Is cycling really carbon-efficient?

Andre Jute wrote:

This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over on
AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when somebody
rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an even pace
that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation purposes" type
pacing) what is the *total* carbon emitted? Counting
back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate, the grain used
to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that, the truck that
carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does pedal
assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a big
calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine like
that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough, could
beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat that.

--
Les Cargill


well you'd also have to calculate the carbon emissions it took
to make the components of the bike and also the carbon emissions
it took for the factory to assemble all those components.
So before you even start to pedal - there is a carbon price to pay.
The main thing is to start manufacturing goods that take up less
carbon footprint to make and assemble.
It does little good to make a car that is 'electric' when the components
and production and manufacturing of that car blows out a nebulus cloud
of carbon before the consumer even drives it. That includes the plastics
in cars that take petroleum to make and the processes involved... so much
to list here.

In a sense it's all 'feel good' stuff right now. The consumer gets to
feel good by stepping lightly within an already made massive footprint
of carbon gluttony. Does no good to have 'green' consumer goods when
that item took a massive carbon spew to make from raw product to assembled item.

If we really wanted to cut emissions then we would have much better
public transit. It seems silly to keep making 'eco-friendly' cars when
what would be far better is to have much better train service and
rail lines and other forms of public transportation. That's just a start...
so many other things that can really be done instead of marginal 'feel good'
items that really don't do a damn thing for carbon emissions.

A few people riding a bike doesn't make a difference.
A few million people riding public trans, trains.. etc... does make
a difference instead of each commuter and consumer rumbling around
in millions of 'green cars'. You want progress ? Lay train tracks down
on major highways and have efficient trains instead of cars.

ahh... sorry for the rant.

Squier wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over on
AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when somebody
rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an even pace
that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation purposes" type
pacing) what is the *total* carbon emitted? Counting
back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate, the grain used
to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that, the truck that
carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does pedal
assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a big
calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine like
that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough, could
beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat that.

--
Les Cargill


well you'd also have to calculate the carbon emissions it took
to make the components of the bike and also the carbon emissions
it took for the factory to assemble all those components.
So before you even start to pedal - there is a carbon price to pay.
The main thing is to start manufacturing goods that take up less
carbon footprint to make and assemble.
It does little good to make a car that is 'electric' when the components
and production and manufacturing of that car blows out a nebulus cloud
of carbon before the consumer even drives it. That includes the plastics
in cars that take petroleum to make and the processes involved... so much
to list here.

In a sense it's all 'feel good' stuff right now. The consumer gets to
feel good by stepping lightly within an already made massive footprint
of carbon gluttony. Does no good to have 'green' consumer goods when
that item took a massive carbon spew to make from raw product to assembled item.

If we really wanted to cut emissions then we would have much better
public transit. It seems silly to keep making 'eco-friendly' cars when
what would be far better is to have much better train service and
rail lines and other forms of public transportation. That's just a start...
so many other things that can really be done instead of marginal 'feel good'
items that really don't do a damn thing for carbon emissions.

A few people riding a bike doesn't make a difference.
A few million people riding public trans, trains.. etc... does make
a difference instead of each commuter and consumer rumbling around
in millions of 'green cars'. You want progress ? Lay train tracks down
on major highways and have efficient trains instead of cars.

ahh... sorry for the rant.

At least as they are implemented around here, trains (Metro) aren't
practical unless you happen to both live and work near a station. Why?
There's no provisions for bringing your bike on during rush hour! In
fact you are not allowed to do so. So either you have two cars and
leave your beater stashed at the work end, or two bikes (same same)
which requires a lot of planning as well as trust that whatever you
leave at the work end station won't get beat up or stolen.

As for the energy cost of manufacturing, that's one thing smug owners of
efficient new cars tend to forget about, and also one reason why I have
a 20 year old sports car (the others being that I'm a cheap *******, and
also really can't justify the cost of any *new* cars that I'd actually
want to drive.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Nov 28, 3:49*am, "
wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:03*am, Andre Jute wrote:





This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over on
AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when somebody
rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an even pace
that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation purposes" type
pacing) *what is the *total* carbon emitted? Counting
back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate, the grain used
to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that, the truck that
carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does pedal
assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a big
calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine like
that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough, could
beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat that.

--
Les Cargill

A gallon of vegetable oil contains 35,000 dietary calories or can be
burned in a diesel engine.
If a cyclist is riding at 10 MPH and consuming 175 calories an hour,
he can ride *for 200 hours over 2,000 miles.

