Legislator says cyclists’ heavy breathing causes pollution

[LeftieBiker]

ok, this argument ONLY works if the cyclist generates more CO2 if he is not cycling. other than a higher breathing rate, this is not likely to be the case.

See how I took this short response from a very long quoted post, with charts, and made it a stand-alone quote? That isn't hard to do - just copy it into the posting box, highlight it and then select "Quote" from the editing tools above the posting box. It gets pretty tiresome scrolling through a huge quoted post to see a one or two line response to it.

The whole topic is a bit more...analytical than necessary, but I may as well add to it: if you are going to compare the CO2 emissions of a cyclist and an EV driver, then you have to factor in the manufacturing and lifetime parts and energy costs of the bicycle and the EV. This changes things a bit...

 

[Stoaty]

The worst food appears to be lamb. Here are figures taken from page 28 of;
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You forgot to add in the CO2 emissions from the expensive medical treatment the lamb eater will need down the road when he has a heart attack.

 

[surfingslovak]

'Fraid there is an element of reality to this story!... :? {Sorry ...}

Excellent, and very funny too! One nit: how about comparing an electric motorcycle to a cyclist instead of a full-blown EV?

 

[LeftieBiker]

'Fraid there is an element of reality to this story!... :? {Sorry ...}

Excellent, and very funny too! One nit: how about comparing an electric motorcycle to a cyclist instead of a full-blown EV?

Since electric-assist bicycles have an undeservedly bad rep, (due mostly to ignorance but also in part to a few people who insist on 'modding' them to make them into 30MPH mini-motorcycles, sans safety features), how about a comparison with, say, an EZIP bicycle.

 

[Randy3]

Okay, I'll bite...

If the heavy-breathing bicyclist becomes more physically fit from the workout, wouldn't he/she breathe easier and more efficiently after several cycling routines? Therefore, wouldn't these calculations need to add in the benefits derived to the environment from breathing better due to exercise? :lol:

 

[donald]

Okay, I'll bite...

If the heavy-breathing bicyclist becomes more physically fit from the workout, wouldn't he/she breathe easier and more efficiently after several cycling routines? Therefore, wouldn't these calculations need to add in the benefits derived to the environment from breathing better due to exercise? :lol:

If they can cycle 100km, then they are already very fit!

Although a fit person can process energy more efficiently, I think they also need more energy at rest as their metabolism, and higher muscle mass, become more 'geared up'.

 

[donald]

if you are going to compare the CO2 emissions of a cyclist and an EV driver, then you have to factor in the manufacturing and lifetime parts and energy costs of the bicycle and the EV. This changes things a bit...

You could pose the question in those terms, if you wish.

However, my basic premise here is that there is already an EV sitting on the drive. Is it better to use that, than to take the bike?

Beyond that, the question of whether to consider whole-life costs in that particular comparison then returns to what I consider the central fallacy of all efforts towards 'energy efficient vehicles' - does the person really need a vehicle at all? And if so, why have societal developments lead to them needing a vehicle? It is clearly not essential for homo sapiens to survive without motorised transport, nor even bicycles!

One could therefore argue that it would be 'energy/CO2 saving' if we moved back to a time when there were no vehicles at all. Some green/lefties/religions do, indeed, advocate exactly that. I'm not proposing this, but to say that few cyclists with a driveway and/or a garage* have only their bicycles for transport. But those cyclists that do own an EV (because the bicycle cannot serve all their needs) and who eat meat for their cycling energy will produce more CO2 if they use their bicycles for a journey they could otherwise use their EV for.

*(The question is moot if they have no place to charge their EV.)

However, your question does become more significant if, for example, there are two road users in a household - should they have two EVs or one EV and a bike? If they can share and get by with using the one EV when it is essentially needed, and the bike at other times, the equation changes and the EV's embedded CO2 does then become significant in that choice.

The reality is that the person who said cyclists are CO2 polluters when they ride is correct. I don't know if he alluded to how polluting they are. I don't object to them being 'CO2 polluters' because very few leisure pursuits do not cause some sort of CO2 pollution and it is relatively little.

I was just pointing out that the energy source for a lamb-burger eating cycle-user is 10 times more CO2 pollution for using the cycle than the energy source of an EV driver in France when using the EV (and about 3 times more than the energy source of an EV elsewhere in Europe). I don't feel a need to justify the significance or otherwise of that statement in the context of every other way of arguing it, merely that it might come as a surprise!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Okay, I'll bite...

