huge climate win

13

ShanghaiShrek t1_je6drhq wrote

That's what CARB is trying to do and people still complain. All of my yard power tools are electric and the reduction in noise pollution alone is worth it.

7

Excelius t1_je6w07r wrote

> Electrifying lawn equipment should be priority #1 as opposed to electric cars

No. That's misunderstanding the problem.

The Edmunds article is talking about pollutants like carbon monoxide and NOx and so forth. They're high because gas lawn mowers don't have the emissions control systems that cars do. Some places do encourage people not to use gas lawn equipment on air-quality alert days.

Climate change is about CO2 emissions. Emissions control systems do basically nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted, it's a straight function of how much gas has been burned. The only real way to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fuel, and cars and trucks burn way more fuel than lawn mowers.

That said I've literally never owned a gas mower, I've been using some form of electric mower for about 15 years now.

5

username-1787 t1_je6y02w wrote

CO and NOx emissions both also net contribute to global warming via catalytic effects and are also worse for human health than CO2. And this doesn't even mention the host of other greenhouse gases we emit every day (methane, HFCs, etc). Climate isn't just about CO2

However I do agree that trucks burn way more fuel and produce way more CO2, but the production of electric trucks is also far more ecologically destructive than production of consumer grade electric lawn and garden equipment which is why I'd posit they're still a climate win (although it's just a reasonably informed hunch and not backed by research or anything).

And again - EV transition still needs to happen, but the ROI on smaller, cheaper sources of pollution is probably higher in many cases

1

Excelius t1_je6yf8p wrote

Transportation accounts for about 27% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Americans burn about 135 billion gallons of gasoline per year, and lawn equipment uses an estimated 800 million gallons. Hundreds of billions versus hundreds of millions, it's not even a close comparison.

Saying that electrification of lawn equipment is more important to combat climate change than vehicles is just flat out wrong.

4

username-1787 t1_je719d7 wrote

I'm not saying it's more important.

What I am saying is that lawn equipment is a low hanging fruit with a high value impact

I'm saying every home and apartment in America has the capability of charging a small leaf blower battery without landlord consent or service upgrades or waiting for public charging infrastructure investment to kick in.

I'm saying you can probably go to home depot and buy an electric weed wacker tomorrow with your weekly budget. You probably cannot go buy a new car tomorrow

I'm saying that producing a 100kwh battery, 2 tons of steel, 4 tires and some paint is unbelievably destructive to the environment.

I'm saying that for $7,500 the government could offer an ev tax credit for one car for one person or they could straight up buy 40 electric push mowers for 40 people

And I'm also saying that CO2 isn't the only emission that matters. For public health reducing the prevalence of NOx, VOCs, CO and other toxic gases emitted by two stroke engines is also essential

I'm also gonna add that biking, walking, scootering, taking a train (and probably even a diesel bus) are all still far better for the environment than driving your own electric car. That battery came from somewhere. That energy came from somewhere. We need to focus on reducing per capita energy consumption in addition to greening our energy supply

Anyway don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. We have a long way to go in the climate fight, and I just think we should maximize our financial and ecological ROI

2

Excelius t1_je72n4r wrote

> What I am saying is that lawn equipment is a low hanging fruit with a high value impact

That's the problem though, it's not a high impact at all. It's very low impact.

I've owned nothing but electric lawn equipment my entire adult life, but I'm not going to pretend it's more important than it actually is.

1

username-1787 t1_je75yeh wrote

You're not listening. Or at least you've chosen not to address my actual points

  1. Many people can't own an EV right now. Maybe they can't afford one or still have 3 years left on their current car loan or whatever. Maybe they live in an apartment complex with no way to charge their car. Maybe their job requires frequent long distance road trips through regions with poorly developed charging facilities.

