Driving a "Green car" vs cycling • Hacker News Board

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#61

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 9:22 AM UTC

So, I'm very pro-bike, and definately agree that cycling is much, much better, on many, many dimensions than driving an electric car.

However, I feel this is a misleading and therefore counter-productive polemic that seeks to maximise the problems with other options, rather than rank them accurately. I can imagine the reaction of many is to throw their hands up and think "well, why even bother". The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

As a result, they seem to have thoughtlessly repeated a bunch of propaganda put about by people who oppose even the marginal gains of switching to EVs and renewable energy. It reminds me (to get needlessly political) of people who didn't vote for Clinton because "both sides are the same". Possibly they thought saying that was an effective way to use their political sway to push things in the direction they wanted, but it appears they overestimated their leverage, and so shot themselves in the foot.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#62

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

d1zzy wrote: post #28

I don't know about others but the reasons why I bike to work have nothing to do with reducing carbon or being green or being healthy, it's simply that I find it a lot more fun to get to work by bike than drive. It actually takes 20 more minutes by bike (and that's without including the immediate shower and changing clothes afterwards) but I can get a nice workout, feel refreshed and full of energy and it feels nice t…

My reasons were many (in no particular order):

much cheaper

healthier (building muscle, cardio)

less stressful

more fun

greener for the planet in terms of carbon

greener for the city in terms of poisonous gasses

less likely to kill a child on my way to work

save time by combining excercise with commute

avoid parking hassles

and, by sheer chance, the route from my home to work passed along several parks and riverside paths and pedestrian bridges that made it easy to travel long distances with only occaisional traffic worries.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#63

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 9:49 AM UTC

ianai wrote: post #34

d1zzy wrote: post #28

I don't know about others but the reasons why I bike to work have nothing to do with reducing carbon or being green or being healthy, it's simply that I find it a lot more fun to get to work by bike than drive. It actually takes 20 more minutes by bike (and that's without including the immediate shower and changing clothes afterwards) but I can get a nice workout, feel refreshed and full of energy and it feels nice t…

I wish I worked where I could shower and change there.

Worth looking into nearby gyms that may have shower & locker-only memberships for cyclists.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#64

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 9:56 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #25

EngineerBetter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, countries like Norway manage to generate most of their electricity from renewables. Just because most countries don't doesn't mean it's impossible.

It is, in fact, extremely hard, even in theory and more so in practice, for most countries to replace most energy use with energy from renewable sources, unless we go with nuclear energy. See e.g. [1]. With world wide effort, electrical connections spanning the globe, tropical countries selling solar power to colder regions, huge and cheap energy storage facilities, we could maybe achieve that, though I'm really rath…

That reference is pretty out of date now.

Some people have considered updating it with more recent figures:

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1...

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#65

Post by dTal » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 1:27 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #29

npsimons wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist. The human body is very efficient. I'd be extremely surprised if my 15 minute bicycle commute to work burned more than 100 calories on top of my BMR. There's just no comparison. > I guess all you valley dwellers should probably cycle to work to save the planet for us all. We will applaud you from our AW…

> The human body is very efficient. Uhh, you are not using the right metric. Yes, humans take calories, and convert it to energy at a rate of 25%. But you aren't eating coal and turning it into energy. The ways that humans turn sunlight into energy is that the sunlight hits plants, which gets harvested by humans, which gets fed to cows, and then get harvested, prepared, and transported to stores, and THEN it is consu…

You are quite correct.

There are some mitigating circumstances though. The biggie is that all of this food is, in theory, carbon neutral; plants require CO2 to grow. While obviously this does not apply to the tractors, trucks, cargo ships etc in the rest of the preparation chain, that goes for fossil fuels as well - and chances are the fossil fuels have had to come farther and undergo even more processing. Nor are the emissions of the supply chain intrinsic to the fuel: we could theoretically replace all those tractors with electric ones powered by solar etc...

