|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that
bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. Why you may ask... Because Cyclists live longer and therefore are more of a drain on energy and resources! You can't win with this crowd. Oh well I guess we'll have to outlive them... Rich Here is a link to the research paper in Adobe format. http://tinyurl.com/eae2d: |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
"Richard B" wrote in message
. 3.50... Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. Why you may ask... Because Cyclists live longer and therefore are more of a drain on energy and resources! You can't win with this crowd. Oh well I guess we'll have to outlive them... Your post reminds me of some of the old smoking arguments. Governments argued that they should be compensated because of the cost of taking care of sick smokers. Tobacco companies argued that no compensation was appropriate because, since smokers died sooner, they collected overall less in government benefits over their lifetimes. As I work on retirement planning -- retirement not being imminent, but planning being necessary -- it's pretty clear that one of the big factors in how much money I need to save up in retirement is how long I should plan on living after retirement. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
"Mike Kruger" wrote in message .com... "Richard B" wrote in message . 3.50... Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. Why you may ask... Because Cyclists live longer and therefore are more of a drain on energy and resources! You can't win with this crowd. Oh well I guess we'll have to outlive them... Your post reminds me of some of the old smoking arguments. Governments argued that they should be compensated because of the cost of taking care of sick smokers. Tobacco companies argued that no compensation was appropriate because, since smokers died sooner, they collected overall less in government benefits over their lifetimes. As I work on retirement planning -- retirement not being imminent, but planning being necessary -- it's pretty clear that one of the big factors in how much money I need to save up in retirement is how long I should plan on living after retirement. Makes me wonder who paid him for the paper. Car companies? oil companies? I don't see how any twisted logic has driving motor vehicles being less of an impact on the environment that riding a bicycle has, irrespective of lifespans. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
"Earl Bollinger" wrote in message
. .. Makes me wonder who paid him for the paper. Car companies? oil companies? I don't see how any twisted logic has driving motor vehicles being less of an impact on the environment that riding a bicycle has, irrespective of lifespans. I'm still not through the paper, but it has this tidbit, based on regression analysis [insert junk science joke here] "...estimate a 0.029 year increase in longevity for each year an individual engages in bicycling 2600 km" The reason why this is particularly interesting is this: 0.029 years is 250 hours -- but, if you slept 8 hours a day this would be 170 waking hours. At 15 km/hr -- the minimum speed on a brevet -- it would take you 170 hours to ride that far So, on average, you aren't wasting time riding when you could be spending time with your spouse. You are time-shifting that time until your spouse is old and needs your companionship even more. You just want to make as sure as possible that you will be around to help her in her old age. I don't know whether this argument will work or not, but I certainly intend to try it I recall that there is other work suggesting that the increase in longevity from exercise is about the same order of magnitude as the time spent exercising -- but I can't recall those citations now. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Richard B wrote: Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that bicycles offer little benefit to the environment. The professor made so many (stated) assumptions that his conclusions are questionable. For example, he assumed that bicyclists owned a car. While it is true for many bicyclists, it is not universally true. Since the manufacture of the car represents (according to the professor) 10% of the total energy costs of car ownership, it is a significant assumption. Why you may ask... Because Cyclists live longer and therefore are more of a drain on energy and resources! You can't win with this crowd. Oh well I guess we'll have to outlive them... Rich Here is a link to the research paper in Adobe format. http://tinyurl.com/eae2d: |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Beaming example ICBC
How much coal and iron ore does it take to build one car. How much ozone do they burnout forever per year. I have heard a few to several tons per year of pollution per car/yr. Vague for good reason. How much fossil fuel do they burnout forever. you get the picture. I use sweat powered vehicles only. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Your post reminds me of some of the old smoking arguments. [...]
