From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 05:43:42 -0700, Roger Rhino <not@my.usa> wrote

I welcome you proving it's not true but you have to be open minded.

I welcome you "proving" the claims you made.

No problem. But you have to cut it with the childish attacks on me.

Your claims, your burden of
proof. You snipped them all, so it doesn't look like you're going to do
that.

First off, snipping is normal. Only trolls complain about snipping.
Stop whining, and try to get to the point that lithium pollutes twice as
much as gasoline, which is fine, as that's not my beef.

My beef is that the law, in effect, mandates that I be punished if I
pollute half as much. My main point is this is what liberals do.

The liberals punish you for NOT polluting the way THEY want you to pollute.

I helped you out by pointing out the wrongitude of your statements. That doesn't obligate me to do your homework for you.

I've already done the homework. It's long. Do you want to see it?

How are you counting the pollution from lithium mining & recycling?

You should be explaining that, since you have already proclaimed that "battery powered lawn mowers pollute twice as much as gasoline powered
lawn mowers".

Remember, I've already done the science. You haven't even admitted that
Lithium pollutes yet. Your claim there is 100% recycling is absurd.

Gas mowers have no emission controls and can belch as much CO, NOx and
hydrocarbons as a CA car.

That's wrong. In California, you can only use a mower that has been
certified to meet California emissions. The carbs are non adjustable.

CA is CA. The rest of us pollute to our hearts' content with gas mowers having carbs set to way too rich. Why, we'd even burn leaded gas if we
could.

And, it turns out, you'd use vented gas cans too. :->

I welcome you proving it's not true but you can't ignore pollution from
mining and disposing of the extremely toxic chemicals in those batteries.

You made the claim, kemosabe. Something about 6 and a half gallons of
gas worth. We know you've suddenly seen the light, as you snecked that
one too.

Stop whining about snipping. That's the mark of a troll. Don't do that.
You can read back and see what's there. You don't have to be told again.

You think that 6.5 gallons came up out of nowhere?
I've done my homework. Do you want to see it?

Be warned, it's deep because it contains a lot of calculations.
Will you understand those calculations when I give them to you?

Or will you continue to make ridiculous claims that lithium mining causes
no pollution and that lithium recycling is 100% (which is simply absurd).

While there is pollution inherent in burning fossil fuels to create
electricity, and pollution inherent in mining the copper for the motors,
the major source of the twice as much pollution is in the lithium.

And gas mowers are all organic and earth-friendly, and every time you
mow there are birds singing and butterflies and the forests will echo
with laughter.

The fact that you constantly resort to unwarranted childish attacks shows you're not ready yet to discuss the science of the differences in pollution between one 60 volt, 11 amp hour Lithium-Ion battery, and 6.5 gallons of gasoline.

When you're ready, I'll show the homework that I've done for that science.

The point is that the only way a law requiring lithium can possibly make
sense to the people who made that law, is they ignored the real pollution.

No "science" there, just meaningless pitter-patter.

Until you're ready for the science, what good would it do when you are
claiming there is no pollution from mining and the recycling is 100%?

Even if I ignore that you ignored that mining of lithium is sort of like an >> abortion. It's not a pretty sight but the liberals think it's very pretty, >> I still have to point out that about 1% of batteries is recycled.

I welcome you to proving that. Ahem, etc.
Your best bet is alternative-fact websites.

Again and again, anyone who happens to know how to run calculations using scientific methods must be getting their opinions from "alternative" sites.

What is so bad about people who understand science that bothers you so?
Every word from you is a childish attack because YOU don't know science.

The only way the argument works that lithium engines are NOT twice as
polluting as gasoline engines is to ignore all the lithium pollution.

None of which you have established, and you won't.

Oh yes, I will. I've already done the math. Which is based on science.

Although I admit in all scientific honesty that it's difficult to assess on
an equal basis the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & burning 6.5 gallons of gasoline versus the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & recycling one 60 volt, 11 amp hour mower battery.

