top 88 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 197 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Wait until he finds out how many calories gasoline has

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's why I drink a can of gasoline before every run

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I drank a bottle of gas years ago and I'm still running off it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know you're on the right side when you're arguing against humans exercising more!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'd like to see his diet and shape, but already have an idea about it

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And yet cyclists still consume less per day than that 400 lb dude in an F150.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    You don't get it, a healthy menu consumes much more volume of food that needs to be transported, per capita. Imagine if everyone ordered a head of lettuce instead of a sneakers bar. How many lettuce trucks we'd need??? It's just not sustainable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Cyclist burn more calories

    So does jogging, swimming, dancing, and...sex? Anything that isn't sedentary lifestyle gonna burn more calories. But OOP doesn't need to worry about any of those.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I can't remember the name of the philosopher that pretty much said that because existing is so toxic to our environment, we should stop existing (i.e. stop having children, not commit genocide to be clear).

    I can't fault him for being right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Anything that lives creates things that are toxic to itself. It's a waste product. Or shit.

    The problem isn't our existing, not even just the scale at which we do, but the methods we choose to use to do it. I'm pretty sure we could have 8 billion people sustainably and comfortably living here, maybe even many more, but we do it by investing in solar and wind, maybe nuclear, maybe whatever isn't burning coal and gas. And we, as a society, are simply choosing not to.

    Besides, life will go on for a while without us, at least a few billion years probably. Even if some of us survive, I wonder what the trajectory is for human intelligence during a mass extinction event. Will we still be interested in the stars? Or maybe a more good natured intelligence evolves here from like octopuses or something and decides to look up. It'd be cool if a descendent of Earth could survive the Sun dying, anyway

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Unfortunately it does not have to be satirical. We have this idiot professor of economics, Reiner Eichenberger, in Switzerland who calculated the same kind of shit for an article in a business newspaper (Handelszeitung).

    He said an efficient car using 5 l or 12 kg CO2 per 100 km with four people is more efficient than a cyclist who needs 2500 kcal per 100 km, so they have to eat 1 kg of beef which emits 13.3 kg CO2. Therefore the people in the car are 4 times as efficient per passenger kilometers.

    People got quite cross, there were replies by other professors in other magazines to tear him and his shitty assumptions to shreds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    • He assumed this ridiculous beef-only diet. Potatoes or pasta would be around 0.5 kg.

    • He included CO2 in the production of the beef but not of the gas. That would amount to another 50% or so.

    • He assumed a more efficient than average car for Switzerland, 7l would have been fairer. And on shorter distances it gets worse, e.g. on daily commutes.

    • He assumed 4 people but cars on average carry around 1.5.

    • He ignored grey energy in the car and bike production, which would make the bike look way better. Whenever he's railing against EVs he includes grey energy because then it makes traditional cars look better.

    • There are also some hard to calculate benefits for public health in cycling.

    • Cycling for travel might substitute other sports activity that would have used the same amount of food.

    • Cyclists generally cover less distance than drivers. A 1-to-1 comparison the same distance might not be sensible in the first place. If you cycle you try to find nearby destinations, so from a public policy perspective encouraging more cyclists also implies less total distance traveled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Cyclists generally cover less distance than drivers.

    My partner recently had her car MOT done and I can confirm I cycle more than she drives in a year. Would be very interested to know the average speed of each though as I can often cycle past cars that are waiting at the lights but the bike path is flowing freely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    As ridiculous as this is, especially with the dumbass assumptions, it would actually be kind of a fun interesting calculation. Not that it has any environmental merit, because what about people who drive to the gym, or me who takes the tram to the pool to swim laps there, etc, but just sorta fun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    E-bikes sit in a weird spot where the amount of human effort saved is substantially higher than the carbon footprint of the components.

    Which implies the optimal transportation mix would be electric trains+trams with e-bikes to go the last few miles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Can you elaborate on the first bit? It's counter intuitive, considering electricity needs to be produced somehow, so I'd love to learn the background.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Usually using electricity in something like an electric car requires more emissions to generate the power than would be emitted from the food and respiration required to walk the same distance.

