737
Anon takes the horsepill (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 years ago by [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
188 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •