E-bikes have the lowest carbon footprint of any form of transportation.

[-]

gobblox38@reddit

Doesn't this ignore the possibility of a rider exercising when not riding an ebike? One reason why I use a bike is for the exercise in conjunction with the commute.

[-]

-Clean-Sky-@reddit

This is called GREENWASHING.

Regular bikes are waaay more eco-friendy as they don't require lithium and other shit.

[-]

It could be if our muscles were as efficient as electric motors. And our food production and consumption logistics were even close to the efficiency of a thin metal wire from a powerplant into your electric socket.

Here's a handy chart:

Transporter	Energy Source	Efficiency (from source to movement)
Electric motor (renewable-heavy grid)	Electricity	~70–80%
Electric motor (fossil-heavy grid)	Electricity	~30–36%
Human (vegan diet)	Sunlight via plants	~0.25–0.4%
Human (heavy meat diet)	Sunlight via plants & animals	~0.03–0.05%

[-]

Buddy, "electricity" is not an energy source. Electric sockets are not found in the wild.
If you live in the US, your electricity is likely coming partly from mining coal, then transporting coal to a plant, then burning that coal to generate electric power that goes through a whole infrastructure that needs to be built and maintained.

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

Your link talks about breathing.

My post above talks about the lifecycle emissions of producing the energy to move a human body around from A to B.

Also you can see at the end there, a fossil heavy grid would still be much better.

[-]

maxadmiral@reddit

The problem is with the assumption that someone who rides a normal bike would consume a net larger amount of calories per day since if you don't ride a bicycle, you apparently do not do any other form of exercise instead.

Also what are the carbon emissions of treating the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle?

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

Yeah, of course if you add additional human factors like actually wanting to exercise in order to stay healthy, then the normal bike makes more sense as the calories would get burned either way.

The thing is it's the same for the non electric bike. So you just have to take into account the engine and battery vs the human. Also the food production is taken into account as well. And since they take the average diet which is composed of a large amount of meat, the impact is relatively high.

At the end of the day, ebike or regular bike is far more efficient and ecologic than any other way of transport. Especially cars. And since you have to exercise for your health, might as well do it for transportation.

[-]

whoopwhoop233@reddit

I do think non-ebikes last longer because there's less wear on the parts. Even when well maintained

[-]

cyanogenmoded@reddit

And the logistics is done for a regular bike minus the motor and battery

[-]

Responsible_Sink3044@reddit

So minus the parts that have a disproportionately large impact on the environment, even ignoring the fact that they're consumables

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

mining the material needed for an e bike , shipping them to China , manufacturing the bike, shipping the whole thing to the US

You are not seeing the big picture.

The process of mining, manufacturing and shipping is done on such an insane scale that a single ebike from the production line is a tiny blip in the ocean of world trade.

And this process only ever happens once. Then it's all just small scale maintenance like cleaning and pumping air into the tires.

Then comes the part where you're comparing a small electric motor moving your body for you vs doing it yourself by consuming calories from your own body that you collect by eating food which constantly has to be produced non-stop in a process that involves major emissions from the farming / growing livestock to the processing of it and then transporting to a supermarket where you once again have to move yourself back and forth and deliver that food to your home where you then consume more energy just to process and eat the food.

The extra calories don't just appear out of thin air.

Energy out must always equal energy in. That's just thermodynamics.

Unless what you're arguing is that the ebike rider has to pedal harder, which I will disagree with.

[-]

SmellyMingeFlaps@reddit

I've manually counted my calories every day for the past 5 years. I started cycling in addition to my other regular exercises around 3 years ago. My daily caloric intake has not increased at any point over the past 3 years.

An increase in caloric expenditure with no change in caloric intake will lead to weight loss. This weight loss is not perpetual. The caloric deficit will gradually decrease as biomass is lost, the body's overall demand for energy decreases and eventually the person reaches a new equilibrium where their new caloric expenditure now matches their caloric intake.

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

I don't see anything in your post that I disagree with.

Yes, if you have extra calories stored as fat, you'll burn that first.

I do want to clarify though, that for a already healthy person with very little fat storage, if they do extra work by pedaling hard, they will have to get the extra calories from somewhere. And in that case, the only option is more food.

Just like the electric motor, if it has to work harder, it will consume more electricity.

[-]

SmellyMingeFlaps@reddit

If you have no fat to burn, your body will burn muscle that it's not using. Even if it does have fat reserves, it will burn some degree of muscle unless you're also doing heavy resistance training to maintain your existing muscle mass. It's not like your body is a car that will just shut down on the side of the road if there's a caloric deficit.

[-]

tooplanx@reddit

Exactly. People don't start eating more because they cycled on a particular day. People eat what they will eat, so there is no extra calories (energy) being burnt when you ride a bike.

If anything, just being much healthier through cycling has a lower carbon impact than being unfit because you don't exercise enough.

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

You seem to have misunderstood the post you replied to.

Specificallyhis this part does not make sense:

there is no extra calories (energy) being burnt when you ride a bike

More exercise always burns more calories than less exercise, as the person you replied to described.

[-]

brakkaOG@reddit

These statistics are only about the fuel consumption, production is probably not taken into account at all. If you compare it to the average lifespan, electric vehicles would look very old.😂

I think it's just that it's more efficient to transport that energy from burning coal or solar panels to the wheels of the hike by using the electricity network.

There are far more losses in the transportation of calories from the farm, to the fuel in the lorry to transport the food to the shop, the fuel in the car that you use to go to the shop, the refrigeration of the food in the shop, the energy to cook the food and then you finally eating the food and a whole bunch of other steps in between. Compared to all of that, burning some fossil fuels and sending that energy down a cable to then power your bike has far fewer losses.

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

That's a guess on your end I assume?

The comparison to the horse in the source is nonsense. If you use a horse for transportation you still need to feed it even if you don't use it. If you don't have a horse for transportation that horse just doesn't exist (does not get bread) so it eats nothing.

Do you eat nothing if you ride ebikes? No, so you only have to count the extra calories you consume for riding that bike. You are not like a horse which only purpose is transportation...

How much extra calories do you think a half hour commute at zone 1-2 uses over sitting on an ebike for half an hour? It's literally peanuts (a very small handful of them).

If you don't burn ANY extra calories on the ebike (which is wrong), you need to do some form of physical activity anyway to stay healthy. Guess what, that burns extra calories for no reason with no benefit of transportation...

[-]

tomxp411@reddit

Instead of just bashing the results, some actual math might be more convincing.

A biker uses 30-60 kilocalories per mile, above and beyond their normal consumption. 1000 kilocalories produces 350 grams of CO2. So that’s 10-20 grams per mile.

As to electricity: my bike goes at least 50 miles on a 1KWh battery. More if I go slower So that’s 20Wh per mile. The dirtiest electricity generation emits 367g per KWh. Dividing down, that makes 0.367g/mile.