    Bicycles are interesting because they improve efficiency so much that it offsets the emissions needed to make the bike, and e-bikes are able to leverage that high efficiency to get 80+ km of travel per KWh (compared to ~6 from something like a Tesla)

    chart showing distance per kg of CO2

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That is super interesting, thanks! Granted, public transport transports more than one person, so if possible, it's still much more efficient, and batteries are made of very finite resources, which is a whole different issue to consider.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    True! A fully loaded train is about the most efficient way to move humans from one place to another, and has been for over a hundred years.

    Lithium is limited, but you can make 150 e-bikes with a single electric car battery. If we could figure out some sort of solid state sodium battery chemistry it wouldn't even be an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Or at least a dig at someone being overly pious. My brother for a while was unbearable about his 2 x EVs saving the world while living in a city with at least 6 public transport alternatives within 100m

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago

    he's right, we all know that exploring, extracting, refining, distilling, and distributing petroleum and its derivatives doesn't cost anything

  • source
  • [+] 27 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    That used to be true. But modern cars with modern engines have better thermal efficiency than humans.

    This is from a purely thermal efficiency standpoint. Not taking any environmental factors into play.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Right since as soon as you start looking into how that car was made and how the energy that ends up in those batteries is produced, the legs win again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Look. I don't know what you think you mean. But you're clearly not talking about thermal efficiency.

    Thermal efficiency is a measurement of how much energy goes into work, and how much is wasted through heat.

    Muscles will never beat an engine. Combustion or otherwise.

    The fact that we "used to be" is a huge caviat, giving humans the best case scenario against the vehicles worst case. The moment we start to put in some effort to performing work, our thermal efficiency goes down, significantly.

    That's ok... thermal efficiency isn't what you should be worried about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's not a take. It's factual. Thermal efficiency is a measurement of how much energy is wasted through heat rather than being used to perform work.

    Muscles are fantastic in many ways. But what they're not. Is thermally efficient. That's ok.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Thats not my point. Its just not relevant to the overall efficiency of the bicycle compared to the car. Thermal efficiency isnt what we're talking about here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Thermal efficiency is exactly what the top comment was talking about. That's where it started.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not really. Thats how youre interpreting it. When you consider the primary goal is to move a single person (in most cases), the bike wins out. You're wasting energy moving a large amount of mass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    The bike will in most cases use less calories to travel the same distance. Absolutely. But, That is not the same, as being energy efficient. Energy efficiency is a measurement of input (energy) to output (work).

    If you're driving a Reliant robin. You will probably surpass the muscle powered bike in both Calories consumed and energy efficiency.

    That doesn't mean the bike won't be more environmentally friendly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Couldn't really find any sources, but honestly it sounds reasonable enough. Engines are way more specialized for their single mechanical task than our legs are.

    Of course you also move around way, way more weight most of the time. The mass/payload ratio is way worse with cars than with bikes so the comparable thermal efficiency would need to be greater to make up for that.

    Beyond being a curiosity it is a moot point anyways. Humans need exercise to be healthy, and as you said, there are other environmental factors like car construction, gas refinement, etc. That I imagine mostly favour bikes too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Thermal efficiency is purely a measurement of how much of the energy you put in, goes to actual work, and how much is wasted through heat.

    Mass only plays a part in that thermal efficiency might change depending on the load the work is performed on.

    I can't think of a single engine that have better thermal efficiency than an electric one. (Not taking into account how the electricity was produced)

    You're right about it being a moot point. There are far more important aspects than simply thermal efficiency. I just wanted to set the record straight. Because saying humans have better thermal efficiency than cars is just not true. Not even close.

