• Waryle
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    yes, lower even than an analogue bike, because the electric motor is more carbon efficient than human muscle power which requires eating more.

    Everytime I saw this claim, it ended up being bullshit. What’s your source?

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s been a while, but I believe this video was where I heard it. From memory (I’m out right now and can’t rewatch to verify) it was specifically the per-kilometre carbon emissions, not taking into account manufacturing costs.

      Obviously there’s some fuziness depending on your diet and the power source used for charging. A vegan who would be charging in a coal-powered grid is going to look better, relatively speaking, for an analogue bike than someone who eats multiple kilos of red meat every week who has solar panels.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not vegan, but I largely replaced by cycling calories w/ oats when I biked to work for a few years, and my area is largely powered by coal and natural gas (not sure on the exact ratio). I haven’t done the math, but I’m guessing I would come out ahead of an electric bike, especially if we included manufacturing and shipping costs for the motor and battery.