Save an ounce of fuel - use the bike!

NervexProf

Some dodgy maths here, albeit a polemic article.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 662159.ece

Roastie

It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.

UndercoverElephant

I like the way that he only counts the miles his food travelled, as though the petrol he would use came from a natural spring under the pump.

jonginge

Roastie wrote:

It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.

I'm more cynical. I think it's about pandering to the prejudices of the audience. Most people don't want to change their lifestyle. This sort of guff assuages their guilt at doing nothing

nasahapley

JonGinge wrote:

Roastie wrote:

It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.

I'm more cynical. I think it's about pandering to the prejudices of the audience. Most people don't want to change their lifestyle. This sort of guff assuages their guilt at doing nothing

Yup, I expect the author knows full well that what he's written is a load of cobblers. However, he'll also be well aware that a significant chunk of the Times readership will lap it up and take it as cast-iron fact (i.e the sort who see any curbs on their freedom to drive what they want, where they want, at the cheapest possible price as a contravention of their human rights (i.e. the sort who genuinely think Jeremy Clarkson would make a good PM (i.e. cretins))). He's right of course, just look at some of the comments - 'I've got a Merc SL' - well whoopee-f**king-doo.

CiB

Ha. They stuck my comment up.

8)

daviesee

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Ha. They stuck my comment up.

8)

+1

I am really proud of ommisions re emmisions.

Probably the best bit of work I have done all day

Roastie

JonGinge wrote:

Roastie wrote:

It amazes me that stupid people manage to get such utter rubbish published.

I'm more cynical. I think it's about pandering to the prejudices of the audience. Most people don't want to change their lifestyle. This sort of guff assuages their guilt at doing nothing

100%

The Rookie

The most ridiculously made up and unbalanced argument I've ever seen, a clear case of deciding the resultand making the 'facts' fit it.

Simon

jinnan_tonnix

Sigh. What a load of cobblers. As previously commented, it's there to serve those who would rather not make changes to their lifestyle.

I'm sure the arguments will be comprehensively dismantled. On the one hand, he calculate the 'cost' of making the bike. On the other, the car just materialises out of nowhere.

The guy talks about the ecological cost his food, as if he wouldn't need to eat food if he didn't cycle. But what about the petrol? The cost of drilling, extracting, transporting, refining, storage, distribution, etc. And that's before he even drives to the petrol station.

It's a pity that it's masquerading as a genuine piece of science. I'm sure it will be used in citation, somewhere, just as this piece of rubbish is:

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5c.htm

This would probably fail a GCSE science project, but some people take it seriously. In it, they compare the efficiency of a diesel engine to that of an electric car. However, they include all the generation and losses of the electrical power, but compare it with a car which, magically, arrives with a a tank of diesel out of thin air.

jinnan_tonnix

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Ha. They stuck my comment up.

8)

Chris,

Well done for commenting, but there's no need to worry about your CO2 emissions from heavy breathing!

The CO2 emissions from breathing can be largely disregarded. They're part of short-term carbon cycle. You eat stuff, which has consumed carbon, and you breath, which returns carbon. When you breath out, you are replacing the carbon dioxide that the plants took from the atmosphere. The equation is balanced. As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.

Burning fossil fuels is a direct emission - at some point, the carbon had been locked away (e.g. in coal or oil) but is now being burnt and leads to a net increase in CO2. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are returning carbon which has not been recently taken from the atmosphere.

So keep on breathing!!

CiB

I'm not worried about breathing, heavily or any other sort. Was just making the point that we breathe anyway so breathing a bit more has a minuscule effect compared to the energy involved in shifting a ton or so of car around with one person on board, compared to cycling 21 miles in 1h 5m. I reckon it's more to do with solar activity and natural cycles, and anything that we do is pretty much irrelevant by now anyway.

jinnan_tonnix

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I'm not worried about breathing, heavily or any other sort. Was just making the point that we breathe anyway so breathing a bit more has a minuscule effect compared to the energy involved in shifting a ton or so of car around with one person on board, compared to cycling 21 miles in 1h 5m. I reckon it's more to do with solar activity and natural cycles, and anything that we do is pretty much irrelevant by now anyway.

Ah I see. It's just that I've heard the 'heavy breathing' argument used against cyclists. Carry on!

Sewinman

jinnan_tonnix wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

Ha. They stuck my comment up.

8)

Chris,

Well done for commenting, but there's no need to worry about your CO2 emissions from heavy breathing!

The CO2 emissions from breathing can be largely disregarded. They're part of short-term carbon cycle. You eat stuff, which has consumed carbon, and you breath, which returns carbon. When you breath out, you are replacing the carbon dioxide that the plants took from the atmosphere. The equation is balanced. As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.

Burning fossil fuels is a direct emission - at some point, the carbon had been locked away (e.g. in coal or oil) but is now being burnt and leads to a net increase in CO2. The problem with fossil fuels is that they are returning carbon which has not been recently taken from the atmosphere.

So keep on breathing!!

+1

Terrible article. The life cycle carbon of a car and a litre of petrol would make the 'maths' involved tell a very different story. :roll:

jimmypippa

This New Scientist story seems to be doing something similar:

Empty seats

Cars emitted more than any other form of transport with the notable exception of off-peak buses, which often carry few passengers. The researchers found that travelling 1 kilometre on a nearly empty bus during off-peak hours emits eight times more per person than taking the same bus at rush hour – suggesting peak-time commuters may suffer, but they do less harm to the environment.

The occupation level of a vehicle is an important but often-overlooked factor, says Chester. "Although mass transit is often touted as more energy efficient than cars, this is not always the case." Buses turned out to be the most sensitive to how full they were – those with only five passengers were less efficient than cars; even large SUVs and pick-up trucks.

So a bus with fewer passengers than an SUV can carry is less fuel-efficient per passenger-km?

Wow,

How efficient would a bus with no passengers be?

This is a brilliant example of stating the obvious, as all it means is that busses are heavy, and the extra weight of passengers doesn't affect their fuel economy muck.

In the first paragraph an off-peak bus with 8-passengers would be almost twice as fuel-efficient as one with four.

I am alos ineterested in the supporting infrastructure for airports compared to trains.

chuckcork

The consideration that the car comes free, the bike is an extra is indeed pandering to the perceptions of readers, who no doubt would see a £10,000 car as both necessary and cheap, but a £500 bike as being unnecessary and expensive.

Personally I see my fleet of bicycles as being well worth the money and very CO2 neutral...except maybe the folder, haven't had a fraction of the use I thought I'd get out of it.

The road bikes though, current cumulative ODO readings at 21,000 miles and counting, I think the CO2 not generated compared to a car, with the added health benefit, more than outweighs any energy cost in their production.

CanterburyTailwind

I read it and assumed that he had his tongue firmly in his cheek; was I just being too easy on him??

always_tyred

jinnan_tonnix wrote:

[As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.

I used to dream of living in a coridoor.

jinnan_tonnix

Always Tyred wrote:

jinnan_tonnix wrote:

[As long as you don't eat coal, anyway.

I used to dream of living in a coridoor.

Looxury!