I do my own math. Backed up by science. I can provide all the calculations. I've done the calculations assuming one flat acre of land mowed once a
week, for six months out of the year using a front-wheel assist lawn mower (which is the type I use since I'm pretty old lately).

I calculated the pollution using a battery lawn mower versus gasoline.
Are you ready for the science? Or do you want to continue to insult me?

Which is not science.
It's politics.

Accompanied by a bit of usenet huffery for good measure.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Usenet huffery" but if you're going to try
to insult me, at least do it with proper capitalization & words next time. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/huffery (it's not a word)

Science is more than just making assertions, you know.

Funny you mention that I've done all the calculations, and you've done
none, yet, you feel that you're qualified to dispute all the math.

The California law isn't based on science but liberal politics instead. >>>

We might just as credibly claim your source is trump campaign talking
points.

Nope. I don't care about Trump. I care about the science. Your claim that
anyone who speaks about science must be a trump supporter is false.

I made no such statement. You invented that.

Then don't bring up Trump when I talk science. They have nothing to do with each other, and the fact you don't know that, is kind of worrisome to me.

I said your assertion about law based on liberal politics is no more
credible than if We asserted that your electric lawnmower factoids are
trump campaign propaganda. See the diff, old buddy?

My statement was that the liberals made a law, punishable by force, that doesn't meet the standard of solid science. It's all pure politics.

Why should I be punished for polluting *half* as much as the liberals want?

You shouldn't post when you're mad. It defocuses your brain.

I'm not mad. The fact you think I'm mad is a problem that you need to work
on since I'm ready to give you the calculations, from cradle to grave (so
to speak) between mining an equivalent amount of "lawn mower juice" for one acre of flat lawn using a front-wheel-assist push mower once a week for
half the year, taking into account mining, generation, distribution, use,
reuse and disposal until the 60 volt, 11 amp hour battery has exceeded its charge cycles, versus the equivalent amount of gasoline taking into account
the same environmental pollution factors.

I wonder if you realize that it's not my brain which is "defocused" given that's how I think. Logically. Scientifically. Sensibly. Want the math?

It means you have no scientific argument.
So you resorted to an ad hominem attack.

Why did you attack me simply for explaining battery science to you?
I'd be glad to discuss the science as long as you stop attacking me.

Gosh dang, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.

You didn't hurt my feelings at all. Why do you think you could possibly
have done so? Do you seriously think that by telling me that science is something only Trump supporters can employ that you hurt my feelings?

You made me feel sad, for sure.
But sad because I can't communicate with someone who says that crap.

Do you mean ad hom attacks like,
"liberals think it's very pretty"

Well, let's look at each of those statements like a scientist, shall we?
Is abortion pretty? Is it a choice? Is it a right? Is it homicide?

It turns out only one of those phrases is a scientifically valid option.

"liberals force others under penalty of law"

Well, let's look at the choices we have in terms of lawn mowers.

We know lithium pollutes twice as much as gasoline.
Yet, the liberals have mandated that we can no longer buy gas mowers.

What happens to me if I decide to pollute HALF as much as liberals want?
They punish me, right? Otherwise the law has no teeth, right?

Actually, I don't know what the punishment is, and whether it's to me or to
the seller of the gas mower but the point is laws are punishable by force.

My statement was scientifically valid.
In fact, for you to dispute that laws are punishable by force, is absurd.

"Liberals have no concept of reality."

Well, let's look at that statement, like a scientist might. Shall we?

My assertion is that the law mandates I buy an electric mower.
My lawn is such that a power corded mower is out of the question.
SO that means a battery. Specifically, for lawn mowers, a Lithium battery.
Yes, I know there are plenty of other chemistries. But Li-Ion is normal.

Since the Li-Ion battery use pollutes twice as much as gasoline, and yet,
since the law mandates I can no longer buy the gasoline mower, and since
the law was made in the name of pollution, I assert the law has no basis in reality - which is easily shown to be a scientifically valid conclusion.