So not accounting for the manufacturing of the components, electric power seems a lot more efficient.

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

You literally ignored 100% of the losses of getting the energy into your battery for that calculation.

You also ignore 100% of the calories you burn through cardio exercise that you need when you don't ride the bike instead to get from A to B.

[-]

tomxp411@reddit

Yes, it’s a back of the napkin calculation. There are a lot of variables that can affect the final values.

Who says the bicycle rider exercises if they don’t ride? When I started driving again after riding a bike everywhere, I did not do any exercise to make up the difference.

And that CO2 number for power is for dirty energy. If you charge from solar (which you partly are if you charge during the day), the energy is much cleaner.

If you want to fully compare all the variables, you could write an entire paper just on the permutations involved.

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

Who says the bicycle rider exercises if they don’t ride? When I started driving again after riding a bike everywhere, I did not do any exercise to make up the difference.

Because you will eventually get sick and die if you don't do any cardiovascular exercise. You can get away with that for a while when you are young, but that will catch up with you eventually. All the medical interventions and treatments have a carbon footprint as well.

Fact is, using a bike as transportation (e.g. a commute) can replace pretty much all your cardiovascular exercise needs during the week (150 minutes of moderate exercise per week).

If you want to fully compare all the variables, you could write an entire paper just on the permutations involved.

That's kinda what the article is based on, scientific papers. I just disagree with a lot of the premisses that were made. It's kinda stacked against regular bikes.

Don't get me wrong. I own an ebike and I think it's great. I am not against the point that ebikes are a very efficient way to get around as an individual.

[-]

touko3246@reddit

There’s what people should do and there’s what people actually do.

Statistics and analysis like this is based on the patterns of what people actually do, not what they should be doing.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

You also ignore 100% of the calories you burn through cardio exercise that you need when you don't ride the bike instead to get from A to B.

The study should ignore that. We cannot assume that everyone who doesn't ride a standard bicycle does the equivalent cardiovascular exercise. Maybe they just eat less food.

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

Hard disagree.

Most people do/need some form of exercise anyways and a lot of people specifically pick the bike to get more healthy and even lose weight (meaning they were overeating those calories anyways).

The people that really don't do any form or cardio usually overeat and are consuming those extra calories anyways.

I would say the vast majority of people commuting with their bike does not have to increase caloric intake much if at all, they will just be a little bit leaner.

The study pretty much picks the absolute worse case for bikes and the absolute best case for ebikes (like literally 0 extra calories over resting).

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

The study pretty much picks the absolute worse case for bikes and the absolute best case for ebikes

Are you seeing some data that I am not? I am not aware of what assumptions that they made, so I am skeptical to make any conclusions.

I agree that a valid study would consider the combination of food calories and electricity for ebikes. I am definitely not sedentary on my ebike. I sweat - just not as much as on my standard bike.

we have to make some assumptions

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

I found this study from the same author, and that has ebikes slightly above regular bikes for CO2 per km traveled:

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43247-024-01924-4/MediaObjects/43247_2024_1924_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

These emissions encompass contributions from batteries, materials, and fuel utilization throughout the entire life cycle, from cradle-to-grave, of each transportation mode. [...] The emissions resulting from the additional caloric intake required for all modes is considered [...] The values represent the mean of the Monte Carlo simulation, with error bars indicating the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. g grams, CO2e Carbon Dioxide equivalent.

From: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01924-4

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

Thank you for the context! It seems that the environmental impact of an ebike is counterintuitive: I increase my environmental impact by pedaling harder.

Of course, that environmental impact is very small either way. To balance it out are the increased range and the health benefits of me contributing more effort.

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

The article tells us:

it’s worth mentioning that these numbers come with a caveat.

“Sure, you should ride an e-bike if you purely care about emissions, but riding a regular bike or running instead of walking certainly have health benefits,” Quinn said. “There is never one answer.”

The common cases of "you just lose some weight instead of eating more" or "you do other sports instead of biking when commuting with your ebike" are not accounted for.

“It comes down to the need to feed the human who is working hard,” Quinn said. “Since you don’t burn calories on an e-bike, that’s not factored into the environmental impact like on a normal bike.”

So they have assumed zero calories for the ebike.

I agree that a valid study would consider the combination of food calories and electricity for ebikes. I am definitely not sedentary on my ebike. I sweat - just not as much as on my standard bike.

100% agree here. Ebikes are great they are among the most energy efficient vehicles overall and you can do longer commutes on an ebike comfortably compared to a regular bike.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

The article tells us:

Thank you for pointing out that link to the article behind the meme. I don't know how I missed that.

So they have assumed zero calories for the ebike.

I agree. I think they made a flawed assumption by combining ebikes, scooters, and electric motorcycles.

[-]

Concernedmicrowave@reddit

I can't find anything scientific, but the consensus of the different people talking in various forums is that ebike calorie consumption is also pretty high, with some users reporting figures not that far off from a pedal bike.

But even if their results are right, the complete lack of data or methodology makes them worth bashing. For example, if they calculated the bus as if it were full all the time, but assumed one occupant per car, that comparison would look very different from the results if the assumed average occupancy for both, or all seats in the car filled as well.

We need to know to judge the value of the information.

[-]

tomxp411@reddit

Well, the production cost of e-bikes, compared to non powered bikes eats up any savings, anyway. It’s not even a little bit. You need 20,000 miles to pay off that carbon debt.

But any bike compared to a car… night and day.

[-]

Outrageous-Echo-765@reddit

The guess that just so happens to line up with the PhD research?

[-]

FreakDC@reddit

What lines up with what? I don't think think the numbers line up at all. E.g. the numbers for calories seem to be comparing biking with resting (lying in bed) and assume zero for ebiking (which is obviously not true).

I have an ebike and a heart rate monitor, even if you are not pedaling, your heart rate will be significantly elevated over your resting heart rate just by having to actively maneuver a bike and keep yourself balanced and upright. There are a ton of scientific studies that show that ebiking has significant health benefits because,... guess what it's also a form of low intensity exercise.

I am not saying the numbers used are wrong in itself, just the choice of which numbers to use and where to assume "zero" is very ... deliberate.

[-]

hysys_whisperer@reddit

You forgot that this is weighed against an American diet, so you have the energy to pump the groundwater to grow the alfalfa to ship to Brazil to feed the cattle to send the beef back to the US and THEN start the process you listed.

[-]

I understand the temptation to dismiss the claim and think up a bunch of theoretical reasons that could undermine the case for it.

I had the same reaction when I came across a similar claim, so I decided to test it myself using all the numbers I could find or generate for my own life, and building all of my own formulas to make sure there wasn’t any cheating in the math.