:-) I read once a study saying that obese people where helping reducing the green house gas, because they keep a lot of Carbon in their fat!.. so if all of us where obese, it could be a way to significantly reduce climate change! This study was a serious one, but written as a joke, and the author concluded that it would still be better to consumates less than more ******** For the bike study, there are a few things: p3: "Physical activity by previously sedentary individuals increases their longevity, and therefore their overall energy consumption." === but it reduces the energy those people use when spending countless hours buying useless devices or watching TV, or even the rate of replacing the soffa because there is a hole under their butt p3: "The energy required to produce, process, and transform food is approximately 5.75 times greater than the energy content of the food itself (Coley 1998)" === it depends on what you eat... frozen pre-made meal or vegetables from the farms in your state! p7: "For the assumed parameters the net savings from bicycling are 1.3-1.5 GJ/yr. This savings is 0.5-0.7 percent of total annual energy use, so small as to be well within the likely error in the estimate." === So it is a reduction of the energy consuption! ... and the likely errors in his assumptions, "mean values" (rather than using the median or the mode in all the values distribution, depending on the skewness of the distribution) Some thing he forgot: * More bikes = less car == need for more bikepath and less roads, which are cheaper (and smaller, by size) to built. Also, need for less road maintenance. * More activities = better health = less visit to the doctors/hopital in your midle age * more bikes = less cars = less polution = less cost for the society anyways, this kind of study are total crap... somebody should write one entitled "Environmental benefit of banning all private cars" Jean |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Amen to that Jean
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Richard B. posted:
"Research by UPenn professor Karl Ulrich came to the conclusion that bicycles offer little benefit to the environment....Because Cyclists live longer and therefore are more of a drain on energy and resources! Here is a link to the research paper in Adobe format. http://tinyurl.com/eae2d: " Now I'm actually reading the article, and there are some interesting little facts along the way. I've blindcopied Ulrich and enclosed the Google link for this discussion, in case he's interested. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...366830108b9b3a Average automobile in US uses 3.8 MJ/km. This is substantially higher than the average for the OECD countries of 2.5 MJ/km. So, roughly speaking, if we drove the smaller, more efficient vehicles common elsewhere in the developed world we could drive just as far just as often and still use one-third less gasoline. A person on a bicycle uses 17kJ/km directly, or 77kJ/km in terms of food energy (since the ratio of work done to food energy consumed is about 22%). The energy required to produce, process, and transform the food is 5.75 times greater than the energy in the food, so the total energy cost is about 0.44MJ/km, or about 1/6 to 1/9th that of the automobile. There's a lot of difference between 17kj and 440kj, which might explain some of the discrepancies in some of the discussions on this newsgroup over time over the food energy cost of cycling. Several dozen studies show exercise expenditure of 4.2 mJ/wk (about 1000 kcal, or what we usually call 1000 calories) is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. The fatality rate (from accidents) is assumed to be 12 times as high per kilometer for cycling as for driving. Fatalities, of course, lower future energy consumption. Increasing logevity does not change end-of-life healthcare requirements, but extends the healthy years. Ulrich's conclusion is that bicycling that replaces automobile use (even if you still own the automobile) lowers total per capita energy consumption from all sources by -.005 (i.e. half of 1%), even allowing for the increased energy used by living longer. 0.5% is well within the error range of his analysis, so the effect could be zero. However, if your biking kilometers don't replace automotive use, you don't save energy, but still live longer. Therefore your energy use increases by ..037 (3.7%) This makes sense -- many of us have noted that driving to a ride uses up energy rather than saves it. Electric scooters or electric bicycles have similar energy patterns and fatality patterns as a bicycle (they just use electricity instead of food), but don't increase longevity. Therefore, they have a more positive impact on energy use over a lifetime. As others have noted, Ulrich assumes the cyclist still owns the same number of vehicles so he misses the energy benefits of not manufacturing the car. Are there a lot of such people with "one less car" in their household (who aren't posting on this newsgroup)? Is there an estimate somewhere of how many? If there were such an estimate, this could be factored in. All in all, the study documents its assumptions and is presented in a clear manner and is worth a look. Earl wondered who paid for the research. The paper doesn't say, but Ulrich does have another bicycle paper in his resume, and this usually doesn't indicate hostility: Taylor Randall and Karl Ulrich, "Product Variety, Supply Chain Structure, and Firm Performance: Analysis of the U.S. Bicycle Industry," Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 12, December 2001, p. 1588-1604. There's also this chapter: Karl Ulrich, Taylor Randall, Marshall Fisher, and David Reibstein, "Managing Product Variety: A Study of the Bicycle Industry," in Managing Product Variety, Tech-Hua Ho and Chris Tang (editors), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998. There's a bit of small-world theory involved here, since I just presented a paper extending one of Reibstein's other models at an INFORMS conference, (and Management Science is an INFORMS journal). Mike Kruger Blog: http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New Study... bicycles offer little benefit to the environment.
