The Oil Drum: Local

Most of NYC is pretty flat and the actual distances are not great so one does not really burn that many calories. The biggest problem I have with biking in the city is that it is just very unpleasant. As I've posted before, the atmosphere in NYC is one of "the cars are in charge." A large % of the cars are cabs and these seem to have gotten even more aggressive with higher fuel prices. The police do not even seem to be watching for infractions against bikes ( I think they think of most bikers as loonies or radicals![god forbid]).So I mean something would really have to change for biking to take off here. Fewer cars (which would entail higher average speeds) as well as infrastructure changes.

Matt

The whole car vs. bike or walking debate is really not about transportation itself, but how agriculture is so dependent on fossil fuels in it's current factory farm system. If you eat more local, organic and less meat, you can easily reduce the CO2 inputs into your body mass.

A healthy human body needs physical exercise. Walking and biking are natural healthy ways to get that exercise and achieve mobility needs as well.

And the assumption that we have to travel exactly the same distances is also false. People in walkable/bikeable cities and towns don't have to travel long distances so the amount of calories burned is pretty minimal.

Bikes are even better than walking in terms of efficiency. Walking a mile burns about 100 calories while riding a bike is generally only a third of that.

I'm not against electric bikes, but I just think it would be better to change our diets and get a little better exercise routines that all get on motorized scooters.

Good god. Someone please call the headshrinker...

Palladina,

Your write:

“Riding bikes -> consumes body energy -> Burns calories -> you eat more -> More food consumption - More fossil fuel spent to produce the food -> Worse off than driving a fuel efficient car.”

It is true that food calories represent a lot of embedded energy, but bicycles are incredibly efficient machines. A bike weighs only a fraction of its rider’s body weight and the efficiency of the chain drive is in the high nineties. Hall, Cleveland and Kaufman in their book ‘Energy and Resource Quality’ estimate the mileage equivalent of bicycles as 1560 miles/gallon of gasoline. I assume they are are just counting the conversion of calories into miles and are not accounting for the energy used to produce the food. Just to take a nice round number let us suppose that 9 calories are expended to bring 1 calorie of food to your table. This extra energy reduces the bike’s mileage to 156 miles/gallon which is still good, plus you have avoided the embedded energy represented by an automobile. If you eat locally grown food your mileage will improve even more.

Re: Palladina

Given today's method of food production, that seems like it could be plausible. However, I still strongly believe that bicycling is better than driving.

Did you consider how much energy was used to build the car, which weighs - and this is a conservative estimate - 100 times more than a bike, so has roughly 100 times the material? How about all the resources needed to maintain a car, vs. what is required to maintain a bicycle, which can go a long way on a relatively tiny amount of lubricant and a small human-powered air pump? How about the vast road system required for cars, where bicycles require considerably much less pavement, and pavement that I imagine would last much longer because it is burdened with relatively light bicycles instead of so many multi-ton vehicles? How many more resources are used to maintain roads for cars vs. paved surfaces for bicycles? How about the ridiculous waste of resources used for drive-thrus alone, with cars cars running at idle just to avoid the enormous hassle of having to actually walk a hundred or two feet?

How about pollution?

And how about your health? It seems to me there is a direct correlation between car culture and obesity. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a study to figure that one out. How many resources are used to treat obesity?

Are you looking at the whole picture, or just the energy used during use?

Our current food production system definitely should be made to be less energy-intensive. I plan to help with this next year by starting a garden in my back yard, plus growing some fruit trees. This will partially replace the water-wasting and fertilizer-laden lawn I have now.

Now, keep in mind that I am in favor of population control/reduction by the following method: I think it would be wise to have just one batch of kids (which means usually one) or none.

Cars largely use non-renewable resources. This is true for electrics, hybrids, hydrogen, and even ethanol (considering the energy inputs). Bikes use food - the same thing we've lived on for much longer than the time we've had cars around.

Which is really the better choice?

Palladina writes: "... biomass from your body is the most expensive form of energy of all... A better solution, is a electricity driven bike"

On what planet? Those statements sound like religious belief, not science.

Some simple back-of-envelope calculations show cycling as the energy winner: Let's say you can bike a mile for about 42 (kilo)calories, or about ten kilowatt-seconds, or 2.7 kwH. That's the equivalent of a 28 watt motor propelling you that same distance at ten miles an hour -- not going to happen! You'll need at least a hundred watts (about 1/8th horsepower) to do the job.

But Palladina did say "expensive", not most efficient. A package of spaghetti costs $1.99, and supplies over 10,000 calories, so our one-mile bike ride costs well under a penny. Assuming for a moment that the efficiency is the same, and that a 28 watt motor could do the job, the 2.7kwH of electricity required would cost 17 cents here in British Columbia, with some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

Granted, these are simple calculations. But I'd be surprised if they were off by as much as an order of magnitude, and then human propulsion would still win.

If Palladina has some real numbers with references to back him up, I'd be open to changing my mind...

:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality http://www.EcoReality.org ::::

I got an electric assist bike and solar panels to recharge the batteries with. Do I pass the Palladina test? I guess I should quit pedalling tho. Last time I checked, I was in no danger of wasting away to nothing.

RobertInNarita

I haven`t escaped from reality. i have a daypass.

Riding bikes -> consumes body energy -> Burns calories -> you eat more -> More food consumption - More fossil fuel spent to produce the food -> Worse off than driving a fuel efficient car.

Have you seen the numbers?

The average American eats 4000 calories/day.
Lance Armstrong used 5200 calories/day riding on average 100 miles/day in Tour de France.
A normal person need 1500 - 2500 calories.

You would not need more food, you would only get healthy.