If the heavy-breathing bicyclist becomes more physically fit from the workout, wouldn't he/she breathe easier and more efficiently after several cycling routines? Therefore, wouldn't these calculations need to add in the benefits derived to the environment from breathing better due to exercise? :lol:

in a word; no... but only because being in good shape means your lungs simply work nearer their full capacity and your body simply is able to utilize its "resources" more efficiently. exercising not only builds up your muscles, but the entire body support system. so you process Ox better, burn calories more efficiently, etc.

but not exercising and being morbidly obese also means you breathe much faster than most people so there is not a huge amount of difference. plus the other benefit is that someone in very good shape uses MUCH less air resources when they are at rest (which is most of the time) simply because their body can do more with less. morbidly obese people do not have this luxury.

this is like the "deep cycling" discussion where someone heard its not good to cycle your SOC into the teens and now people are claiming the LEAF has an "effective" range 50 miles (if charging from 80% to 20%) ignoring the fact that the "penalty" for deep discharging is nearly negligent compared to the convenience of being able to go where you want to...

this discussion only considers CO2 emissions while ignoring the enormous benefits of good health and the reduced footprint upon an overburdened medical system

 

[surfingslovak]

this discussion only considers CO2 emissions while ignoring the enormous benefits of good health and the reduced footprint upon an overburdened medical system

I think discussion also makes a good case for bikes with electric assist. Or perhaps it's just my personal bias, since I've been meaning to get one.

 

[dgpcolorado]

I think discussion also makes a good case for bikes with electric assist. Or perhaps it's just my personal bias, since I've been meaning to get one.

I looked into one some years ago and concluded that the extra weight of the electric system wasn't worth the assist it would provide when it came to steep hills. They may be better and lighter now but I still maintain that a plain bicycle with gears ranging from steep hill climbing to fast riding on level ground works about as well as an electric bike would. And one gets the bonus of some exercise.

So, when it comes to electric assist bicycles, I just don't get it.

 

[surfingslovak]

So, when it comes to electric assist bicycles, I just don't get it.

Yes, steep hills are not a good use case. I used to ride semi-competitively, and have an appreciation of what low weight truly means in the mountains. It's very important, literally every pound counts. I think the lure of the electric assist is there in urban environments, and even on moderate hills (for mountain bikes). It gets people out more, and in commuter situations, I think some folks might appreciate that the required effort is more modest. This allows you to arrive in a fairly civil condition, and not looking like someone who has just completed a stage of the Tour de France.

 

[donald]

You could go for a full electric scooter.
http://www.powarider.com/pdfs/LexolaFullSpec.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, ~2kWh appears to provide you with 50 miles range. Call it 2.5 kWh/100 km.

Compare with cyclist requiring 0.67 kWh/100 km - a quarter of the energy consumption of the scooter.

At US generation mix, 1 kWh of electricity generates ~0.6 kg.CO2

Whereas, 1 kWh of lamb-meat generated human energy generates ~27.5 kg.CO2

That makes the US-sourced-electricity powered electric scooter better than the lamb-meat-sourced-energy powered cyclist by x 45 times !!

Interestingly, an article on a 'pedal' type electric-assist bike comes up with the same ~0.6 kWh / 100 km energy figure;
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/staff/am/journalpublications/04283505.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In this case, using the electric assist pedal bike in 'EV mode' will reduce the CO2 emissions of a lamb-burger eating US cyclist by a somewhat staggering x 180 times !!

In other words, if you went 40 km in pure EV mode on an electric assist bike, then pedalled a further 250 yards, your pedalling would have generated more CO2 than the 40 km worth of electric distance!

(In France, pedalling just 60 yards would generate more lamb-burger sourced CO2 than the 40 km in electric only mode.)

 

[sproqitman]

You could go for a full electric scooter.
Compare with cyclist requiring 0.67 kWh/100 km - a quarter of the energy consumption of the scooter.
Whereas, 1 kWh of lamb-meat generated human energy generates ~27.5 kg.CO2

As a cyclist, you don't want lamb meat as a fuel. You want a good source of carbohydrates, like honey. And fortunately, researchers at UC Davis have calculated the carbon footprint of honey production:

Carbon Footprint of Honey

Using honey instead of lamb, gives you a figure of 0.2 - 0.4 kg CO2 per kWh.

 

[CWO4Mann]

What about heavy breathing during an obscene phone call? Does that count?

Uh huh! Hey! Ya know what I got in my hand right now?? Yeah! Ain't nothing like a big fat Cyclic with that 30mm chain gun pickle shooting depleted uranium rounds. Oh Yeah!

 

[abasile]

The fact is that the human body is designed to be exercised. All of our systems, including the brain, tend to work better when we exercise regularly.

Given that I desire to maintain optimal health, it's ideal from a climate perspective if I can accomplish real work when I exercise, whether that be transporting me to where I need to go, performing yardwork, etc.

This is one argument in favor of bicycling (or walking or running) for transportation rather than simply going to the gym, assuming that the roads are sufficiently safe for bicycling.

Put in those terms, comparing bicycling versus driving an EV is a false choice.