Now if your argument is that the law wasn't made by liberals, then you
would have a scientifically valid objection to my statements.

Is your assertion that the law was made by conservatives?

Watch out for the sharks in your lawn!

I'll ignore that childish ad hominem attack, but I will note it's common

Dude, that's a reference to a trump speech. You're calling Herr
Uberfuehrer "childish". People get DoJ dogs sicced on em for less.

I know what you're talking about but just because I'm well informed doesn't mean I get my science from Trump. I already told you I've already done the math. I took the pollution, from cradle to grave, for a typical lawn mower battery for its lifetime against the equivalent amount of gasoline for the
same mowing of the same flat acre of lawn taking into account the science.

Have you run that calculation yourself?

I came up with approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline per Lithium battery
cycle as a reasonable approximation for typical comparative mower use.

What did YOU come up with?

for people who have no understanding of science to belittle people who do.

<...>

I also assumed a dismal 20% efficiency for the gasoline engine and an
estimated 42.5% overall efficiency to account for the losses from the power plant, through the transmission lines, and during the battery charging
process all the while assuming a realistic 80% DoD per battery cycle.

What scientifically valid assumptions did you make for your calculations?

When you're done with the insults, I'm willing to talk science with you.

You should have started off with some science.

I haven't seen you even admit that there are environmental costs to mining
and lack of recycling of lithium batteries - so what would you do with the science when I give it to you?

Still, I welcome your proving. Cite your sources and show your work.

First, you have to show me you're ready for me to do the appreciable effort
to present the calculations for the pollution caused by mowing one acre of
flat land once a week for the duration of one battery (but taking into
account multiple batteries, so it's amortized per battery) versus mowing
that same acre under the same conditions with the equivalent amount of gas.

The first step you have to agree to, unless you wish to remain being unreasonable, is that mining, charging, and disposing of lithium has environmental costs too.

If agreeing to that fact is difficult for you, then you're not ready for
the science. The next step is wholly up to you. Are you ready for science?
--
Expanding the audience since it looks like I have to do a lot of work
to explain to people that the California law is NOT based on science.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:08:41 -0600, Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> wrote
On 19 Mar 2025 04:41:32 GMT, rbowman wrote :

All this liberal propaganda sounds great until you begin to wonder:
"Daddy... where do all those batteries come from?"

https://www.brightgreenlies.com/book

There are several video interviews with the authors if the spoken word is more approachable. Here is one by Max Wilbert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLh2Fe9SP94

The book gets a little redundant as it works through the feel good technologies like wind and solar, delving into the true environmental
costs that are out of sight of the people driving their Teslas. Or
polluting the atmosphere burning their Teslas to virtue signal.

Before someone says "Oh a bunch of climate denying Trumptards", no, these are radical environmentalists who would like to tear the whole industrial culture down. That doesn't stop them from seeing the truth.

I'm not political. I'm scientific. The liberals claim of "batteries having
no tailpipes" only works for people who are ignorant of basic principles.

For the liberals to outlaw gas lawn mowers, under penalty of force, is my problem with the liberals. Not only do the liberals take away choice, but
they are "science deniers" in a way that I can easily prove given the math.

1. A common recommendation is to keep the Depth of Discharge below 80%.
This means only using 80% of the battery's capacity before recharging.

2. Given that, a lawn mower 60V, 11Ah battery has a usable capacity of:
11 Ah * 0.80 = 8.8 Ah

3. Usable battery energy:
60V * 8.8 Ah = 528 Wh = 0.528 kWh

4. Usable energy delivered from the wall plug to the lawn mower
from the battery 0.528kWh * 42.5% = .2244Kwh

5. Gasoline energy needed to equal usable battery energy:
0.2244 kWh / 0.20 = 1.122 kWh

6. Equivalent gasoline volume:
1.122 kWh / 33.3 kWh/gallon = 0.0337 gallons

7. Equivalent gasoline volume in ounces:
0.0337 gallons * 128 ounces/gallon = 4.32 ounces

Therefore, with an 80% Depth of Discharge (DoD), one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-ion battery cycle is equivalent to approximately 4.32 ounces of gasoline.

