A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/7273195
Not trying to be that guy, but do the bike and walking numbers include the energy from the calories you eat, or the energy needed to produce that food?
I don't think they need to, most people already eat more food than they need to whether they walk or drive. I'd wager the average person wouldn't need to change a thing in their diet and would overall only improve their health by walking more.
I've read that unless the person riding the bike is vegetarian, the ebike actually has a lower carbon footprint than the normal bike. They're still both far better than the car (ice or EV).
I might dispute the idea that there's a 1:1 relationship between marginal calories expended exercising and marginal calories eaten.
A UK study showed ebikes have a smaller carbon footprint due to how much meat British people eat.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Do you think you get energy from some source other than food?
If I burn 100 kilocalories pedaling a bike, my body will be using 100 kcal of energy that I got from food. There is a certain amount of carbon dioxide emission associated with the production of 100 kcal of food. That amount varies with what type of food I eat and what farming practices are used. If I choose to simply not eat extra food to replace the energy I used, my body will simply have less stored energy afterwards. My energy absolutely comes 100%, 1:1 from the food I eat, and that food has an environmental impact.
Now, if I ride an ebike, my body will use less energy. I will use energy generated by the power plant. The energy created at the power plant may actually have less environmental impact than the farm creating the food I would have eaten.
Maybe your basal metabolic rate will change because you bike more.
Since you'd have to bike like 30 miles a day for calories from biking to surpass calories from basal metabolism, small changes is basal metabolism will mater a lot
I'm still having a hard time understanding your point. Sure, becoming more fit and replacing fat with muscle may slightly increase your basal metabolic rate but I feel like were onto "I don't use plastic straws" levels of insignificance.
If you're biking a few miles to work each day and this ends up being such vigorous exercise that you increase your basic metabolic rate by 50 calories a day or so, you're still using nowhere near the amount of energy and creating far less pollution than would have been required to drive to work. Small changes in basal metabolism will mean very little.
My point is that measuring energy use from exercise isn't very meaningful since energy use by animals is so complicated. It seems wrong to say that exercising more increases your carbon footprint.
Maybe studies that meaure the effects long term energy in response to increased exercise. But either way, some amount of exercise is necessary for human health. Biking to work instead of running on a treadmill is clearly carbon negative. Or maybe people biking to work will cause them to get a wasteful biking hobby where they buy a new carbon fiber bike every year.
I see.
Well, I think that the take away message here is that, on average, the energy required for a person to ride their bike (ebike or entirely human powered) to work is so small that the signal gets lost in the noise of normal human metabolism, especially if we take peoples' exercise routines into account.
On the other hand, driving to work has a large, easily quantifiable energy requirement. It is very obviously costly and unsustainable.
No, I had the same thought.
Are you saying "No, it's not included" or "No, you're not being 'that guy'"?
yes
I meant it as a "Don't worry about being that guy, because if you didn't make that comment, I would have"
I wondered that too. I imagine it would be very inaccurate to include that as the amount of calories needed would vary wildly person to person. For example, I burned around 2000kcal to cycle 100km in hilly terrain at the weekend, while a friend burned roughly twice that on the same ride.
Fuck cars, but was it really necessary to compare at such different speeds? Air resistance is a big factor and a proper electric bike can go 45kmh as well. Or the car can drive 25kmh
a proper electric bike can go 45kmh as well.
There's some debate about that. E-bicycles above class 2 (with assistance/drive at over 20mph) are not allowed on a lot of bike lanes, so they're more like electric mopeds
The fact remains that cars are faster than bikes. Driving a car usually means going faster and hence wasting more energy. Sure, plenty of people deal with distances that necessitate such speeds to be practical in daily life, but that's a different problem to be solved.
I think the speeds are the average speed of each transport type, so it's fair.
I really like this graph because it helps visualizes scale. Sometimes, people knock e-bikes by saying they are less efficient than acoustic bikes. While that may be true, it's another example of, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." As shown here, e-bikes are literally the 90% solution. I really don't think it's worth sweating the potential energy efficiency differences between e-bikes and acoustic bikes. What's really important is reducing car usage.
Acoustic bikes? I think analog may be more fitting here but honestly I'm not sure. I've just never heard acoustic referenced outside of sound.
Acoustic is funnier than analog, and I'm not sure if it's any less accurate than analog. In analog clocks, the passage of time is represented in an analogous rotation of clock hands. In analog sound, the change in voltage on a wire is analogous to the pressure waves you hear as sound. I don't know what is analogous to what in biking.
Also, the opposite of analog is digital, and ebikes are not digital bikes.
I'm pretty sure E-bikes are digitally controlled.
Acoustic is definitely funnier, but all definitions I can find about it relate to sound.
Well, if your acoustic bike is not making any sound it's because you're maintaining and oiling it too much
I'm just happy to be here. I like this conversation.
It's a joke. Based on e-guitars / acoustic guitars
It's... "manual" bikes, right? Or am I taking crazy pills?
This chart ignores one very important detail. Exercise is good for you. Those bars should be negative since it's good energy expenditure.
You can make anything look bad by removing the next bad comparison though. Like if a pickup truck were there, everything would look good. Remove the car and add a scooter, windsurfing, rollerblading, and rolling downhill, and the e-bike looks bad.
True, but the comparison in this case seems reasonable nonetheless. I just wish they had included fossil fuel cars, too
Not really. The F150 Lightning's efficiency is ~270Wh/km city which means a small EV is only a 50% improvement vs 95% for ebike.
Also, this graph is helpful given our current situation. Maybe once we're mostly at the 95% better than an F150 Lightning solution (e-bikes), it might be worth being concerned with energy efficiency, but we're not there.