However due to their lower price and the ability to charge indoors from a regular wall socket just about anyone with a lawn can probably own electric lawn equipment right now (unless they need a riding mower I guess)

  1. EV's don't spawn out of thin air free of all emissions and environmental damage. The mining industry for lithium, cobalt, copper and dozens of other rare earth minerals required to make EVs work are among the dirtiest, most ecologically destructive industries and in many casss also have terrible human rights records. And it's not just mining for battery materials - you have to ship those raw materials all around the world, you have to manufacture the steel for the frame and the rubber for the tires and every other component in the car. And then once you're using it you have to charge the car, and that energy can either come from burning something (climate change and harmful emissions), damming a river (ecological damage and habitat destruction and emissions from concrete production), splitting an atom (another questionable mining industry and questionable disposal of waste), or solar/wind (more mining of rare earth metals for solar, clearing large swaths of land for solar/wind farms etc). Lawn equipment is smaller and uses fewer materials, meaning the day 0 carbon footprint is wayyyyyy smaller than that of an electric car

And again, I understand that transportation is one of the largest source of emissions for most households (along with heating/cooling) and that EVs are still good and still necessary. But in many circumstances (but not all) the return on investment is going to pencil out well for electrifying those smaller miscellaneous uses like lawn care. And in literally all circumstances not driving at all and getting around via transit, bike or on foot is more sustainable

0

Excelius t1_je77tpt wrote

I'm listening, I'm saying you're wrong.

> the return on investment is going to pencil out well for electrifying those smaller miscellaneous uses like lawn care

You've said that without providing any evidence whatsoever.

Whereas I've actually provided you concrete numbers that lawn equipment is less than a fraction of a percent of gasoline usage, which itself is only a portion of transportation carbon emissions, which itself is about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.

You're chasing percentages with too many zeroes at the front to make a bit of difference. Climate change is not an "every little bit helps" problem, the only real solutions involving going after the big ticket items.

2

username-1787 t1_je7du47 wrote

Yes it's a big problem but also yes every little bit does help.

Switching to an electric car is a good thing. But for a variety of reasons, not everyone can own an electric car right now. It is still ok to reduce your climate impact elsewhere.

I'll admit I need to go touch grass (pun intended) instead of getting in dumb reddit fights so apologies for the tone. I just think we should be doing everything we to can reduce emissions as soon as possible and as efficiently as possible, and clearly gas powered lawn equipment is an easy thing to phase out

1

dilladog t1_je6onr3 wrote

I've struggled to reckon the ROI on continuing to use my second-hand gas mower vs buying an electric mower. When do the emissions of my existing equipment outweigh the emissions of manufacturing something new?

If you are a first-time buyer, I totally recommend electric. I borrowed my buddies to test out and it worked perfectly fine, although it was a bit over 10Ah of batteries for about 1/10 acre.

4

username-1787 t1_je6pv2s wrote

Agreed. It's the same argument as with phasing out gas stoves/water heaters etc. The ecological cost of a brand new one is higher than continuing to use the one you have, but new ones should all be electric (hence the ban on gas appliances in new construction in a some states/cities). I suppose this also depends on how the old equipment is up/downcycled (stripped for parts, etc)

You're probably fine to continue using the old one but if/when replacement becomes necessary electric is definitely the way to go

3

just_an_ordinary_guy t1_je8barc wrote

Honestly, for a 1/10 acre skip the battery and just use a cord. You'll probably need to get an expensive one for higher amp draw. For instance, I got one of those leaf blower/vacuum things because I have a below grade driveway and leaves get piled up down there. Use it a couple times a year so no leaf blower hate plz. For comparison, my lot is 7000 sqft, which is about .15 acres.

Anyhow, it draws a lot of amps (around 15 amps) and I need 100 feet to reach all of my yard with ease. So you need a cord with larger guage wires. 12 guage for around 15 amps and 10 guage for anything over that up to 20 amps (has one of the prongs sideways). Because the longer the cord, the more voltage drop which can damage the tool. Anyhow, the extension cord will usually have labeled the amp rating it's designed for. Heavy duty is usually designed for these amps.

The batteries for tools are decently expensive, and lithium ion is only good for full capacity up to maybe 500 full cycles. Corded tools are also cheaper for a comparable battery powered tool. And fewer rare earth metals for environmental responsibility if that's your angle.

1

dilladog t1_je9quxw wrote

I was gifted a 40V Ryobi string trimmer and already have two batteries, but good input.

Our property is also challenging with slopes and retaining walls that would make a cord a bit of a headache. Working to slowly lessen the overall area of turf though.

2

just_an_ordinary_guy t1_jeatvmg wrote

I had one of those Ryobi string trimmers and I had to use it pretty frequently. The motor only lasted a year for me, hopefully the made them better in the time since. But yeah, one you have is better than one you have to buy. I'm working on shrinking the amount of lawn I have to maintain too.

2