this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
709 points (97.2% liked)

Greentext

4377 readers
1994 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Waryle@jlai.lu 18 points 3 days ago (2 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?

[–] babybus@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 days ago

What’s your source?

A bull.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 7 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'll take that as a compliment.