To be extra hard on the claim, every time there was any uncertainty to the numbers I used whichever ones would be worst for the e-bike vs cycling or walking, and the e-bike still came out way on top. My math does not suffer from any of the issues you bring up, but feel free to check it.

It turns out electricity just is much more efficient than food.

[-]

BugRevolution@reddit

Some of your sources didn't come through.

Anyway, most people wouldn't actually eat much more food (if any), but instead end up losing weight. Maintaining a higher weight requires a higher base caloric intake. I also saw the added kcal from biking is 0.3 of the daily basal metabolic rate (as a rough estimate).

One of the sources claims that riding an e-bike without using the assistance is the same as riding a bike. Thus they're ignoring the added weight of the ebike, which altogether is at anywhere from 10-20% of the total weight of the bike + biker.

If people would replace biking with exercise, the gains from the e-bike are entirely lost. Else the health benefits of biking are lost.

Electricity may be efficient, but humans will always be alive, and the calculations seem to ignore that.

[-]

throwhooawayyfoe@reddit

Did you actually read through the post before writing this response? The ideas you bring up might be relevant critiques of someone else’s analysis, but they don’t apply to mine.

I’m making a very specific and carefully backed-up claim: after testing the real-world performance of my ebike and doing an analysis using numbers for my diet/lifestyle and power grid, it appears riding my ebike with only throttle produces roughly an order of magnitude less carbon emissions on a per-mile basis than riding my regular bike with only leg power.

[-]

BugRevolution@reddit

Yes, I read through it.

Reading through the sources, no, it does not produce an order of magnitude less carbon emissions on a per-mile basis, because there are many other factors that are ignored or handwaved away.

For example, if you don't ride your bike to work but let your e-bike do most of the effort, you can expect to weigh more. This increases your base metabolic rate - and 5-10 kg is enough to increase your daily calorie usage by the same amount as biking. If you exercise to make up for not biking, now your metabolic rate is the same and you're also e-biking instead of biking. In other words, if biking either a) causes you to lose weight or b) replaces exercise you'd be performing anyway then either your actual net emissions is much lower, zero or if both and b apply, potentially negative - most people do not eat more food to make up for a few hundred calories spent biking. Quite the contrary actually.

One of your sources claims the calorie use of biking a regular bike vs an e-bike is the same. That's outright wrong. An e-bike weighs more and you therefore spend more calories going the same distance. The added weight is between 10-20% more weight for most people.

All those small numbers add up. We already account for many losses when considering the carbon emissions when it comes to food. For electricity, we're apparently just measuring what the production puts out and then assuming that 1) The grid is 100% efficient, 2) charging the battery is 100% efficient, 3) discharging the battery is 100% efficient (it's not; even lithium batteries loses charge just sitting there). Those three assumptions can double or even quadruple the amount of real-world power you end up using with an e-bike.

One of your sources doesn't actually link to what you're saying it links to.

These are all specific critiques of your specific analysis.

[-]

throwhooawayyfoe@reddit

For example, if you don't ride your bike to work but let your e-bike do most of the effort, you can expect to weigh more. This increases your base metabolic rate - and 5-10 kg is enough to increase your daily calorie usage by the same amount as biking. If you exercise to make up for not biking, now your metabolic rate is the same and you're also e-biking instead of biking. In other words, if biking either a) causes you to lose weight or b) replaces exercise you'd be performing anyway then either your actual net emissions is much lower, zero or if both and b apply, potentially negative - most people do not eat more food to make up for a few hundred calories spent biking. Quite the contrary actually.

None of these ifs apply to my case, as was discussed in the comments you apparently didn’t read.

One of your sources claims the calorie use of biking a regular bike vs an e-bike is the same. That's outright wrong. An e-bike weighs more and you therefore spend more calories going the same distance. The added weight is between 10-20% more weight for most people.

None of my math relies on this at all. It simply compares the actual energy used by the ebike to the sourced estimates for incremental caloric expenditure of regular biking on a per mile basis. Any differences in weight are irrelevant because they are already baked into the physics that produces those two different outcome numbers.

All those small numbers add up. We already account for many losses when considering the carbon emissions when it comes to food. For electricity, we're apparently just measuring what the production puts out and then assuming that 1) The grid is 100% efficient, 2) charging the battery is 100% efficient, 3) discharging the battery is 100% efficient (it's not; even lithium batteries loses charge just sitting there). Those three assumptions can double or even quadruple the amount of real-world power you end up using with an e-bike.

Again, no we’re not assuming these things. The carbon emissions numbers in my source include production and transmission. Any losses within the bike’s electrical system itself are already baked into the measured real world miles per charge, just like the weight issue above.

Your critiques all imagine I did the math differently than I did or live a different lifestyle than I do.

One of your sources doesn't actually link to what you're saying it links to.

Which one?

While I have to preface this with the fact that I try to go as fast as possible on my ebike (and therefore trips average 150W+ power from myself), my daily commute is estimated to cost me 150-200 calories one way. This roughly sums up to 300-400 active calories per day.

Doing the same commute with an analog bike will easily take 2x time with a similar level of average power output, so it’s not unreasonable to assume 600-800 active calories or higher.

[-]

MobiusAurelius@reddit

I think this really does not account for the net impact of the ride on the riders daily emissions.

A lot of people who bike to work view it is part of their daily goals for being active/exercising. Two birds, one stone.

You but them on an e-bike and they are just going to go for a run or a long walk when they get home.

So now I'm going to incur the extra production and electric costs of the bike over a normal bike and still burn the calories working out later.

[-]

leathrow@reddit

Yeah, I recall there being a study about it. It comes closer to even if you're a vegan.

[-]

robotnique@reddit

Even factory farming is incredibly resource intensive to produce the amount of meat modern westerners eat. It would blow the minds of our relatively recent ancestors that a lot of Americans expect to eat meat with every meal.

"But where do you get your protein, bro?"

That's like saying that since I live in a house I must have no access to sunlight. The meat lobby has people brainwashed so much.

In order to be transparent: I'm a former vegan, 20+ years vegetarian who isn't necessarily advocating for the abolition of eating meat (although I believe it to be morally wrong), I just think that the modern diet full of processed meats is godawful for you. Not that I'm good at eating the healthiest of veggie diets, I'm just as bad about eating veggie nuggets as many people are the real thing, I just believe that we are due for a societal shift.

[-]

drfeelsgoood@reddit

Protein is incredibly important and most people don’t eat enough, especially younger people who are developing and more active need it. However I don’t think we always need meat to have protein. Black beans, snap peas, all of those good and mass producible plant proteins should be pushed harder by nutritional lobbies. In my opinion. Said as a meat lover, but also an earth lover.

[-]

robotnique@reddit

most people don’t eat enough

In the United States and most other developed countries this is categorically false and easily verifiable with a ten second google search.

[-]

drfeelsgoood@reddit

Then why don’t you provide a link with some info. I’m literally going to school for nutrition and physical therapy.

[-]

robotnique@reddit

I have dramatically reduced my meat consumption in the last several years. I experimented by barbecuing beef, turkey, and "Impossible" patties, and preparing them with the same seasonings, cheese, condiments, and buns. Surprisingly, I preferred the Impossible burger over the turkey and the turkey over the beef. So, I choose to eat beef very rarely any more.

I often saute mixed fresh vegetables in olive oil. It is delicious - especially spinach or asparagus! For protein, I eat more eggs, fried tofu, cheese, and beans. I still eat chicken, turkey, or fish, but not with every meal.

[-]

NewbornMuse@reddit

Plan, cook, and buy more meatless meals, that's the heart of it. Don't think of it as reducing meat, think of it as moving your repertoire to more meat-free meals.

The classic "rice and beans" combo has like a hundred variations and they're all tasty, healthy and filling. Find out if you like tofu / how you like it the most (lots of people press and fry it, but my fave is to cube and boil it, and then put soy sauce and chili crisp on top. Serve next to rice). Make a big colorful salad and throw in a can of chickpeas - that can be a meal. Try out meat substitutes. If you're a deli meat type, try hummus and veggie sandwiches, or switch to oatmeal entirely.

[-]

Elmundopalladio@reddit

Make meat the luxury and purchase better quality meat, but less of it. Don’t just look to find a direct substitute but instead go for meals that use vegetables and pulses to complement the reduced quantities of meat. A wee bit of planning menu’s and it’s easier than you think!

[-]

robotnique@reddit

I'll be completely honest: when I was 17 or 18 in college I was eating chicken fingers and the like for every meal, and simply decided to go a month without eating meat. I'm now 39. So I didn't have a plan of action and I think that I was always ethically dubious about eating meat, it's just something that I thought was unavoidable and it turned out to be really easy.

Now being vegan for 3+ years was actually work.

Also, I'm not a vegetarian for health reasons. I'd be a hypocrite if that was the case because I'm perfectly happy living off of Trader Joe's microwavable vegan indian food and the like. So I still eat tons of processed foods and don't have some adonis body.

I would just say that certain brands of fake meat products have gotten quite good. Quorn and Gardein in particular I think are a big step up from Boca and Morningstar Farms which were the only things available when I became a vegetarian. There's SO MANY meatless and vegan options at virtually every American grocery store now.

My tip would be this: if you enjoy cooking, then eating vegetarian does actually give you an excuse to try spices and recipes that you probably wouldn't try otherwise. You might find stuff you love that you'd never think to touch otherwise. Like I bought a jar of artichoke hearts (don't buy the ones in just water, get the ones in the marinade that have been soaking in it for forever) and add them into a simple pasta dish where you would have just added chicken or fish before. And you can even still buy a meatless bag of chicken or fish facsimile that way if it turns out you fucking hate artichoke hearts you can toss them out the mix and eat something that still tastes vaguely familiar. But learn to love owning garlic salt, and cumin, and rosemary.

There is also a large difference in scale for energy consumption. I can go over 30 miles on my ebike before I recharge the battery. Including losses, that will require less than 1 kWh of electricity.

A typical EV (Tesla Model 2 Long Range) consumes 25 kWh / 100 miles, which would be 25*30/100 = 7.5 kWh to travel 30 miles. If I assume 20% charging losses, that becomes 9 kWh ... a difference of almost 10 to 1!

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

the motor is just a dc motor

I believe that most ebikes use 3-phase inductive motors. They are easy to control with a motor controller. The motor itself is pretty much just steel, iron, and copper.

I'm hoping we get sodium batteries at good density so we can stop mining lithium

Outrageous-Echo-765@reddit

Yes. It also takes into account vehicle production

[-]

conus_coffeae@reddit

Electricity isn't an energy source, it's a product. Producing it requires maintaining a massive system of infrastructure with plenty of inefficiencies along the way.

[-]

temporary62489@reddit

What if you don't eat from a trough?

[-]

the_awesome@reddit

Just ride a regular bike and starve yourself. Easy fix.

[-]

Keyboard_Cat_@reddit

[-]

Youre telling me my farts & breath have a bigger carbon footprint than an electric bike?

Food.

[-]

Ol_Man_J@reddit

Do e bike riders not eat?

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

If you use the throttle most of the time, you are using electricity directly to move, instead of burning the (carbon intensive) food you have eaten into pedaling.

[-]

Ol_Man_J@reddit

But the e biker is also going to eat, right? Do you take the e bike to work and then not eat lunch because you didn't burn calories, and at the same time saying that people riding a pedal bike also have to replace 100% of the calories burnt during a 2 mile ride?

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

Yes, that is called exercise.

More pedaling causes you to lose extra calories. So you either lose weight, or eat more.

This also applies to commuting. Ebikes have opened bike commuting to a lot of people that where prior not able to do that (Distance, hills, training, sweat...), which is a great thing.

The electric help of an ebike brought me back on the bicycle after some injuries and enabled me to enjoy long drives and get back into training.

Also they enable me to do silly stuff with my other bikes. Challenging myself for a time-trial (50km in 1.5h etc.) sometimes take away my ability to drive a normal bike to work the day after and my ebikes are always there to prevent my exhausted legs to make me take the car.

[-]

Thebandroid@reddit

Possibly they are counting the tens of thousands of bikes that are bought every year and never ridden. If including the upfront manufacturing carbon cost then They would have a very high carbon per distance ratio.

I'd say a much higher percentage of ebikes are used regularly after purchase than acoustic bikes.

[-]

tomxp411@reddit

Not really surprised, there. Our bodies put out a lot of CO2 when we are exercising.

[-]

serialband@reddit

I feel like some e-bike or e-scooter ad agency sponsored this graphic.

[-]

DIYuntilDawn@reddit

That depends, is your pre-ride carbo load a can of beans?

[-]

AmplifiedApthocarics@reddit

this study brought to you by big scooter.

[-]

nimo202@reddit

I think this analysis ignores two things:

How garbage many ebikes are. My commuter road bike was manufactured in 1979 and has thousands of miles on it since I took ownership in 2010. How many e-bikes are going to be around in 40 years? Nice ebikes will last what, 10 years? With a few battery swaps in the middle. Is there a guarantee that old battery formats and such will continue to be supported? A huge portion of the market for ebikes are basically impossible to service and need to be tossed when they break. The cost to re-wire some of these chinese ebikes is too much compared to the cost of just getting a new bike so they end up binned.
How inefficiently setup e-bikes are compared to acoustic bikes. I have a power meter on my road bike and a friends e-bike i borrow sometimes displays how much power it is outputting. in street clothes on my road bike, its like 225w to go \~20mph. Translating that over to my commuter bike which has a slightly more upright position, regular vs aero wheels, etc. I assume going 20mph is like 280-290w. On the e-bike its 400-500w to go 20mph. It just seems shocking that something that requires 150%+ power to go the same speed cant possibly be more efficient.

don't get me wrong, i am very pro ebike. from an urban planning standpoint i think they are the overall the superior option compared to all of the above options for the majority of people, whether those people recognize that fact or not :) i just think the analysis might be flawed in the ways i have outlined above

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

This assumes no pedaling on the e-bike. If you use less throttle you end up closer to the regular bike.