Here is a copy of the letter I just send to the author... I will let you
know the answer if I receive one. PS: read the coffee part, in the midle of the message...it's interesting! Jean ------------------ Dear Dr. Ulrich I have found your working paper "THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARADOX OF BICYCLING" very surprising. The first and main one is your statement on page 7: "For the assumed parameters the net savings from bicycling are 1.3-1.5 GJ/yr. This savings is 0.5-0.7 percent of total annual energy use, so small as to be well within the likely error in the estimate." To get to this conclusion, you make a lot of assumptions. For instance, you use only mean values for the energy required when biking, the food consuption or the ratio food vs. energy (p3). You must take into account that sportive people are more likely to eat better food (i.e. food that contains more energy and that had been less transformed) than sedentary people. Indeed, a cyclist eating frozen pre-made meals will not have enough energy to bike! The use of this mean value also induce a bias, that would likely result in more energy conservation per year. Also, as usual in sciences, the use of a mean value is arguable and realy depends on the distribution of the data, which you do not mention. How is the kurtosis and skewness of the energy required per biked km for a representative sampling of the population? There are some other things that you do not count and that certainly influence the energy saving. * When sedentary people start to do physical activities, it takes them time. During this time, people do not buy things (shopping beeing one of the most populat activity in many North American places), they do not use energy for watching TV or using their computers, and, to another extent, people practicing activities will lilekely change their soffa (for overuse reasons) less often, saving even more energy. * People biking to their job in the morning get there awake and need less coffee in the morning. You haven't count the energy saved to grow, transport, pack the coffee, nor the energy needed to make the cup and the energy needed to recycle/burn the cup, nor the energy used for boiling the water etc. Making 1 cup of coffee takes around 126,000 calories (http://www.classroom-energy.org/teac...tour/pg1.html). Someone that work 5 days a week, and has 3 weeks of holidays will therefore work about 245 days a years, which equates to 30 870 000calories, or 129.2 mJ. You use a yearly distance of 2 600km / y. 129 200 kJ / 2 600 = 49.7 kJ/km The total energy cost of cycling is therefore 443kJ/km - 49.7 kJ/km = 393.3kJ/km, a decrease if more than 11%. This brings the net change in energy use relative to sedentary base case to -1641 instead of -1513 mJ You also have to consider that * More bikes = less car == need for more bikepath and less roads, which are cheaper (and smaller, by size) to built. Also, need for less road maintenance. * More activities = better health = less visit to the doctors/hopital in your midle age * More bikes = less cars = less polution = less cost for the society * Less use of the car = less maintenance, use of the same car for a longer time. I'll let you do the maths but I am confident that the energy saving would be much greater than what you have found. Climate change starting to affect us more and more, it would be much wiser to write a study about "Environmental benefit of banning all private cars" rather than, in other words "byciling is bad". Thank you for your attention, [MY FULL NAME] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | patrick | Racing | 1790 | November 8th 04 04:16 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Data (was PowerCranks Study) | Phil Holman | Racing | 102 | October 21st 03 12:21 AM |