is cycling really greener than driving?

Le Commentateur

There are a few interesting but not quite local sportives that I'm interested in riding, but the start times are too early for these to be reachable by train on the day, so doing them will mean up to 4 hours driving for the sake of a 5-6 hour bike ride. :?

Still, worse than that are some friends of mine who plan to drive through SE England and France on a Friday, rest up and register Saturday, then ride the Marmotte cyclosportive on the Sunday – with another monster drive back home on the Monday. To me it seems crazy to waste the opportunity for a week's holiday down there....

lucasf09

May I say I agree with most people here, cycling is definitely greener (air freighted asparagus aside)
First there is the carbon footprint of the production of the vehicle (with delivery, etc), which will always be much higher in a car than on a bike, no matter what economics you use. And although a few of you have disregarded this point it is a valid point for those of us that don't own a car (though I agree it is somewhat muted if you own a bike and a car).
Then there is the matter of the food, you eat when you drive a car (unless you are a vegetable and photosynthesise in which case I would be very interested in meeting you). And if you use local foods you will always have a smaller footprint than petrol brought from the gulf of Mexico (no to mention the footprint of *cough* spilling loads of it *end cough*)
And even if you do eat bananas from Ecuador or fig fruits from the Philippines or something, you know that the plant will just grow again, and you can eat next year's harvest. in 50 years (less according to some people) that petrol pump you love so much will have no more petrol in it!!!!!!
In my opinion the question should be why aren't there any electric cars already in the market, and why are fossil fuel ones still legal? (ohh woops, forgot shell has money and the government has to eat (pardon the pun))
But anyway if you enjoy cycling, why not cycle to work, it makes you fitter, happier and probably live longer, so even if there is no environmental bonus, there is a health bonus.

Mister W

Ooh, a question I can answer.

There are electric cars on the market but the reason they haven't succeeded (so far) is that their range is significantly inferior to a petrol or diesel car and we're not prepared to give up the convenience of a car that can travel 400 miles without needing to be refuelled. As a side issue, electric cars aren't as green as most people think. The processes involved in making (and disposing of) the batteries are very environmentally damaging and we currently produce most of our electricity from fossil fuels.

thecrofter

Mister W wrote:

Ooh, a question I can answer.

There are electric cars on the market but the reason they haven't succeeded (so far) is that their range is significantly inferior to a petrol or diesel car and we're not prepared to give up the convenience of a car that can travel 400 miles without needing to be refuelled. As a side issue, electric cars aren't as green as most people think. The processes involved in making (and disposing of) the batteries are very environmentally damaging and we currently produce most of our electricity from fossil fuels.

Also, rather obviously, the production of the electricity is not a very "green" process in most countries. The BBC recently did a run in an electric car from London to Edinburgh...it took four days as I recall. Not practical, at all!

A couple of years ago Top Gear did have an item about Honda's hydrogen powered vehicle, the Clarity, which James May reckoned was the future of the motor car. The plus points are you fill up at a regular filling station, in much the same time and manner as we currently do. The range of a tank of fuel is roughly similar to a petrol vehicle (250miles). The emissions from the exhaust are actually purer than the air taken into the engine (If you burn Hydrogen you get H2O). The engine only has one moving part. The fuel cell is interchangable - you can unplug it from your car and run your house on it. Honda have even overcome the the main drawback of Hydrogen as a fuel which is it takes a lot of energy to create Hydrogen. They have developed solar powered plants that extract the Hydrogen from water, the only byproduct of that process is Oxygen, in the form of Ozone.

But you'd still be greener on a bike, I reckon

verloren

@thecrofter - A couple of misconceptions. First, while electricity isn't necessarily very green, it at least *can* be, whereas oil can't be; over 8% of the UK's electricity is from renewable sources, while 0% of its oil is. In addition even electricity produced from coal pollutes far less than oil.

Second, the BBC trip to Edinburgh was a stunt, rather than an actual test. To illustrate that, a guy called David Peilow did the same trip in his Tesla (a much cheaper electric car than the Mini the BBC used, and one that's available today) in a day, just to prove the BBC wrong.

freehub

Electric cars get there fuel from a number of sources such as; coal, oil, gas or nuclear power, maybe wind power too.

thecrofter

verloren wrote:

over 8% of the UK's electricity is from renewable sources,


Second, the BBC trip to Edinburgh was a stunt, rather than an actual test. To illustrate that, a guy called David Peilow did the same trip in his Tesla (a much cheaper electric car than the Mini the BBC used, and one that's available today) in a day, just to prove the BBC wrong.

So, 92% is from non-renewable resources, which will no doubt be fossil sources?

I saw the Tesla on Top Gear as well, fast wee car. But as you say it took a day for a journey of seven hours, and how long did it then take to recharge (refuel) before the car could be used again?

EKIMIKE

Surely the idea with Electric cars is efficiency vis a vis resources compared to using oil. For me being 'green' isn't that important. We're never going to get anything for nothing i.e. we'll have to use some sort of resource. Systems require an input and by default have an output and/or mid-process losses.

Surely the important part is making efficient use of the resources we have. Or rather what do we do when the ones we rely on run out.

Being 'green' is for me is one of the most cynical marketing trends/forces currently around. Big companies want us all to buy 'green' products because they command a high selling price and they're playing on your ethical conscience which so happens to work very well. What gets on my nerves is making money out of selling in-efficient solar panels to Africans is pretty low on an ethical level. Still, it's about making a 'green' world right?

verloren

thecrofter wrote:

So, 92% is from non-renewable resources, which will no doubt be fossil sources?

That's correct, fossil fuel that ranges from being better than oil to much better than oil.

thecrofter wrote:

I saw the Tesla on Top Gear as well, fast wee car. But as you say it took a day for a journey of seven hours, and how long did it then take to recharge (refuel) before the car could be used again?

Here you have an excellent point. If you expect to make regular trips from London to Edinburgh to, say, borrow a cup of sugar, you definitely shouldn't get a Tesla, as you'd have to wait for 4 hours or more for it to recharge.

That ties in quite well with the general principal that electric cars have their place, and if you're a motorway warrior that place isn't on your driveway. If, like me, your commute is <40 miles per day, and even better if you have access to a 'normal' car, then they'd probably do you just fine. Personally I'll stick to my bike for a while longer.

asquithea

lae wrote:

And whilst 'tailpipe emissions' might be lower in a modern car due to catalytic converters, all a cat does is basically hold onto the emissions and transfer them to the processing site. Local emissions are lowered but global emissions remain the same.

Er, what?

:?:

finchy

asquithea wrote:

lae wrote:

And whilst 'tailpipe emissions' might be lower in a modern car due to catalytic converters, all a cat does is basically hold onto the emissions and transfer them to the processing site. Local emissions are lowered but global emissions remain the same.

Er, what?

:?:

The manufacture of catalytic converters is absolutely filthy.

dilemna

johnfinch wrote:

asquithea wrote:

lae wrote:

And whilst 'tailpipe emissions' might be lower in a modern car due to catalytic converters, all a cat does is basically hold onto the emissions and transfer them to the processing site. Local emissions are lowered but global emissions remain the same.

Er, what?

:?:

The manufacture of catalytic converters is absolutely filthy.

And how about all the electronics within a modern car - precious metals (raping the earth's mineral resources in Africa, Australia and South America, circuit boards, wiring, plastics, textiles in fabricating components such as dashboard, interior, upholstery, etc. No car is definitely NOT greener than cycling.

The OP who posted this question is a bit of a numptee.