Carbon Footprint

howiejmidlands

I was riding along on Sunday, as you do, enjoying the countryside and cold air. And as your mind starts to wonder, i thought how much of a carbon footprint does a carbon frame or parts use?
Is it a negative or positive impact?
Just an idle thought.

dennisn

howiejmidlands wrote:

I was riding along on Sunday, as you do, enjoying the countryside and cold air. And as your mind starts to wonder, i thought how much of a carbon footprint does a carbon frame or parts use?
Is it a negative or positive impact?
Just an idle thought.

I doubt that anything that is made, from A to Z, has a positve impact on the envirornment.
Pretty much everything that we make uses energy and creates waste of some form or another. Although some less than others. I'm sure someone will come up with an
exception or two but I can't think of anything right off the top of my head that, when
manufactured or produced, helps the environment.

OffTheBackAdam

I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's that carbon footprint you leave on the wife's best carpet that's the one to get worried about!
Bloody freezing isn't it! Still, that's global warming for you.

nick hanson

I imagine those carbon soled Sidi's have a good carbon footprint?

synchronicity

It's an interesting topic & I was thinking the same thing in the past week (albeit with metals, cause it's easier to calculate energy requirements)

Alcan states:
14.9kW/hr per kg of aluminium produced.
6.8 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of Al.
1.8 tonnes of perfluorocarbons per tonne of Al.

= 6.8kg of CO2 per kg of Al.
~ 3786 litres of CO2 gas produced for a one-kilogram bicycle frame.

I have previously calculated that 1L of petrol produces 2.28kg of CO2.
Therefore 3L of petrol yields 6.8kg of CO2.
A typical small car consumes 6L/100km.

So you would only have to cycle 50km or so instead of driving a car, and you've already "offset" your frame.

So I would say to dennisn, that the humble bicycle is probably the only thing that I can think of that benefits the environment, if only because it's more energy efficient than walking. I'll save that calculation for another day...

jellybellywmb

I am flying to Germany and back this week so how many miles should I cyle to offset the trip and will the wife buy it as an excuse for me going out cycling when I have been away for 4 days??

hammerite

synchronicity wrote:

It's an interesting topic & I was thinking the same thing in the past week (albeit with metals, cause it's easier to calculate energy requirements)

Alcan states:
14.9kW/hr per kg of aluminium produced.
6.8 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of Al.
1.8 tonnes of perfluorocarbons per tonne of Al.

= 6.8kg of CO2 per kg of Al.
~ 3786 litres of CO2 gas produced for a one-kilogram bicycle frame.

I have previously calculated that 1L of petrol produces 2.28kg of CO2.
Therefore 3L of petrol yields 6.8kg of CO2.
A typical small car consumes 6L/100km.

So you would only have to cycle 50km or so instead of driving a car, and you've already "offset" your frame.

So I would say to dennisn, that the humble bicycle is probably the only thing that I can think of that benefits the environment, if only because it's more energy efficient than walking. I'll save that calculation for another day...

Have you also calculated the carbon footprint of the workers in the factory (or at least that they use getting to the factory?), all transport costs for shipping the frame around the world etc........???

Would still count for something although I think we can pretty much guarantee that it would still be less energy than is used to produce a car,.

synchronicity

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.


My estimate for the air journey from London to Berlin return:
From the SAS website,
return flight = 1921km & 228kg of CO2.
So you'd need to cycle 1670km instead of driving the car to break even!

A rough calculation of the additional CO2 produced by cycling that distance over 17 days (as opposed to doing nothing) is 10kg... assuming 50% extra metabolism by exercising

dennisn

synchronicity wrote:

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.


My estimate for the air journey from London to Berlin return:
From the SAS website,
return flight = 1921km & 228kg of CO2.
So you'd need to cycle 1670km instead of driving the car to break even!

A rough calculation of the additional CO2 produced by cycling that distance over 17 days (as opposed to doing nothing) is 10kg... assuming 50% extra metabolism by exercising

You're getting just a little deep for for this old brain.

Dennis Noward

Nuggs

synchronicity wrote:

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.


My estimate for the air journey from London to Berlin return:
From the SAS website,
return flight = 1921km & 228kg of CO2.
So you'd need to cycle 1670km instead of driving the car to break even!

A rough calculation of the additional CO2 produced by cycling that distance over 17 days (as opposed to doing nothing) is 10kg... assuming 50% extra metabolism by exercising

Have you taken into account the additional food miles attributable to the energy drinks and snacks required for such a ride?

hammerite

synchronicity wrote:

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.

Good point well made! :oops:

nick hanson

hammerite wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.

Good point well made! :oops:

Unless the workers are immigrants,brought in specifically to do this job,& that's not so improbable,as you can't move for the feckers round here :roll:

hammerite

nick hanson wrote:

hammerite wrote:

synchronicity wrote:

No because those workers do not appear miraculously soley for the purposes of alloy frame construction. They'd still be alive, working and moving elsewhere if they weren't working there.

Good point well made! :oops:

Unless the workers are immigrants,brought in specifically to do this job,& that's not so improbable,as you can't move for the feckers round here :roll:

I suppose that the workers could also be working on something that would benefit their locality more than alloy frames which could mean that they have to import less themselves.