“Sure, you should ride an e-bike if you purely care about emissions, but riding a regular bike or running instead of walking certainly have health benefits”

[-]

SupaBrunch@reddit

This also ignores the CO2 of manufacturing the ebike, and the diet of the rider. Vegetarians have a much smaller CO2 impact from the food they eat.

[-]

YaBoyTheGrimReaper@reddit

Yes it ignores the CO2 of manufacturing, but thats a completely different question if you think about it.

like how do you count the carbon footprint to make a horse? (i.e. food intake of the mother, extra energy for her to move while carrying the extra wight, etc) Or even if you count the carbo footprint of a car, do you include the impact of the building it was made in? or the carbon footprint of the building those materials that made the building were made in?

It quickly become fractals and the question needs an arbitrary stopping point to start counting, whereas CO2 per mile is much more clear.

[-]

ginger_and_egg@reddit

Usually these are based on life cycle analyses, which would indeed include manufacturing

[-]

SupaBrunch@reddit

I looked it up, these numbers do not include manufacturing. However e-bikes still come out ahead by about 30% over analog bikes for the vehicle lifetime according to this article about the study (I couldn’t get the actually study to load for some reason).

I do have some issue with the way they got numbers for analog bikes though as it ignores important elements of human biology. They just used calories burned per mile. But when humans workout (especially regularly) they burn significantly less calories during non exercise activities. It ends up being almost cancelling out overtime if the exercise is consistent. See Kurzgesagt video.

Obviously I think both analog and e-bikes are great, but I think analog bikes are significantly better than the numbers than the numbers in this graphic.

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

This info graphic is just plain wrong. Unless you're flying in food from Russia to feed the cyclist there's no way they'll produce more co2 than the electrical grid charging the ebike.

The chart is also contradicted by other sources from the same school that confirm cycling is the most effective. https://engr.source.colostate.edu/new-research-electrified-transportation-best-option-for-reducing-carbon-footprint/

[-]

Kooky_Aussie@reddit

I haven't bothered to look, but it's possible the study is assuming electricity from renewables for charging (and potentially manufacturing)?

[-]

indnbll@reddit

Aside from nuclear "Renewable" energy has a higher carbon footprint than fossil fuels when you take into account the mining, shipping, manufacturing, and transfer loss. And that's not even mentioning the environmental disaster created from lithium mines.

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

It's impossible to know since I couldn't find anything related to that diagram on their site and other sources from the same site contradict the graphic.

They call out in the piece I linked from the same university that you only get full benefits if your electricity is supplied entirely by nuclear and renewable energy.

There's also no way to make manufacturing an ebike lower impact than a regular bike, since the heavy metals for the battery are mined out of country and shipped across the world. But since they use fake data instead of real life data, they probably also assume the lithium mine is in your backyard.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

But since they use fake data instead of real life data

Where did they do that?

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

Where they say that an ebike uses less co2 than a regular bike. Go back up to my comment and read the link from the same university this graphic is supposedly from that states clearly that cycling is more efficient than ebiking.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

that states clearly that cycling is more efficient than ebiking

It does not "clearly" say that. That is an assumption on your part. An ebike is also a "bike."

[-]

explicitly states that cycling is the most green method of transportation

That depends on how you define "cycling." The exact quote is:

According to the paper, the transportation mode with the biggest carbon reduction today is riding a bike.

“If you ride a bicycle, that’s the best form of transportation right now for reducing greenhouse gas emissions per passenger, and that accounts for emissions from eating food as fuel,” Horesh said.

Those statements are ambiguous. They could be defining "bike" and "bicycle" as only standard bikes, or they could be also including legal ebikes in their definitions. Without more information, we can only speculate.

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

I'm sorry I used a different term that means the same thing, either way it validates that the info graph above is wrong. They differentiate throughout the article between ebikes and cycling, so they wouldn't suddenly lump them together. Bicycling generates less co2 than ebiking.

B

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

so they wouldn't suddenly lump them together

You are assuming facts that are not in evidence.

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

Yes, as is done everytime you read anything where a term is defined. You assume they don't change the definition they're applying unless they specify they have changed it.

You're trying SO HARD to be right but you're not. No matter how pedantic you get.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

You're trying SO HARD to be right but you're not. No matter how pedantic you get.

I was thinking the same thing. You are trying so hard to confirm what you already believe that you are making assumptions to support it.

I am not defending any particular conclusion. I am defending critical-thinking skills. Without knowing the methodology, a reasonable person cannot determine whether the conclusions of the study are valid or not.

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

And that can't be confirmed because nobody can find it on their website. So I'm relying on sources that can be checked.

I'm not the one digging their heels in over whether the author changed the definition of a word they previously defined in their article. You're grasping at straws which is why you're pivoting now, give it up.

[-]

BoringBob84@reddit

You're grasping at straws which is why you're pivoting now, give it up.

I understand that your ego is involved now and you feel the need to attack me for pointing out that you are not thinking logically. A logical person cannot be certain of an assumption until they can verify that assumption with evidence.

[-]

ginger_and_egg@reddit

there's no way they'll produce more co2 than the electrical grid charging the ebike.

Why not? Many Americans eat meat, with beef having a very large carbon footprint

[-]

DonArgueWithMe@reddit

You mean aside from the fact that the same university contradicts the info graphic about that? Or that nobody can find an actual source on that website for the data used in it, making it seem like someone else created it and put their name on it? Or how the graphic doesn't specify a range of co2 outputs for riding or specify what type of food?

If they were even remotely accurate they'd show a range based on homegrown fruit/veg to exclusively meat or similar.

You can ride like 90 miles per gallon of milk. I did 160 in one day on sugar water and rice. A bunch of homegrown potatoes would be near zero emissions, and the manufacturing process will always be better for regular bikes.

[-]

niffcreature@reddit

That thing about vegetarian diets being lower emission doesn't factor in the fact that vegetarians fart more than meat eaters

[-]

Eltrits@reddit

Manufacturing battery requires long production chain and causes emissions.

[-]

Hellzebrute55@reddit

The way I understand it, is that ebikes just cover way way more miles over their lifetimes than bikes. So if over its life the ebike covers 10 or 20 times the amount of miles of the regular bike, the average CO2 emitted PER mile is way lower.