An automotive diesel might get 25-50 mpg.

This looks like the right approach. I should think the steel, rubber
and plastic on a bike is pound for pound pretty much equivalent in
manufacturing energy cost to that in an automobile, and there is no
reason to believe that a cyclist needs to eat more than a driver (1).
And right there, at this point, having balanced the equivalences, and
being left with only the differences, we can evaluate the comparison,
because, as someone has already observed, the bicycle's motive force
is the human, and the automobile needs fuel. After that we're into
comparative efficiency of use of fuel, which is where your numbers
come in.

Not that I'd want to be on a diet of vegetable oil, of course...

Andre Jute
I'm not a know-all. I don't need to be. I know who to ask.

(1) Quite the contrary, if one compares the pedalpals in their shorts
with ladies spreading their already fat arses in Range Rovers.

On Nov 27, 5:47*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Les Cargill wrote:
[...]

Consider it a working assumption. What I'd like to know is: does
cycling always beat driving a car so far as oil use goes?

For energy use, I'd be surprised if cycling ever used more. The human
body considered as an engine is about 25% efficient, cars are maybe 30%.
But a car is so much bigger and heavier and has much squishier tyres,
you use much more energy to go anywhere in it.

I don't think a _car_ is 30% efficient, i think a small internal
combustion engine can approach 30%, but the mere act of
shuffling all that movement through the drivetrain drops you
down to 25% on a good day.


As for oil use, well it depends, but a cyclist doesn't have to use any
oil at all except a few drops on the chain.

I can go through a couple of pounds of butter in a week. Also
pork fat is a pretty good seasoning. Admittedly these aren't
normally sucked out of the tundra, but I can use 'em for my
chain in a pinch, I guess.


On the other hand if you ride less than about 5 miles to work and then
take a hot shower lasting more than about 5 minutes that you wouldn't
otherwise have, you're probably using more energy than if you'd driven
in the car.

Ah, white collar life! Overflowing two airplane seats: good.
Smelling of anything besides polo or chunnel numero cinco:
bad.

wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:
This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over on
AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when somebody
rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an even pace
that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation purposes" type
pacing) what is the *total* carbon emitted? Counting
back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate, the grain used
to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that, the truck that
carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does pedal
assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a big
calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine like
that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough, could
beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat that.

--
Les Cargill

A gallon of vegetable oil contains 35,000 dietary calories or can be
burned in a diesel engine.

Ah - there we go.

If a cyclist is riding at 10 MPH and consuming 175 calories an hour,
he can ride for 200 hours over 2,000 miles.

An automotive diesel might get 25-50 mpg.

But how many calories of rock oil to produce one gallon of vegetable
oil?

--
Les Cargill

Norman wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:47 pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-27, Les Cargill wrote:
[...]

Consider it a working assumption. What I'd like to know is: does
cycling always beat driving a car so far as oil use goes?
For energy use, I'd be surprised if cycling ever used more. The human
body considered as an engine is about 25% efficient, cars are maybe 30%.
But a car is so much bigger and heavier and has much squishier tyres,
you use much more energy to go anywhere in it.

I don't think a _car_ is 30% efficient, i think a small internal
combustion engine can approach 30%, but the mere act of
shuffling all that movement through the drivetrain drops you
down to 25% on a good day.

As for oil use, well it depends, but a cyclist doesn't have to use any
oil at all except a few drops on the chain.

I can go through a couple of pounds of butter in a week. Also
pork fat is a pretty good seasoning. Admittedly these aren't
normally sucked out of the tundra, but I can use 'em for my
chain in a pinch, I guess.

On the other hand if you ride less than about 5 miles to work and then
take a hot shower lasting more than about 5 minutes that you wouldn't
otherwise have, you're probably using more energy than if you'd driven
in the car.

Ah, white collar life! Overflowing two airplane seats: good.
Smelling of anything besides polo or chunnel numero cinco:
bad.

Hey! I think it smells great. Like gear oil!
http://chainl.com/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Nov 28, 2:33*pm, Les Cargill wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:
This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over on
AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when somebody
rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an even pace
that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation purposes" type
pacing) *what is the *total* carbon emitted? Counting
back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate, the grain used
to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that, the truck that
carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does pedal
assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a big
calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine like
that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough, could
beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat that.

--
Les Cargill

A gallon of vegetable oil contains 35,000 dietary calories or can be
burned in a diesel engine.

