Are ebikers saving the planet?

[Conal]

I bought my ebike for a number of reasons, and to be honest reducing my carbon footprint was low down on my list.

However I had a thought cycling past all the stationary cars with their engines running this evening - we must be helping - but I have no facts.

How much energy does it take to produce a commercial battery for an ebike?

Lead Acid up to the more sophisticated ones used on the most expensive bikes?

Limiting the "costs" to financial ones, I assume that the following are included

Raw materials to be mined
Synthetic materials to be manufactured
Production costs
Transportation costs throughout the processes
Wholesale and retails costs including outlets
and many other business costs

We pay a retail price that many consider exorbitant; can we at least console ourselves that batteries are a reasonably efficient use of the world’s limited energy resources?

 

[rustic]

I bought my ebike for a number of reasons, and to be honest reducing my carbon footprint was low down on my list.

However I had a thought cycling past all the stationary cars with their engines running this evening - we must be helping - but I have no facts.

How much energy does it take to produce a commercial battery for an ebike?

Lead Acid up to the more sophisticated ones used on the most expensive bikes?

Limiting the "costs" to financial ones, I assume that the following are included

Raw materials to be mined
Synthetic materials to be manufactured
Production costs
Transportation costs throughout the processes
Wholesale and retails costs including outlets
and many other business costs

We pay a retail price that many consider exorbitant; can we at least console ourselves that batteries are a reasonably efficient use of the world’s limited energy resources?

I heard a quote on the radio this week about a high speed electric train creating just 1/27th of the carbon footprint of an aeroplane over similar journey.

Similar to you, it was a consideration for me, but not the primary one. I've long felt that carbon footprint debates are overshadowed by population growth issues that surely pose a far greater threat to our finite earthly resources.

 

[Blew it]

The "planet" isn't aware of the existence of any of the lifeforms that infest it's surface, not even Homo sapiens, or humans if you like.

There is nothing whatsoever that mere humans can do to influence the natural forces at work which shape the future of this Planet.

The future of Homo sapiens however, is somewhat more precarious, and lies ultimately at the feet of the females of the species.

 

[NRG]

There was an interesting Horizon program on last night about how many people can live on earth well worth a look on iPlayer if you missed it.

 

[monster]

what was their conclusion?

 

[daniel.weck]

There was an interesting Horizon program on last night about how many people can live on earth well worth a look on iPlayer if you missed it.

Great program !

 

[HarryB]

what was their conclusion?

1.5 Billion if we all want to live like north americans. 18 Billion if we live like rwandans.

 

[NRG]

what was their conclusion?

Best watch the program if you can, too much info and points raised to put down in words but from what I saw, I think future generations are in for a tough time. Food and water are going to become even more critical than they are today.

There are 6.8 Billion people on the planet today with this figure set to expand to 9 Billion+ by mid century....today 1 billion people already go hungry each day or have insufficient water mainly in poorer nations.

What I found interesting is if we all consumed resources as the the rate of America then the planet would only sustain 1 Billion people! And if the rate was the same as Sudan it would be 18 Billion. There's only so much arable land and available water resources the population figure will reach a natural equilibrium at some point depending on consumption.

 

[Northern Irelander]

Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist who coined the phrase
" CO2 is the molecule of life "

I don't subscribe to the CO2 theory either,
Google some of his stuff and it might open your eyes.

If anything, the scientist in me tells me, we can't conclude if global warming is happening or not.......simply because we don't know enough.

The marine algae that grows in the Pacific ocean accounts for half of the worlds O2 production, that's a lot of CO2 consumption by such algae.

In short if so many giga tons of CO2 are going into the atmosphere every year, wouldn't it all still be hanging there?

Natural processes keep it all in balance, there are scientists in the States that promote supplementing the oceans with nutrients, causing even more algae growth.

I didn't buy my ebike for any environmental reason, it was a logistical solution to getting me mobile with relative ease and it's something I'm not taxed on.

My 4x4 is 248g/km CO2, road tax just keeps going up and up but that doesn't stop me from using it any less!

 

[Mussels]

I heard a quote on the radio this week about a high speed electric train creating just 1/27th of the carbon footprint of an aeroplane over similar journey.

That figure seems like one that can be easily manipulated, I wonder what the total carbon cost of the train journey is compared to the plane.

Piers Corbyn is an Astrophysicist who coined the phrase
" CO2 is the molecule of life "

I don't subscribe to the CO2 theory either,
Google some of his stuff and it might open your eyes.

I'm not anti global warming but I feel the same, the Royal Society bans people publishing anything that argues against man made global warning. If scientists are only allowed to present one side of an argument then the whole thing becomes a farce. The oil companies massage data to play down the problem but IMO the opposition are just as bad and not to be believed.

 

[Tiberius]

Oh dear, I think this is going to be as rational as the helmet debate.

I'm just amazed that I keep meeting people with science degrees, who can use those skills to work out that the "moon landings are a hoax" story is false, but who still want to think "man made global warming" is a hoax.

Nick

 

[bode]

In short if so many giga tons of CO2 are going into the atmosphere every year, wouldn't it all still be hanging there?

CO2 is actually slightly heavier than air, but the difference is so small that any movement of the air causes the two to mix.

My 4x4 is 248g/km CO2, road tax just keeps going up and up but that doesn't stop me from using it any less!

One reason that we're all doomed!

 

[Northern Irelander]

I'm not anti global warming but I feel the same, the Royal Society bans people publishing anything that argues against man made global warning. If scientists are only allowed to present one side of an argument then the whole thing becomes a farce. The oil companies massage data to play down the problem but IMO the opposition are just as bad and not to be believed.

That's exactly why I said 'we don't know enough'

Carbon reduction is purely a taxation.

The RS only wax lyrical about what suits them and that's all they are ' a society'

anti-global warming scientists are growing in support. You may need the ice studded tyres sooner than you think

Whether we have 20, 50, 100 years of oil supply left, at some point they will run out and for that reason alone I totally support sustainable and renewable energy, everything from biofuels to wind/solar.

 

[Northern Irelander]

CO2 is actually slightly heavier than air, but the difference is so small that any movement of the air causes the two to mix.

One reason that we're all doomed!

Nonsense, they can't even agree on the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere, first they said hundreds of years, now less than ten years.

My point about the algae in the Pacific is it comes and goes annually, (blooms) I could go into population dynamics of unicellular algae but it's beyond the scope of this forum. Either way that's a hell of a lot of CO2 consumed, with potential to take in more, only to start the process in the spring of each year

Just for the record, I barely do 5k miles a year, to some extent my lower carbon footprint would shame some of the anti CO2 brigade in their 1000cc cars. My 4x4 is required where a normal 2wd car and G-wizz would result in instant failure.

If you want to trial me on hydrocarbons, I'm guilty, but tax me on hydrocarbons and sulphur deposits not CO2

 

[Straylight]

As the Horizon program shows, Climate Change is just one of the factors that will affect the future of the planet, and the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that we have to adapt, and plan ahead in order to secure a viable future for all.

I find the counter arguments are akin in tone to the objections a child would make if you threatened to take its favourite toys away. Focussing less on the wider picture, but on who to blame (anyone but ourselves eh?), and nit-picking over the inherrent margins of error in available data. This is very much like what happens with an unpopular bill in parliment - it simply gets talked out of time, then forgotten. The difference being that when the time runs out, we'll be left with a very big problem, that we're not prepared to deal with.

Setting the macro environment aside, what's so scary about the transition to a resource efficient future? Leading to lower fuel bills (in the long term), cleaner air, and a generally healthier personal environment. Do we really have to wait untill the suffering and degradation in standards of living become unbearable? All it takes is a small shift in attitude, and a little effort on behalf of a lot of people, in order to make what I see as the enevitable consequences of our past and present actions somewhat easier for ourselves.

I think that the notion that we have an oil based ecconomy, and so any shift away from this will bring financial ruin to be hollow, as traders will trade in anything that will earn them a buck. So if there was a demand for vast numbers of say solar water heating systems, the investment would naturally follow.

 

[Northern Irelander]

Oh dear, I think this is going to be as rational as the helmet debate.

I'm just amazed that I keep meeting people with science degrees, who can use those skills to work out that the "moon landings are a hoax" story is false, but who still want to think "man made global warming" is a hoax.

Nick

If you're having a dig Tiberius, I should inform you I have been working on carbon neutral research for over ten years (long before it was headline news), I fully supported it initially, but the more I look into it, the more the figures don't stack up, even if that meant a change in career

 

[Tiberius]

I find the counter arguments are akin in tone to the objections a child would make if you threatened to take its favourite toys away.

Nice observation.

I can't help but recall all those bizarre reasons that used to be put forward why seat belts kill you and tobacco is good for you.

Nick

 

[Tiberius]

I bought my ebike for a number of reasons, and to be honest reducing my carbon footprint was low down on my list.

However I had a thought cycling past all the stationary cars with their engines running this evening - we must be helping - but I have no facts.

How much energy does it take to produce a commercial battery for an ebike?

Lead Acid up to the more sophisticated ones used on the most expensive bikes?

Limiting the "costs" to financial ones, I assume that the following are included

Raw materials to be mined
Synthetic materials to be manufactured
Production costs
Transportation costs throughout the processes
Wholesale and retails costs including outlets
and many other business costs

We pay a retail price that many consider exorbitant; can we at least console ourselves that batteries are a reasonably efficient use of the world’s limited energy resources?

Hi Conal,

These things are fiendishly difficult to calculate, even to get agreement on the way to calculate. But there is a quick way to get a first order estimate - the price is actually a reasonable guide to the total resources consumed.

A couple of caveats, though, you need to look at the cost without taxation and in a good market, ie., without artificial shortages or surplusses and without excessive margins.

Nick

 

[Mussels]

Nice observation.

I can't help but recall all those bizarre reasons that used to be put forward why seat belts kill you and tobacco is good for you.

Nick

There is a difference between questioning something and opposing it, many people who question the science behind the published figures for global warming do not oppose alernative power and reduction of fossil fuel use.
I think the science stinks and is politically driven, something akin to the science that told us MMR jabs cause autism. I support alternative technology and believe the only effective green tax is to tax the fuel directly, unfortunately politicians are too self serving to do that.
Just because I don't believe everything governments tell me doesn't mean I don't care or that I'm not willing to believe a credible argument.

 

[Straylight]

The marine algae that grows in the Pacific ocean accounts for half of the worlds O2 production, that's a lot of CO2 consumption by such algae.

In short if so many giga tons of CO2 are going into the atmosphere every year, wouldn't it all still be hanging there?

Natural processes keep it all in balance, there are scientists in the States that promote supplementing the oceans with nutrients, causing even more algae growth.

Taking the notion of balance further, increasing algae growth would disrupt the balance of the marine food chain, but what the hell - you needn't worry about that in your air conditioned 4x4. It's amazing what 'great minds' can ignore when they want to achieve a preconcieved conclusion.

This is what I find amusing about the recent effort to discredit the climate scientists in the UK - what possible motive would they have for predicting disaster, if it wasn't founded in their available data? After all I'm sure they love their cosy home comforts too Or do they have shares in a windfarm? Or, to be less flippant, are their research grants dependant on their conclusions? Does the government really want to impose green taxes? Or would they rather allow the electorate to have everything their hearts may desire?