[-]

IntrepidGnomad@reddit

I too think the calorie argument isn’t as solid as the cost of production spread across miles argument, but both contribute.

I see folks on E-bike treads who are doing 30 mile rides a few times a week, and they are recovering from an injury meanwhile I don’t have the time or energy to get in more than 20 miles if I’m riding more than once a week.

So they could get to 100 weekly miles much faster than I could.

On the scooter side, I have coworkers making the 1-4 mile trip to work from high rise apartments and not paying for parking and they can charge the thing in the office without most folks even realizing. Those 3 mile trips add up fast when you live somewhere thats ‘almost’ walkable. 30 miles on just work commutes a week is a high average in most seasons for a cycling hobby.

[-]

underprivlidged@reddit

I ride my ebike to work every day. It is just shy of 2 miles each way, so we will call it 4 miles a day, Monday to Friday - 20 miles a work week. I also take it to do small grocery trips (a backpack full) probably once a week, and that grocery store is roughly 1.5 miles, so 3 extra miles a week, totaling roughly 23 miles a week, every week for me.

I also ride it for recreation, but mostly during the weekends in summer, and that could range from a mile here and there, to a 15+ mile trip to random destinations. I can't really give an accurate idea here, but I would assume I add at least an extra 25 miles a month in the summer months for recreation. So, maybe averaging 50ish miles per summer months by comparison.

I actually just found it and came to the same conclusion! Infographic / article might indeed be omitting manufacturing numbers. I've reached out to the author to confirm / explain the discrepancy, will update if I hear back.

[-]

Street-Frosting-4876@reddit

Let us know the response!

[-]

kwajr@reddit

Right and does it factore how long batteries last before they need rebuilt or replaced....

[-]

c3161@reddit

You definitely still have to pedal an e-bike. If I use Turbo mode (the highest assist level) on my bike, I still do about 28% of the total work according to the Bosch app. So you don't burn as many calories as you would on a regular bike, but you definitely still burn some.

[-]

The next moral panic we will have is the environmental impact of exercise.

[-]

Sun_Storm_AK@reddit

There should not be moral panic because of a study. It is just silly.

[-]

TowelEnvironmental44@reddit

There should be a lithium-ion disassembly facility in every city with 100,000 or more residents. Discharge battery, cut internal wiring, pull cells out. Store cells in max 1 kilowatt hours worth of 18650 battery storage boxes, while waiting for grinding to pulp.

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

It's not silly for a study to have a specific focus. Every study can't include every variable.

[-]

8ringer@reddit

Yes but these cute infographics never actually show the criteria being evaluated. I’ll accept that me riding my acoustic bike 6mi each way to work is 10x “cleaner” than driving my car. But I’m not sure I accept that the energy used to ride 6mi on an ebike is 4x “cleaner” than me powering myself. When I commuted every day I did eat a bit more, sure, but I also lost weight and got in significantly better shape and my extra caloric intake wasn’t as significant as I got in better shape.

also, they’ve got to define what sort of ebike they’re talking about…there can be some big differences in battery use and human energy use depending on the class, the infrastructure and whether you’re using throttle ebike or a pedal assist one.

[-]

Sun_Storm_AK@reddit

If you commute every day by regular bicycle you will be healthier = live longer = more economic activity throughout the life = more carbon footprint. So if you want to consider all variables, then you have to consider every activity that shortens human life is one that is better from a carbon emissions standpoint.

Lower CO2 emissions don't automatically mean "better". It means what it means - lover CO2 emissions. If the study is about it, why does it need to take into consideration other things?

There could be a world, where riding a regular bike is "worse" from the CO2 emissions standpoint, but better overall.

[-]

Visible-Grass-8805@reddit

Yes.

My beef is more with this “article” and it’s conclusion that e-bikes are the most environmentally friendly mode of transportation based solely co2 emission estimates. I think it’s incredibly silly to make that statement without taking into consideration the e waste implications of e bikes among other things. I’m sure if we compare e bikes and regular bikes holistically regular bikes will prove to be “better for the environment”. Whatever the fuck that means. 🤣

Also, silly that they didn’t include a co2 emissions estimate for gas powered mopeds.

Below is an alternative infographic. Regular bikes kicking ass as you’d expect.

https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

[-]

Sun_Storm_AK@reddit

The original article is not very well made, as I understand from the comments. I would like to see more articles researching this topic.

Claim of being "environmentally friendly" is very different from claim of being "lowest of overall CO2 emissions" and they shouldn't do it, of course.

Just glad to see somebody addresses the obvious fact that when you bike for commuting you consume fuel. This fuel is additional food you eat. And when you count emissions or money costs you should address this fact, IMHO.

Did they address this fact in your infographic, btw? I see there is 0 "fuel component" in the "private bike" column.

[-]

Visible-Grass-8805@reddit

I think they mean fuel in the traditional sense not including food.

I personally don’t think that food really matters much here when comparing co2 emissions. Every person, no matter which mode of transportation they use, is eating and burning calories. It’s also really hard to generalize on this. Some people don’t eat beef. Some people who drive cars consume many times the calories some cyclists do. Some people eat less than others. And also, transportation cycling isn’t the same as competitive cycling. You don’t really burn that many calories putzing across town at 13mph on a bicycle.

[-]

8ringer@reddit

I agree with all these points. I can’t recall if I mentioned it but the more in shape I got, the fewer calories I burned on my commute and my body got stronger and more efficient at my hilly commute. That all being said, I’m far (so very far) from pro tour level fitness and I’d wager 95% of the bike commuters I saw in Seattle were just normal people who preferred to ride their bike over driving or taking transit. I personally didn’t judge or evaluate them based on their bike being electric or not (well I did in the sense that I would reconsider passing them if they were riding an ebike and there were hills up ahead). The whole “it takes fuel to ride a bike” is wildly overblown though and it’s carbon impact while likely measurable, is close to negligible for many. In fact, it’s likely zero for many people who ride to work instead of doing cardio at the gym. That fuel would be spent regardless so if it’s being spent getting to work and back instead of riding nowhere on a stationary bike or treadmill at the gym it’s a benefit with absolutely zero carbon downside.

Traditional bikes remain greener per mile; ebikes are pragmatic decarbonization tools.

[-]

Then_Supermarket18@reddit

Here's the study it references

Horesh, Noah & Quinn, Jason. (2024). Fuel shifts reduce most of the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in the United States. Communications Earth & Environment. 5. 10.1038/s43247-024-01924-4.