I ran separate calculations for how many battery cycles before a typical lawnmower battery needs to be recycled, which equaled 6-1/2 gallons of gas.

So we have to compare the pollution, from cradle to grave, of one 60V, 11Ah Lithium-Ion battery to that of 6-1/2 gallons of gasoline.

While it's difficult to assess "equivalent pollution" when one is from
mining and disposing of toxic chemicals and the other is extracting &
burning of petrochemicals, the fact is that lithium batteries pollute too.

However, my argument about the liberals being 'science deniers' is that
they mandated a technology claiming it doesn't pollute - and yet - it does.

The liberals in California are "science deniers" which is what I decry.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:31:29 -0600, Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> wrote

However, my argument about the liberals being 'science deniers' is that
they mandated a technology claiming it doesn't pollute - and yet - it does.

I should make the very clear point that I'm not against the "choice" of electric lawn mowers alongside gas lawn mowers.

I'm not even against a law that makes sense, which mandates the use of one
or the other, under penalty of force (which is, after all, what a law is).

What I'm against is the liberals of California don't actually care about
the environment when they mandate the use of electric lawn mowers which
clearly pollute about twice as much as gasoline mowers pollute.

The California liberals not only take away your rights....
But the California liberals mandate you pollute twice as much!

The easiest way to summarize my problem with the California liberals isn't
so much that they're science deniers, nor that the liberals are always
trying to take away your rights, but that liberals are duplicitous liars.

Keep in mind I've said nothing about the conservatives in that argument.

My problem is the liberals have taken away my right to choose my lawn mower technology, and as a result, they mandated I pollute twice as much.

I welcome anyone who knows science to argue that lithium doesn't pollute.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:37:43 -0600, Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> wrote
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton <chamilton5280@invalid.com> wrote

I'm not political. I'm scientific.

I don't care. Petroleum is finite; it's high time we stopped
using it.

I'll be thrilled when OPEC is irrelevant.

Petroleum is finite. And cradle to grave use of it does pollute.
Yet Lithium is also finite. And cradle to grave, it pollutes also.

Your belief system is religious; not scientific.
Your rather strongly-held beliefs don't take into account any science.

I'm not chastising you as it's common for people to have strongly held
belief systems which are purely religious and not based on any realities.

While I share your sensible abhorrence of OPEC manipulations, my belief
systems are based on science. As is my dislike of liberals also based.

I dislike that the liberals lie when they claim lithium doesn't pollute.
Worse, I dislike that the liberals are always taking away my rights.
But worse than that, the liberals mandate, under force of law, that I
pollute twice as much when mowing my lawn - under the guise of the
environment.

My dislike of liberals is not based on religion, but upon science.
They're deniers. Who take away my rights. Forcing me to pollute more.
So these California liberals are liars in the end analysis.

Bear in mind I say nothing about the conservatives, as this scientific
argument is based only on the liberals mandating that I pollute more.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

Oliver wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 05:43:42 -0700, Roger Rhino <not@my.usa> wrote

I welcome you proving it's not true but you have to be open minded.

I welcome you "proving" the claims you made.

No problem. But you have to cut it with the childish attacks on me.

Your claims, your burden of
proof. You snipped them all, so it doesn't look like you're going to do that.

First off, snipping is normal.

You demanded proof of my refutation, then you snipped what I was
refuting. Probably because you knew your claims didn't make sense.

<snip politics>

I helped you out by pointing out the wrongitude of your statements. That doesn't obligate me to do your homework for you.

I've already done the homework. It's long. Do you want to see it?

How are you counting the pollution from lithium mining & recycling?

You should be explaining that, since you have already proclaimed that "battery powered lawn mowers pollute twice as much as gasoline powered
lawn mowers".

