Cycling is ten times more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities
-
I went biking in NL last summer (great vacation!) and I was completely amazed by the number of elders biking using ebikes. Ebikes absolutely make cycling available to a vast range of people who wouldn't or couldn't bike otherwise.
I do have and use a traditional bike, but I will consider in the future a (cargo?)ebike.
A good counter-example is Copenhagen. There, almost nobody uses ebikes in the city. (It would not be faster because there are so many bikes on the road. There is a bridge across the harbour where at rush hour times there pass more than two bikes per second, that's over 5000 vehicles a hour.
What made the difference was good, safe bike infrastructure. And NL has this, too.
-
Paradoxically there are actually some indications that the calories burned while bicycling, especially from a meat-heavy diet, lead to more carbon emissions per mile than powering an electric car with anything other than coal.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108357_electric-cars-vs-bicycles-which-has-a-higher-carbon-footprint
There are still a wide variety of societal benefits to more bicycling but it's not quite accurate say "zero" impact I think.It's not like these people are eating minimum amount of food in the first place.
-
A good counter-example is Copenhagen. There, almost nobody uses ebikes in the city. (It would not be faster because there are so many bikes on the road. There is a bridge across the harbour where at rush hour times there pass more than two bikes per second, that's over 5000 vehicles a hour.
What made the difference was good, safe bike infrastructure. And NL has this, too.
Nice, does it depend maybe on the terrain as well (NL is flat, but I was in southern towns and they were a bit hilly).
Anyway, I 100% agree that safe infrastructure is a necessary condition for bike usage. But I look at Rome for example and I can't imagine elder people biking (even if there was infrastructure) without ebikes, due to so many hills - let alone smaller towns in the inland.
-
Electric bikes ruin the climate impact ratio. They are still much better than electric cars tho.
Yes, e-bikes take more resources to manufacture, especially the battery, but:
While manufacturing an e-bike is more resource intensive than a pushbike, lifetime CO2 emissions of an e-bike can be lower, because a motor is more efficient than human muscles.
If someone has an E-bike, depending on how they use it, it's possible that it will replace more car trips than a pushbike would. E-bikes also require less physical fitness, which again can increase uptake among people who aren't as fit or have health problems, for example.
This video is worth a watch:
Simon Clark - How bad are electric bikes for the environment? -
Yeah but production of the battery causes alot of harm to the environment so a classic bike is still far better as it doesn't damage the environment as much
A tesla model x battery has 7300 battery cells. My Bosch ebike battery has 8 cells.
You can power ebikes for the entire world and do a fraction of the environmental damage compared to building these massive cars.
-
A good counter-example is Copenhagen. There, almost nobody uses ebikes in the city. (It would not be faster because there are so many bikes on the road. There is a bridge across the harbour where at rush hour times there pass more than two bikes per second, that's over 5000 vehicles a hour.
What made the difference was good, safe bike infrastructure. And NL has this, too.
I think it's worth noting that Copenhagen doesn't only have good cycling infrastructure, but also a relatively young and fit population, a population that has grown up cycling, a good public transport network leading to a completion of public transport vs ebike instead of car vs ebike, and it's very flat.
For many people, an ebike can be the difference between a workout vs a regular commute. It might be just what they need to leave their car at home (or not have a car at all) -
A watt hour is equal to 0.86 nutritional calories.
My estimate of 40 watt hours per mile converts to about 35 kcal.
Estimates of the energy taken to pedal a bike are about 30-40 kcal/mile.
That checks out!But I also pedal my bike while the motor pushes. What about all that energy? Well, I'm going about 28mph as I do this. It's probably all going to wind resistance, compared to the slower analog bike.
1 kilowatt hour is equivalent to 860 kcal.
1 kilowatt hour from a coal power plant generates about 1.0-1.1 kg of CO2.
For a typical Western diet, studies suggest that the average emissions associated with food production and transportation can range from about 0.5 to 2.5 kg of CO2 per 1,000 kcal of food consumed. 0.4-2.1 kg of CO2 per 860 kcal).The ebike is generally better, as most sources of power produce less CO2 than coal power plants and most people eat more meat than necessary, putting them in the higher range of the food CO2 production range.
That's super cool to know!
I wonder what the numbers are like in the context of someone's total energy consumption. I guess cycling would still be much more efficient because it doubles as exercise.
-
If you are having a hard time finding a source, it's probably because there is none. Riding short distances burns very little calories and most calories the body needs are from idle consumption. Which the battery has to solve degree too
IIRC cycling is the lowest joule/km form of transport available.
-
In practice, e-bikes open up cycling to more people and for more trips, likely making them far more net positive than regular bikes.
And this is coming from someone who bikes like mad on non-ebikes
This is why I started ebiking. I'm usually going up steep hills, or hauling groceries or other stuff. Having an ebike totally changed the math on whether I need to actually drive or not.
-
Paradoxically there are actually some indications that the calories burned while bicycling, especially from a meat-heavy diet, lead to more carbon emissions per mile than powering an electric car with anything other than coal.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108357_electric-cars-vs-bicycles-which-has-a-higher-carbon-footprint
There are still a wide variety of societal benefits to more bicycling but it's not quite accurate say "zero" impact I think.That's why ebikes are considered better than analog bikes by some metrics. Outside of electrified trains, there's pretty much nothing as efficient as an ebike for distance /calories burned + electricity usage (minimal, compared to EVs)
-
only 10x? cycling has 0 climate impact besides the manufacturing of said bycicle itsself.
electric cars not only require 100x crazier manufacturing but also run on electricity which is made in power plants.
frankly you couldve said a million times more important and it would still be a low ball.
When you power your bike with your legs, you burn energy. That energy comes from food. Producing and transporting the food to you has a climate impact. Cycling has a climate impact.
-
Paradoxically there are actually some indications that the calories burned while bicycling, especially from a meat-heavy diet, lead to more carbon emissions per mile than powering an electric car with anything other than coal.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1108357_electric-cars-vs-bicycles-which-has-a-higher-carbon-footprint
There are still a wide variety of societal benefits to more bicycling but it's not quite accurate say "zero" impact I think.I think the takeaway here should be that meat heavy diets are bad for the environment.
The takeaway should not be that cars are only barely worse than bikes. -
This post did not contain any content.
Electric cars are a car industry solution