Decarbonizing the United States transportation sector has emerged as a critical objective to combat climate change due to its high greenhouse gas emissions, largely from light-duty vehicles. This study assesses the breakdown of life cycle emissions of various transportation options under average and maximum ridership scenarios and quantifies emissions reductions through mode shifts and technology advancements. Electrified transportation achieves half the greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-fueled options in 2023, with projections indicating a reduction to one-fifth by 2050. Battery systems contribute up to one-fifth of lifetime emissions of electric vehicles and buses as of 2023, and this share is estimated to increase to half by 2050 as electricity emissions are greatly reduced with the decarbonization of electricity. The study concludes that shifting away from light-duty vehicles can achieve near-term greenhouse gas reductions, but these reductions are minimal in the long term when combined with transportation electrification powered by decarbonized electricity.

[-]

lfenske@reddit

This is not even close to accurate

[-]

It does not make sense to me that the bus is more efficient here than a train. Regional train at 98 and regional bus at 38 seems very off.

[-]

elAhmo@reddit

😅😅😅😅😅😅

[-]

bucking-fastard-92@reddit

Most people I know on e bikes still eat food.

[-]

bucking-fastard-92@reddit

Simply too simple to make any sense. To disregard embodied carbon makes this comparison entirely relative and meaningless. It is senseless to argue that manufacturing batteries and electric motors is less impactful than avoiding to do so.

[-]

I_am_doing_my_Hw@reddit

Fun fact: if I to try to swim to Australia, my carbon footprint would be more than if I just flew on a plane.

kurisu7885@reddit

Nice, glad you have the option.

Public E-scooters ned to be collected (often by car), which should be considered for their emission.
I wish they included SUVs & planes for comparision.

- going fast and loose with item lifetimes and mileages

in the end it all depends how you tweak the numbers. I've seen reasonably put together studies claiming that on typical energy mix where natural gas and coal still prevail and with longer expected service life of regular car EVs are comparable or even the less green option. I've seen a lot of studies claiming the opposite.

Here my suspicion is that bikes have much lower expected mileage than cars and probably in a low range for a typical cyclist. And that battery is not taken into the footprint. Obviously pedaling on an ebike is not. And they took into account footprint of raising a horse, otherwise those guys are super efficient, they basically evolved to run.

[-]

pooter6969@reddit

Hit the nail on the head. Leaving out the disposal phase for a product with a big ass battery is just being willfully misleading. Safe battery disposal is becoming a huge issue right now.

[-]

Okay, thank you that makes sense. I agree, I don't believe that either.

[-]

tanilolli@reddit

“Since you don’t burn calories on an e-bike, that’s not factored into the environmental impact like on a normal bike.”

This is of course absolute nonsense.

[-]

8ringer@reddit

He also said this:

“Sure, you should ride an e-bike if you purely care about emissions, but riding a regular bike or running instead of walking certainly have health benefits,” Quinn said. “There is never one answer.”

So he’s not totally off his rocker.

[-]

RuggerJibberJabber@reddit

It's stupid to even factor it though. People need a certain amount of exercise each week. Cyclists are likely to use that commute as their weekly exercise. If someone gets the bus and then goes for a jog later on as their exercise that jog isn't going to be factored into the commute emissions.

Also if you're going to get as anal as measuring calories then you should also look at the source of calories as a vegans calories are going to have fewer emissions than someone on the liver king diet.

[-]

8ringer@reddit

I agree. My commute was my workout. In that sense my commute was free, since I theoretically would have burned the calories at the gym. I say in theory because I’m a lazy POS and basically didn’t workout aside from dog walks. So my fitness went from terrible to great, my overall health increased a lot, and I got to work just as fast as if I were driving.

Also the e-waste aspect of the ebike industry and the hundreds of thousands of absolutely garbage soon-to-be-ewaste bikes being hawked on Amazon and Aliexpress is something that the traditional bike production doesn’t have to consider whatsoever. I’m not saying e-bikes are evil, but I think there are a ton of negatives in the industry right now that are being swept under the rug.

The calories just existing would be the same across all forms of transportation. There's no point in adding them as it doesn't change the differences in carbon output.

The study is basically giving ebikes the best case scenario by not including people who actually pedal. I don't see the issue with that as the whole point is trying to find the form of transportation with the lowest carbon output.

[-]

bradeena@reddit

You can’t include calories for one mode of transport and not the others. All the others should have the calories of existing added to their numbers if we’re adding it for cycling.

[-]

throwhooawayyfoe@reddit

or cycling should have the calories of existing subtracted from the calorie count they’re using.

Yes, this is how this kind of math typically works: they only count the incremental calories of exercise: the additional calories burned because you were doing something other than just sitting around existing.

Estimates depend on the person and various other factors, but the incremental caloric expenditure of walking is roughly 100kcal/mile and biking around 50.

Biking is great for all sorts of reasons and exercise has value and whatnot, this is just looking at the narrow physics question of which generates more total carbon emissions on a per mile basis.

[-]

Fit_Buyer6760@reddit

How do you know they didn't do that? I actually tried to find where the numbers from that image came from, and it looks like they pulled them from thin air. The Quinn guy they are interviewing does have a research paper about the topic, but it was published after OPs article came out and the numbers don't match up. There is zero mention of horses in it as well.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01924-4#ref-CR24

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

But you burn less calories that way, is the point I think.

[-]

ithika@reddit

If they don't pedal then they don't move. It's not a motorbike.

[-]

Can-I-remember@reddit

Once again we get confused by the term e-bike. Your e-bike is a pedal assisted Class 1, their e-bike is a throttle powered Class 2/3.

This is so dependent on multiple factors: how much riding, nature of ride, …

[-]

GulliblePea3691@reddit

This is such a bad faith calculation it’s absurd

[-]

aitorbk@reddit

The more you pedal, the more emissions you have on an ebike. I have said this before on cycling subreddits and forums and got so many downvotes for just saying the truth.

Back in the early 80s, my uncle owned a bike shop. He rode a Moped to and from work, despite being fit and able to bike that distance easily. When asked why he didn't ride a bicycle, he would reply, "It costs too much in fuel."

He would spend about a dollar a week on gas, but it would take $2-3 a day in food.

(There was also a busy road he had to travel on, and he couldn't maintain enough speed on the uphill on the bike. He still had to pedal the Moped on that stretch.)

[-]

kurisu7885@reddit

(There was also a busy road he had to travel on, and he couldn't maintain enough speed on the uphill on the bike. He still had to pedal the Moped on that stretch.)

Those are the situations where I use the throttle on my class 2

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

I love it.

[-]

Oxitoskilos@reddit

Ah, so that's the reason you ride! Lowering your carbon footprint. And I thought it was because you where lazy and wanted to ride dangerously, endangering real bicyclists and pedestrian, not to mention creating accidents with motor vehicles. And with all the fat ass parents buying e-bikes and e-scooters for their kids, they road to chubb status will come quicker. They can get fat and lazy, but, hey, their carbon footprint is so low they can zip down to 7-11 and buy some greasy potato chips to stuff in their chubby cheeks.

