Loren Pechtel

I've used one before. Maybe in areas with very tender grass but I hated it. The problem is that an electric mower is limited to the power available on a normal household circut. Back when grass was an issue for me (we have desert landscaping--and don't own a mower at all.) I considered that power level totally inadequate. You get only about 1 1/2 horsepower before you pop the old breakers (newer houses can deliver 2hp). I did not consider a 4hp gas unit to have any extra power.

Loren Pechtel

While I expect to see problems, maybe even big ones, I don't expect to see catastrophes due to overloading. (There could be something unexpected, though.)
As we deplete whatever resource is the issue the price will rise. People will find ways to cut back on it's use. There are other technologies out there.

For example, consider solar power. Triple the price of electricity and you'll see people in sunny climates buying photovoltaic panels in droves. Economic trouble but not catastrophe.


P.S.: There is one route to catastrophe: Listening too much to the eco-nuts.
While they are pointing out legitimate problems their answer is always to turn away from technology. That is a path to certain disaster. Note the problems they point out but don't put much faith in their proposed solutions.

lunachick

I have an old push-mower I inherited. It uses me-pushing-it energy. No oil, no electricity. I do have to get the blades sharpened every now and again, though, or it becomes very very hard to push and doesn't do a good job. When it's sharp, however, it is the best damn mower around!


As far as batteries and nuclear power go; what about the waste - disposal and build up in the environment?

PS:
Another route to catastrophe may be not listening enough to them, too. But time will tell, eh.

AquaVita

*Aqua sits down at his desk and invites this thread into his office.

"Thread...you've done a lot during your short time here at The Miscellaneous Firm. You've inspired good discussion and an interesting topic. Therefore, we'd like to promote you to our Science and Skepticism Dept. Thanks for all you've done."

Or in short...this interesting topic is headed to S&S.

Wyz_sub10

Oddly enough we had an electric lawnmower when I was a kid (in the 70s). My dad ditched that for a gas mower in future years because the electric mower was awkward (we had a big yard) and not that effective.

Fire Jack

I think nuclear energy is good, clean, I live right near the bruce nuclear power develpment (my Dad works there) and there has never been one problem. Ya, it produces nuclear waste, but there is very little of it and it is completely contained. Wind and solar are good but they cannot compete with nuclear energy.
You see on the news these stupid eco nuts blocking trains and such transporting nuclear waste, what the hell do you hope to accomplish. They want to protect the environment but the are to stupid or ignorant to know what that means. Nuclear energy is evil you know, sure it produces massive amounts of enery and the only waste is completely contained it could blow up.
Chernobyl was slapped together with virtually no safety standards and has nothing to do with power plants built in canada and the usa. Comparing our plants to that makes me lose all respect many people in eco groups like greenpeace. Right idea, to ignorant to carry it out.

Wyz_sub10

Wind right now is just not practical. The amount of land you would need to operate enough generators to power even 2-3 city blocks would be vast.

Where do we get that land? Clear it of trees? Remove the wildlife? I suppose for smaller communities that would be fine, but for a modern metropolis, it is not a feasible solution.

Evangelion

Nuclear mowers! The perfect solution!

echidna

That’s because it’s not. David Suzuki is a well-intentioned but naïve environmental campaigner. Not so many people take him seriously so he’s largely left to frightening kids at college lecture tours. No the world won’t be the same in the future, but those differences will not be as life-threatening as Suzuki predicts, indeed in terms of life expectancy we are likely to be living longer and longer, that is unless we don’t all eat ourselves to an early grave. How about, never in the foreseeable future. Modern-day doomsdayers have more recently moved towards asteroid impact & biological pandemic than outer space invasion, global starvation or nuclear holocaust.

Unless when you speak of rationing their food you mean preventing other people from having it, in which case that’s already happening. First World farming lobbies already enforce higher food prices than necessary. Well FWIW I dearly wish that more people would live like David Suzuki & I constantly battle with my own family to recycle better & waste less, but I do it more for good karma (not that I’m a believer in that either) than because the planet will die unless I do it.

cheetah

I think we should be worrying about the water situation before energy (though not to the exclusion of, of course). But seriously, the water situation is getting bad. how long will it be before we make Dune a reality and we wear packs on our backs that convert our sweat, urine, etc. to potable water that we drink a few minutes later?