The other factor is that we can exert a great deal of personal agency over the emissions content of the food we eat. Cows, which you mention, are particularly bad because, although carbon-neutral, they effectively turn CO2 into methane which is a far more potent greenhouse gas. But we don't have to eat cows. Or food from the other side of the world. You can even grow your own food if you really want. So human-powering things reclaims personal responsibility.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#66

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #34

d1zzy wrote: post #28

I don't know about others but the reasons why I bike to work have nothing to do with reducing carbon or being green or being healthy, it's simply that I find it a lot more fun to get to work by bike than drive. It actually takes 20 more minutes by bike (and that's without including the immediate shower and changing clothes afterwards) but I can get a nice workout, feel refreshed and full of energy and it feels nice t…

I wish I worked where I could shower and change there.

Shower immediately before you leave to knock the sweat eating stink causing bacteria load down, change and wipe your pits when you get to work, and wear natural fabrics like cotton. If you do this, you should be good for 6-8 hours, which is longer than some of your car driving co-workers who aren't as careful.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#67

Post by InitialLastName » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #53

npsimons wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist. The human body is very efficient. I'd be extremely surprised if my 15 minute bicycle commute to work burned more than 100 calories on top of my BMR. There's just no comparison. > I guess all you valley dwellers should probably cycle to work to save the planet for us all. We will applaud you from our AW…

I used to work with someone in Boston who cycled to work every day no matter the weather. It was a real loss to her department when she was out for a year due to two broke wrists after an accident. I also had the mispleasure of seeing a cyclist hit by a train. I commend the people that do it at great personal bodily risk.

I used to work with someone in Philadelphia who drove to work every day no matter the weather. It was a real loss to his department when he was out for a year due to spinal damage after an accident. I also had the mispleasure of having a friend die in a car accident in high school. I commend the people that do it at great personal bodily risk.

#anecdataisnotdata

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#68

Post by xyzzyz » Wed, Feb 07, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #64

xyzzyz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, in fact, extremely hard, even in theory and more so in practice, for most countries to replace most energy use with energy from renewable sources, unless we go with nuclear energy. See e.g. [1]. With world wide effort, electrical connections spanning the globe, tropical countries selling solar power to colder regions, huge and cheap energy storage facilities, we could maybe achieve that, though I'm really rath…

That reference is pretty out of date now. Some people have considered updating it with more recent figures: https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1...

Yes, this is interesting and worthwhile, but doesn't really change the crux of his argument.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#69

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 10:32 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #68

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reference is pretty out of date now. Some people have considered updating it with more recent figures: https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/3/30/l6qcqgoedse1...

Yes, this is interesting and worthwhile, but doesn't really change the crux of his argument.

I'm not sure you're honouring his memory or his work by suggesting that the numbers that he based his conclusions on changing isn't important.

Re: Driving a "Green car" vs cycling

#70

Post by Fishkins » Thu, Feb 08, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #15

IgorPartola wrote: post #7

No car is ever going to be as green as a bicycle. Forget cars. A motorcycle is probably the smallest powered vehicle that is street legal. Smallest one still will weigh at least 250lb. Moving just that mass alone, you’ve blown your energy budget vs a bicycle. Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist. Growing and transporting that grass fed steak…

> Oh I suppose you could argue about the environmental cost of producing the extra calories consumed by the cyclist. The human body is very efficient. I'd be extremely surprised if my 15 minute bicycle commute to work burned more than 100 calories on top of my BMR. There's just no comparison. > I guess all you valley dwellers should probably cycle to work to save the planet for us all. We will applaud you from our AW…

Just adding to your points:

> The human body is very efficient. I'd be extremely surprised if my 15 minute bicycle commute to work burned more than 100 calories on top of my BMR. There's just no comparison.

Also, biking is exercise, and we should all be getting some exercise daily. If bike commuting replaces some time you'd spend at the gym, the question of how much energy exercise consumes is irrelevant since you'll be using that energy either way. As others have mentioned, that can also save you the time of going to the gym in addition to the other benefits.

> I'd link to icebike.org where they used to have pictures of people cycling in Chicago in winter and articles on suitable clothing and tires, but that domain got bought out and commercialized into some mountain bike advertising site.

I live in Wisconsin and bike all winter. Some combination of fat tires, studded tires, and internal hub makes it easier. With my studded tires ice is basically a non-issue.

It's also easier to stay warm than you might expect. If you have any kind of jacket on your core can get hot really quickly while cycling. You do need decent clothing to protect your extremities.