Remember, I've already done the science.

[citation needed]

You haven't even admitted that
Lithium pollutes yet. Your claim there is 100% recycling is absurd.

Everything pollutes, mining especially. That doesn't change the fact
that you haven't made your case.

...

You think that 6.5 gallons came up out of nowhere?
I've done my homework. Do you want to see it?

Why haven't you shared your homework?

Be warned, it's deep because it contains a lot of calculations.
Will you understand those calculations when I give them to you?

Oh, right, it's gotta be some deep shit.

It's your sources and assumptions that are important. Doing the
arithmetic *should* be trivial.

Or will you continue to make ridiculous claims that lithium mining causes
no pollution and that lithium recycling is 100% (which is simply absurd).

Oops! Now you're reduced to lying about your opponent.

While there is pollution inherent in burning fossil fuels to create
electricity, and pollution inherent in mining the copper for the motors, >> the major source of the twice as much pollution is in the lithium.

You *still* haven't established any of that.

...

Even if I ignore that you ignored that mining of lithium is sort of like an
abortion. It's not a pretty sight but the liberals think it's very pretty,
I still have to point out that about 1% of batteries is recycled.

I welcome you to proving that. Ahem, etc.
Your best bet is alternative-fact websites.

<silence>

Again and again, anyone who happens to know how to run calculations using scientific methods must be getting their opinions from "alternative" sites.

You seem to confuse "science" with arithmetic.

Do you know what the scientific process is? So far, all I've seen is
you leaping to the Conclusions step.

Although I admit in all scientific honesty that it's difficult to assess on an equal basis the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & burning 6.5 gallons of gasoline versus the appreciable pollution caused by extracting & refining & recycling one 60 volt, 11 amp hour mower battery.

Here we go... are you admitting your science is faith-based and
predicated on arm-waving and PFM?

I calculated the pollution using a battery lawn mower versus gasoline.
Are you ready for the science? Or do you want to continue to insult me?

I'll look at your science and critique as I like. Again, you'll still
have to do your own homework.

Accompanied by a bit of usenet huffery for good measure.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Usenet huffery" but if you're going to try
to insult me, at least do it with proper capitalization & words next time. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/huffery (it's not a word)

Guess what. I just wordified it. M-W hasn't caught up yet.

Science is more than just making assertions, you know.

Funny you mention that I've done all the calculations, and you've done
none, yet, you feel that you're qualified to dispute all the math.

Too much huffery, not enough science.

<snip more politics>

The California law isn't based on science but liberal politics instead. >>>

We might just as credibly claim your source is trump campaign talking
points.

Nope. I don't care about Trump. I care about the science. Your claim that >> anyone who speaks about science must be a trump supporter is false.

I made no such statement. You invented that.

Then don't bring up Trump when I talk science.

You brought politics into this.

<snip politics>

We know lithium pollutes twice as much as gasoline.

Watchoo mean "we", white boy?

You've asserted it, that's all. So far you're only interested in
political diatribes and assuming your conclusions.

Yet, the liberals

<snip politics>

Since the Li-Ion battery use pollutes twice as much as gasoline, and yet,

Religion, not science.

I also assumed a dismal 20% efficiency for the gasoline engine and an estimated 42.5% overall efficiency to account for the losses from the power plant, through the transmission lines, and during the battery charging process all the while assuming a realistic 80% DoD per battery cycle.

A lot of assumin' goin on there.

20% is pretty efficient for a gas engine, especially for a carbeurated
engine with no computer controlled mixture.

Don't know where you get 42.5%. Sounds like you just made it up. Sounds
low to me. Citation?

DoD,.. dept of Defense? How did the military get into this? Are they
charging? Kind of like the Light Brigade?

You're a better man than I, Ollie Din.

The first step you have to agree to, unless you wish to remain being unreasonable, is that mining, charging, and disposing of lithium has environmental costs too.

Enough with the excuses. Shit or get off the pot.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2