    We evolved sweat for a reason. Our thermal efficiency is so bad we had to develop external cooling or we would overheat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Alright, I'll take the bait. Let's do some recreational math

    This web page contains average passenger car fuel efficiency broken down by year. The most recent year available is 2016, so we'll use that: 9.4 km/L or 22.1 miles per gallon. A gallon of gas has about 120MJ of energy in it. So, an average car requires about 120,000,000 / (1/22.1) = 5.4MJ per mile

    This web page has calories burned for different types of exercise. I separately searched and found that the average adult in the US weighs around 200LBS, so we'll use the 205LBS data, and I'm going to assume that "cycling - 10-11.9 MPH" is representative of the average commuter who isn't in too much of a hurry. That gives us 558 calories per hour, or 55.8 calories per mile (using the low end of the 10 to 11.9mph range). That's equal to about 0.23MJ per mile (as an aside, it's important to note that the calories commonly used when talking about diet and exercise, are actual kilocalories equal to 1000 of the SI calories you learned about in school.)

    Moral of the story: an average bike ride consumes around 20x less energy than an average drive of the same distance.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    We also gotta keep in mind that cycling makes people healthier, so it has that benefit, and that it can also potentially replace some exercise people would be doing otherwise, in which case you're basically moving for free since you would have expanded those calories anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Worth noting that cars can fit more people in them than bikes can.

    So with that in mind, clearly the true moral of the story is that clown cars are the most efficient method of travel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Holy shit what kind of cars does that study take into account/what type of vehicles do people drive‽ (Granted I do not know how fuel [in-?]efficient worries/trucks are but O.o)

    And yes I am aware that 2016 is 9 years ago now, but I know I am driving badly when my car consumes slightly more than half as much fuel as this average and I am rapidly thinking about just how much money some people/companies are spending on gas!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    That's cute. No other personal vehicle beats the caloric efficiency of a bicycle, and it's not even close. They're very literally one of the most impressive feats of engineering that human kind has ever invented.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Electric bikes are more efficient one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Aren't electric bikes stupidly dangerous though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Per mile, there are more fatalities, but in the US, something like 39/40 deaths from bicycles and 4/5 deaths from motorbikes is due to cars; presumably decreasing the number of miles driven by car would lower the number of pedestrian, bike, and motorbike fatalities they cause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Oh no they have so good logic!

    Me: laugh in order of magnitude

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    No one tell them how many calories are in a tank of gas

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    If this is true, then support a carbon tax without exceptions. All the extra food cyclists use will be taxed extra.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I read a carbrain article a while ago that tried to argue that cyclists create more CO2 than a car.

    So to compare that they assumed that

    • The cyclist eats exactly as much calories as required, so that extra exercise directly requires an increase of caloric intake. They did the same for the driver.
    • The cyclist exclusively covers the added caloric intake via imported japanese Kobe beef steak cooked on a wood grill.
    • The car was the lowest-consumption electic car they could find.

    And with that setup the cyclist actually created more CO2.

    The author seriously booked that as a win for the car, claiming that cycling is not always better for the environment than driving.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Similar vibe to "you claim to be vegan and yet you eat bread, and some field mice probably got killed when harvesting the wheat to make it. Checkmate, I've just invalidated your entire belief. Why aren't you ordering the steak now?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If the the Dutch are so climate couscous maybe they should invent energy-free travel

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    oh man this type of thing annoys the hell out of me. Someone will take the calories of a person cycling per day and say its not great environmentally without taking into account subtracting out the calories required for someone to exist period.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    When I was cycling to and from work I burned about an extra 400 calories a day going to spend from work. That's a protien shake.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's even worse than that! The calories burned show up in the atmosphere as additional CO2! We need to urgently strap everybody to a chair or bed so they stop burning all those calories!!! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    If you drive in a 25 miles per gallon vehicle (pretty standard) you will burn the equivalent of 1100 calories per mile. Assuming an active person who rides their bike a lot eats around 2500 calories a day, and they ride to work every day, and they live 5 miles away. In the car you would burn about 11,000 calories a day, in the bike you would never burn more than 2,500 and that ignores the fact that actually most of those calories have nothing to do with the biking.

    Also, one year of an average American driving (around 14,000 miles) would have the equivalent calories of giving 16,000 people a proper meal.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Trains are very energy efficient. Is this person advocating for putting trains on every road?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    How many calories do Mountain Dew and Cheetos have

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›