[-]

Kgeezy91@reddit

What crock of shit “study” determined this?

[-]

D33Z_Naughts@reddit

Buy a regular bike there’s no way there better for the world

[-]

MikeWrenches@reddit

This seems to assume the person riding the conventional bike does an absolute calories out = calories in type of deal and starts bulking up on steaks to make up for the energy requirements of cycling.

That doesn't seem realistic to me, many people will instead run a calorie deficit and get fit, and once they get fit the calorie cost of hauling their fatass goes down and they even stand a chance of starting to eat better, not necessarily eating more.

[-]

Weak-Occasion-9015@reddit

I have a class 1 fs emtb. Pedaling is mandatory.

[-]

qrakko@reddit

Where's Taylor Swifts jet on that ?

[-]

TangeloDecent5846@reddit

Yeah I call bullshit on ebike>bicycle.

It assumes that there is a net significant increase in food used by cyclists, causing extra food demand and environmental impact, which is supposed to overshadow the demand for the minerals and raw materials required to make e-vehicles? I presume it also doesn't account for improved health outcomes of the cyclist, amongst many other assumptions.

More detail needed here for sure.

[-]

Destabiliz@reddit

You'll have to consider the fact that the minerals will only be mined once and then the battery and electronics will run for a decade or so with very little maintenance / electricity. And the industrial scale of this process is so massive that a single tiny ebike is not even a blip on the emissions radar.

Meanwhile your body consumes a ton of calories for the extra work of pedaling and the efficiency of that process (sunlight into plants / animals and into calories inside your cells) is absolutely abysmal compared to electric motors.

[-]

mighty_atom@reddit

Meanwhile your body consumes a ton of calories for the extra work of pedaling

But do people eat more when they cycle? 3 times a week I cycle to the office and back which is about a 10 miles round trip. I don't eat more than usual on those days.

I feel like for a lot of people they would eat the same whether they are cycling or not, they just burn more of the calories on the days they cycle and store more of them as fat on the days they don't.

[-]

theripper595@reddit

10 miles is probably around 500 calories. So 1500 calories per week. You'd lose around half a pound per week if you weren't eating more to account for the cycling

[-]

iaintcommenting@reddit

Or, assuming your math is right, gaining about 1/2lb on the weeks you're not cycling or otherwise active, which feels about right.

[-]

recoil669@reddit

The bike one may not be totally accurate. I was gonna be a fatty and eat those calories anyway. 🤣 Also my ebike is a hybrid I want credit for my partial exercise.

[-]

I_like_F-14@reddit

So they split cars into there 3 power plants but not busses or trains?

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

That would just put your number between their e-bike and bicycle figure.

[-]

padan28@reddit

A lot of arguing going on in here, so I would just like to point out that two things can be true at the same time:

1) electric bike propulsion produces fewer greenhouse gases per mile than human powered bike propulsion

2) It's kind of silly to choose an ebike over a non-ebike *for this reason* if you are planning to make biking part of your workout routine. No on in their right mind is going to judge a non-ebiker for polluting, or shame them for getting extra exercise...right?

The study is not passing judgement on the non-ebiker, it's simply a calculation of emissions per mile.

Just to run the numbers myself to make sure they aren't full of it, I use about 25 wh of electricity per mile on my ebike with minimal peddling according to my cycle analyst computer.

that means I get 40 miles per kwh of electricity used. According to EPA.gov the US average emissions for electricity generation is 0.81 lbs CO2 per kwh, which is 367 grams. 367g / 40miles = 9 grams per mile emissions on my ebike.

So...I did get a little higher than their number of "8", without factoring in manufacturing of the bike or charging inefficiency, but certainly in the ballpark, and I ride around 18mph in a hilly area. A slower, flatter ride would certainly get that number down under 8 I imagine.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

[-]

Jasonstackhouse111@reddit

Instead of quibbling over numerical details, let's just acknowledge that bikes, ebikes, etc are the lowest emission forms of transportation, with transit the next lowest and personal automobiles the worst - by a massive margin.

Take those numbers with a grain of salt. Or a bucket of salt. I find this kind of studies are usually way off, or simply too vague to be trusted. I haven't looked at these studies particularly (read the article), so not commenting on this directly.

This happens cause of multiple reasons, but most common ones I understand would be

1: Bias. Yeah, they want certain results so they use favourable variables or ignore some. Like using theoretical numbers instead of actual tested outputs or excluding decommissioning/recycling from life cycle emissions etc.

2: People making the studies are just stupid. Remember, half of people are under average IQ and people tend to get promoted untill attaining to a position they are not cable of handling. Scientific communities are no exception from the latter one. People keep pushing past their comfort zone and end up dealing with stuff they are not cable to handle.

3: Calculating these comparisons is actually darn complicated. I often see mistakes made, but don't know how to actually rectify them. Like calculating road wear caused by traffic of different weights. I understand it is simply not calculating pressure of contact points and assuming wear goes linearly by pressure. A 100kg rider+bike would cause way less wear than 1/10th of the wear of a 1000kg car per passing. I assume the weight difference here is not that big with bike vs. E-bike, to cause a significant difference, BUT I would assume there's still a ton of similar stuff unaccounted for.

These are just examples. I'm sure there's engineers who routinely use correct calculations for building roads all the time. This is not the point. The point is that many studies lack the right knowledge and when trying to do things right, it get very complicated and at some point.

So yeah. This study could be close enough, or it could be way off. I'd not trust it personally.

[-]

theGreatBlar@reddit

This looks fishy, source?

I figure my e-bike’s electricity emits around 0.37g of CO2 per mile, or 740g of CO2 for a 2000 mile lifespan.

Lithium batteries cost about 50-150KG of CO2 to manufacture, for a 1KWh battery.

So yeah - the CO2 cost to make a 1KWh battery is more than the cost of pedaling for 2000 miles. You’d need to put more like 20,000 miles on an e-bike for that to balance out.

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

The manufacturing is included. It doesn't include other pollution from lithium mining, but it also doesn't include other environmental impacts from monocrop agriculture or other farming issues.

[-]

dabluebunny@reddit

Is this divided by passengers or how does a bus have less than a car?

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

It is divided by passengers.

[-]

TonyXuRichMF@reddit

Since you don’t burn calories on an e-bike

LTskimp@reddit

Right - it gets so trivial at the smaller levels . Like what about the materials they go into an Ebike be regular bike ? We considering those ? And diet are we using here when considering the calories burned for a regular bike? Mediterranean or American ..?

[-]

I'd guess that e-scooters are lower as they don't have pedals.

[-]

DinoGarret@reddit (OP)

Yes they are. A bus definitely takes more carbon per mile than a car on an absolute basis.