Ah - there we go.

If a cyclist is riding at 10 MPH and consuming 175 calories an hour,
he can ride *for 200 hours over 2,000 miles.

An automotive diesel might get 25-50 mpg.

But how many calories of rock oil to produce one gallon of vegetable
oil?


In the old days you would have had to look at how much
of your harvest went into feeding the wee beasties that
tugged your plough. Then you gotta go back and look
at how much energy went into producing that beastie,
and how much its sire and its sire's sire & back & back.

So we're left essentially with a bootstrapping problem.

Well, see now, you start with these puddles of organic
chemicals & in 8 or 40 million years you gots ya a cat4-
karyote. After it proves itself it can move up to cat3karyote
and eventually become a prokaryote. Eukaryotes are
an ideal state that is never reached.

In article ,
Doc O'Leary wrote:

That's why I think the idea of "climate change" has failed to
resonate with the general public

?????

The general public I've met has no trouble with the idea (whether they
accept it or not, the idea clearly has a lot of resonance). However,
they are habituated to two things:

1. A cushy lifestyle and seeing change as just too difficult. "Live
within ten miles of work? Ride a bike, for pete's sake? Shop at the
neighborhood store two blocks away instead of Cub or Walmart? Oh,
there's no way I can do that. I'm much too busy."

2. The pervasive neo-con lie that all our problems are somebody else's
fault and out lives would be so much better if those *******s would just
straighten up. In other words, "I'm a victim" (of the government, of
those assholes on welfare, of those liberal commie ******* ivory tower
schmucks, those Islamofascists, those socialist Norwegians, etc. Just
read these polit-threads on r.b.t. and you'll get a great synopsis of
the mindset).

I certainly can't be a contributor to global warming, it's all those
other people. My lifestyle doesn't contribute to the problem. Now
excuse me, I've got to get the Hummer in for an oil change.

On Nov 28, 1:19*pm, Norman wrote:

I don't think a _car_ is 30% efficient, i think a small internal
combustion engine can approach 30%, but the mere act of
shuffling all that movement through the drivetrain drops you
down to 25% on a good day.

And even the "can approach 30%" should be treated skeptically. That
might be true at full throttle, since spark ignition engines are most
efficient at full throttle. But their efficiency drops significantly
when they're forced to drag their intake charge around the corners of
a butterfly valve obstructing the intake passage. That's what happens
in almost all driving.

This is one of the reasons that with two identical cars with different
engines, the one with the smaller engine will get better gas mileage.
It's running with its throttle opened wider.

- Frank Krygowski

Tim McNamara tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" news:timmcn-C03C1F.16443927112009@news-
2.mpls.iphouse.net:

In article
,
Norman wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:17*pm, RickH wrote:
On Nov 27, 11:03*am, Andre Jute wrote:





This question, which I don't remember us discussing beyond the
presumption that it must be, is from Les Cargill, a regular over
on AGA. I thought it worth a thread of its own. -- AJ

******

You might be able to answer a question for me, though: when
somebody rides a bike for a mile, flat and level, just keeping an
even pace that's highly sustainable ( as in "for transportation
purposes" type pacing) *what is the *total* carbon emitted?
Counting back all the way to the beef in the McDonalds he ate,
the grain used to feed the cow, the energy consumed growing that,
the truck that carried all that, all that.

I will bet that a little 100W to 500W gasoline motor that does
pedal assist emits less CO2 than the person pedalling, but it's a
big calculation, and I haven't done it. I thought maybe you had
seen somebody who has. And I will bet than an aircooled engine
like that, so long as the exhaust gas temperature is high enough,
could beat human muscle power for efficiency.

But somebody who grows their own potatoes might be able to beat
that.

-- Les Cargill

You're assuming that CO2 is somehow a bad thing.

Actually, I think it's a decent proxy for energy efficiency. Except
that automobiles also emit H2O as a combustion byproduct. & lots more
CO, and Nitrogen-based irritants. & soot*. So I guess what I'm
trying to say is that it's a pretty ****ty proxy for energy
efficiency. Actually.

Waste heat is a much better proxy for efficiency. An engine in a
typical car probably produces more waste heat in a mile than a cyclist
does in 50.



Money is also aa good proxy in the big picture. If it is an expensive
hybrid because of all the copper, lead, lithium, fancy alloys and
petrochemical plastics, not to mention all that shipping to and from
China, and energy used to fuel, mine, smelt, forge, and manufacture it,
you can bet it is harder on the environment in the log run.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams