XPost: alt.home.repair, ca.politics

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.home.repair, ca.politics

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.home.repair, ca.politics

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.home.repair, ca.politics

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)