https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0014pc3

Heard that this morning… a bit short and sweet for them… food miles being the biggest variable to consider. I hope they revisit it with a bit more thoroughness in the future.

Ignore. User error 😃

I only heard the first two mins and had to jump on a call. They were focused on CO2/methane as the barometer of greener… I couldn’t help but think ‘what about the Lithium mining etc…’, maybe they tackled that in the remaining 2 minutes. 😉

Green ones might be

Huh? My (second user) general transport/commuting bike was made in 1989 and I don’t need to charge it. Barring disaster, theft or serious neglect it should last me a lifetime.

Granted I may eat a couple more bananas/peanut butter sarnies to get from A to B than I would on an ebike.

Does it really matter?
An ebike or conventional bike will be greener than a car and there are so many variables that it’s a fruitless debate. May be e scooters are greener as you just have to stand up.

Does it really matter?
An ebike or conventional bike will be greener than a car

I think it doesn’t really matter, because, environmentally speaking, the iceberg has been hit, and conversations around electric cars, e-bikes and putting stuff in the right recycling bin is just an exercise in deckchair arrangement.

I think studies have shown that e scooters are not greener because they tend to replace walking or cycling journeys rather than car journeys.

Haven’t listened to it yet but sounds like they are basing on additional calories to ride a bike and the impact of production of those extra calories.
So I could walk 5 miles and use calories or I could use an e scooter and use less calories but more electric (to charge it). Sounds like an exercise in splitting hairs.

I think studies have shown that e scooters are not greener because they tend to replace walking or cycling journeys rather than car journeys.

I’ve mentioned before about e-scooters. Private, rather than hire ones in cities.
They are technically illegal, but the punishments for (being caught) riding one is disproportionately high for the law abiding and car owning adult.
Hence their popularity with certain age groups and demographics – who are not being tempted out of their cars by them, because they dont own a car.

I’m another poster that hasn’t listened to the programme in the OP (sorry) but I’m pretty certain I know the research to which it’s referring. It stands to reason: electric motors are very efficient at converting stored energy to motion. Even when you go back several steps and consider the generation/distribution and battery charge/discharge losses, they’re still pretty good. The human body is much less efficient at converting stored energy (i.e. food) to motion (I’m sure there’s a number in the programme, but from memory, about 25-30% is the ballpark), especially when you start to consider the environmental effects of producing that food.

The big flaw is that there are so many variables, as has been pointed out already: how the electricity for the e-bike is generated, distributed, and stored, will change a lot, but the variation depending on the human diet and physiology is massive.

The other thing is: we need exercise to maintain our health, so if you sit on an e-bike expending no energy*, and then have to go to the gym to exercise at a different time, it’s not exactly a gain is it?

*I’m assuming an “electric motorbike”, not a pedelec, for simplicity, before the pendants arrive.

It’s a nonsense.

I’ll wager no-one reading it couldn’t spare a few hundred calories.

We’re not nutrition calculation machines that will cycle to the shops and then eat exactly four grapes and an oatcake to replenish the energy expenditure, the energy cost of which can be compared to a windfarm/Drax/Sizewell B.

We’ll all eat the grapes anyway so using the normal bike and not the heavy lithium battery-powered one will be greener.

The big flaw is that there are so many variables, as has been pointed out already: how the electricity for the e-bike is generated, distributed, and stored, will change a lot, but the variation depending on the human diet and physiology is massive.

This is basically what they said.

*I’m assuming an “electric motorbike”, not a pedelec, for simplicity, before the pendants arrive.

This is also what they said… the “study” assumed not pedalling, which considering 99% of electric bikes are going tube pedelecs, meant it was useless.

electric motors are very efficient at converting stored energy to motion

This was the main gist of what they said. All the numbers in the study were pretty much useless and didn’t apply to the real world, but that doesn’t change the fact that e-bikes (pedelecs) are actually ridiculously more efficient than most people assume.

I’ll add that growing up with petrol/diesel engines is still heavily skewing most of the public’s idea of just what is possible, energy efficiency wise, with light electric powered or assisted transportation.

Nobody’s mentioned the increased amount of microplastics going into the sea from washing the multiple additional insulating layers e-bikers need to wear for some reason…

Which they’d have worn if they’d gone walking instead.

[ apologies for treating a good joke as if semi-serious ]

Does it really matter?

It’s a nonsense.

People not familiar with the concept of a radio entertainment show?
Whilst there is some statistical / data basis to many of the things they discuss I don’t think they’ve ever suggested that have an absolute definitive answer to any of the questions they pose. The premise of the show is as much about making you think about the question from a different or slightly counterintuitive perspective rather than trying to “be right”.

Nobody’s mentioned the increased amount of microplastics going into the sea from washing the multiple additional insulating layers e-bikers need to wear for some reason…

LOL – yep, I’ve commented on this in the past.

Anyway, all the e-bikers on here tell us that having an e-bike is just as great a workout as they actually go further/faster/higherso how can there be a food energy saving 😉

sounds like they are basing on additional calories to ride a bike and the impact of production of those extra calories

Also neglecting the possibility that the extra calories might have come from stored reserves and not been replaced.

I don’t eat more when cycling. Just take in more fluids. My diet has a lot of cake in it, so probably have a lot of excess energy store up.

I’ll wager no-one reading it couldn’t spare a few hundred calories.

Exactly, fat (well butter) is 700 calories per 100g. An hour a day spent cycling to and from shops/works just means you’ll be about quarter of a pound lighter for the same calorie intake. I only eat more when training.

Not the angle they were going for but for some people and certain types of ebike (thinking more cargo style) where ownership could more easily completely replace a car I think the case is easily made.

Seemed like there we too many variables (some not mentioned, others dismissed) to make the case as they did.

But agreed, as a puff piece to make people think it did the job.

the multiple additional insulating layers e-bikers need to wear for some reason

I only wear more clothing when riding my high horse.
My riding gear is the same what ever bike I happen to be on.

So a bicycle is still our most mechanically efficient mode of transport tho?

unless they are able to make the batteries and motors without pollution then no they cannot be greener. Electricity in Scotland it 98% renewable so once it gets to 100% at least the energy going into the battery will be green.

I’m pretty sure its based on this…

https://www.ebikes.ca/documents/Ebike_Energy.pdf

“Despite the intuitive sense that electric bikes would require more resources than
regular bikes, life-cycle analysis shows that they actually consume 2-4 times less
primary energy than human riders eating a conventional diet. This conclusion is
largely due to the considerable amount of transportation and processing energy
that is associated with our western food system. ”

Some points
– loads of assumptions and a slight change in anything (coal vs renewables, food from your garden vs asparagus flown from the other side of the world etc) will swing the calculation the other way
– they’ve attempted to take into account the production / lifecycle of the battery
– more than anything highlights how cr@p our food system is for energy consumption
– any kind of bike is super efficient
– these are all utterly tiny figures compared to cars. Petrol wastes 70% of the fuel as heat. Of the remaining 30% converted to energy, 90-95% of it moves the weight of the car vs the weight of the person, then you’ve got all the energy required to actually extract petrol from crude oil and get it to the car etc