Staying green while mowing the green

(Credit: Uncrate)

The "Automower Solar Hybrid" it's not, but this manually operated mower is nonetheless claiming to do its part for the environment by running on electricity instead of gasoline.

Neuton makes a line of emission-free push mowers that are powered by 24-volt batteries and run for 45 to 60 minutes on a charge, according to Uncrate. They could be a decent alternative for those Nervous Nellie homeowners who eschew robo-mowers for fear that they'll be stolen.

Perhaps its most unusual mowing characteristic, however, is that it's silent. Which will be a disappointment to surly teenagers protesting their chore duties.

[yanchineseguy]

One correction. These electric mowers are quiet, but not "silent". I have the 5.2 CE model, and it's much quieter than any gas mower around.

[velcrofog]

I'm glad to see more environmentally sound power mowers entering the market. I want to point out, though, that "reel mowers", which work by muscle power alone, are a great option--better for the environment, and not hard to use. I use one, and it seems to me that the effort needed to make the blades spin is more than counterbalanced by the much lighter weight. In other words, I don't find it any harder to use than a regular mower, and it is much easier to move from one section of yard to another. I supplement it with a battery-powered weedwhacker for the edges.

[eyewearman]

All you smug "green" fools-is your electricity generated by wind, solar, nuclear or hydro? If not then you are adding as much crap to the air as my gas mower when youy plug that battery in!

[jasonbryanmiller]

Could not agree more. Same thing with those hybrid owners - they don't even think of the environmental impact of all those batteries. Buying a really gas efficient car is far better. But most people I know who buy the hybrids are rather smug and prideful.

[Eco_$ucker]

Before you go out and pick up one of these babies, you may want to refer to the following...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

According to this data, more than 50% of the electricity in the U.S. (2006) was generated by sources that produce varying levels of carbon emissions. So, if everyone in the U.S. ran out to buy one of these, it would mean a tremendous increase in fossil-based used (burned) to compensate for the increase in electricity demand.

We have a name for people who buy stuff like this... Eco-$uckers

ecosucker.blogspot.com

[albizzia]

I agree that a manual reel mower is about as easy to push as a typical gas powered rotary - if it is properly sharpened and adjusted, the lawn is reasonably level, and the grass isn't too high. Personally, I use an electric mower with a cord, it is lighter and cost less than a battery powered mower, and my lawn is small.

While over half the electricity is made by burning carbon containing fuels, the efficiency of those power plants is much higher than the efficiency of a small gas lawnmower engine. With a high efficiency distribution grid and a high efficiency motor. an electric lawnmower causes less CO2 emissions and consumes far less petroleum than a petrol powered mower. Moreover, as more renewable power comes online, my electric mower keeps getting cleaner and greener!

[Eco_$ucker]

You're kidding right?

"While over half the electricity is made by burning carbon containing fuels, the efficiency of those power plants is much higher than the efficiency of a small gas lawnmower engine."

Really? Well what about all of the energy that will be required to add all of this additional electric capacity? How much energy is required to build a new power plant? Is a gas-powered bulldozer less polluting than a little gas mower engine? Does all of this additional capacity get added by waving a magic wand?

"With a high efficiency distribution grid and a high efficiency motor. an electric lawnmower causes less CO2 emissions and consumes far less petroleum than a petrol powered mower."

Huh? High-efficiency? You're assuming a perfect theoretical model. Where's all the money going to come from to build all of this stuff by the way? More taxes?

"Moreover, as more renewable power comes online, my electric mower keeps getting cleaner and greener!"

Dude you're living in Fantasyland. Show me one shred of evidence that "renewable" energy sources will replace fossil fuels as viable alternative any time soon? That stuff is decades away. BTW, have you seen the global calamity that's erupting because of the push for more "renewable" Bio-fuels like ethanol?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080414/sc_afp/euunfarmpovertyenergypoliticsbiofuel_080414143918

The only way that this mower is remotely "green" is if you can prove that it's net fossil-fuel energy usage is less than a gas-powered mower. Got evidence or is this just wishful thinking? Surely the guys who are trying to sell this mower have scientific proof, or maybe they're just hoping that we buy all of this stuff based on emotion...

ecosucker.blogspot.com

[yoyoscout]

To start, I am no tree-hugging, earth-worshiping hippie, but the eco-haters need to get a grip. Not all the propaganda is wrong. I live in Lubbock, TX (2nd only to Provost, UT for it's conservative population), and close to 45% of my power is wind generated. I can see 10 windmills from my front porch in the center of Lubbock. Oh, and I did think about the battery, which I will have rebuilt in 5 years where all the lead-acid will be recycled and kept out of the landfills. But really I ordered a Newton for economic reasons.

First, financially, a Newton is cheaper to operate. To keep my gas mower and weedeater running cost easily $70 a year in tune-ups and maintenance. My Newton will need a battery rebuild ($50) and a blade sharpening ($15) IN 5 YEARS. Per mow in energy alone, it cost a tenth less to run a Newton: 20 cents worth of electricity vs $3.75 for a gallon of gas. By the way, are you really going to tell me that it produces more carbon emissions to produce 20 cents worth of electricity in a coal plant than burning a gallon of gas in a mower would? Running a Newton probably produces less carbon emissions in a year that running the ecosucker.blogspot.com for a day.

Second, the Newton requires less time. I don't need to go get gas, spare parts or other equipment to keep a Newton going. I don't even need to take the time to go grab a weedeater when I am done mowing... it's attached! Plus because it is quieter than a gas mower I can mow during off peak times that might otherwise disturb my neighbors.

Third, a Newton is easier on me physically. I don't have to pull my arm out of socket to get it to start or restart, I don't even have to bend over. And pushing the mower is a lot easier due to it's light weight. The real advantage in my mind is that I don't have to breath and walk in all the carbon emissions that leave me greasy, grimy and gross. Maybe some poor sap who invested in real estate next to the local coal plant will have to deal with a little more dust, but not me and NIMBY.

So to sum up, I fully expect my new Newton to fully pay for itself in 3 years. So, don't get so worked up about it not being quite as "green" as it claims. Its still a better deal than a gas mower for my money and lawn.

[wanderlusterdc]

It's a common argument from folks like ecosucker that electric and hybrid cars, lawnmowers, etc are just as bad as driving around in a Hummer or using a gas mower that spews toxic fumes and tons of CO2.

I will concede the point that yes, the electricity to run things like the Neuton are in fact generated most often by burning fossil fuels at power plants. But take a look at the price comparison: $4 for a gallon of gas versus 20 cents worth of electricity. Why the huge disparity? Because it costs much, much more money ? and energy, and fossil fuel, and results in much more CO2 ? to produce and deliver that gallon of gas to your lawnmower than it does to generate and deliver the electricity needed to power the Neuton.

AND, burning that $4 gallon of gas in your mower will produce even more CO2, while using the electricity adds zero CO2. Isn't that enough of a reason?

One more thing: sure, we currently depend heavily on fossil fuels to run our power plants, but more and more 'green' energy comes on line every day (with its flaws). Why not migrate towards devices that can not only run on the current fossil fuel electricity grid, but can also run on the green energy network when it eventually comes on line?

If the argument is always that green energy is decades away (so why bother with electric and hybrid devices) than guess what? Green energy will *always* be decades away!