Could we subsidise all bikes and let people pay more for the “E” part if they so choose? How is an Ebike any better than a normal one? It has a more significant footprint behind it.
Problem is, if you subsidise anything the prices rise to match the subsidy. Perhaps tax breaks for bicycle and e-bike riders with enough degrees of separation that bike manufacturers and retailers don’t see it coming.
You can produce 28 aluminium bicycle with motors for the emissions of ONE Citroen C1 or 163 such bicylces for ONE Land Rover Discovery. The numbers for steel framed without a motor is nearly twice as high.
It really does not matter what kind of bicycle you buy, as long as it lowers car usage it is a really good idea enviromentally speaking. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Sure, but the point is that a ebike with a steel frame is more enjoyable to drive (important factor for wide adoption) and also more sustainable than aluminum frame regular bikes. And there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.
there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.
It really doesn’t. The extra weight is about 1kg, 1.5kg max, on a total weight of 70-120kg, so around 1% to 1.5% lighter weight to get up hills. E.g. my inexpensive, 30 year old rigid steel mountain bike frame & fork is 7.5lb / 3.4kg. Tire choice and aero are much more significant than weight, typically.
People think the lighter bike is significantly faster, because it feels faster, because it has less momentum under you so surges forward when you pedal, but in reality it’s a tiny percentage. Also, bikes have been marketed on weight. That feeling is great, it’s enjoyable, so it’s not nothing, but it’s hugely exaggerated in people’s mind in terms of journey time or effort.
tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
A couple of years back I saw some napkin math claiming e-bikes has a lower CO-2 impact than normal bikes or walking since power plants and motors are more effective than your body at energy conversion. Couldn’t find the same source (and it was in my language anyways) but did find this (with a ton of other sites claiming similar things when searching)
… and I’m deeply skeptical of that. Bodies use a lot of energy sitting still and when we do work it’s not all additional energy burnt.
On top, if you start bike commuting it’s not necessarily extra exercise in your day. For a lot of people it’ll be more a case of shifting how and when you get exercise. My commute’s up to 7 miles with some hills now and I am absolutely doing less physical work the rest of the time as a result. I’m getting a great amount of exercise and having shorter commute time and saving a lot of money and getting healthier. Perhaps I eat more as a result of doing this commute, but I don’t perceive it. I just eat the same meals at the same size as ever.
… and … I don’t remember the article justification for sure, but I seem to recall they were comparing the full lifecycle energy cost of the ebike, including ultimate disposal and reuse of motors and batteries. All in all, I frankly flat out don’t believe it, though I freely admit this mostly my gut feel.
Aren’t we supposed to be growing and eating local food in a solarpunk future?
Just finished reading @poVoq@slrpnk.net’s link, and it is a bit more detailed than the food footprint.
emissions of bike manufacturing. Researchers have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions caused by manufacturing an aluminum e-bike at 320 kg. [8] This compares to 212 kg for the production of an unassisted aluminum bicycle and 35 kg for an unassisted steel bicycle.
Thank poVoq. lowtech is the posterchild for most of what we are discussing.
I find it interesting you can get basically different results by focusing on singular points. I can’t imagine in the future there will be a strong mining industry still churning out batteries that fit every proprietary connector. Perhaps if the e-bike industry went open source and shared designs would be the best of both worlds.
A used, commonly found steel framed bike with nonproprietary parts, local carbohydrates, downhill both ways sounds like the perfect situation.
Could we subsidise all bikes and let people pay more for the “E” part if they so choose? How is an Ebike any better than a normal one? It has a more significant footprint behind it.
Problem is, if you subsidise anything the prices rise to match the subsidy. Perhaps tax breaks for bicycle and e-bike riders with enough degrees of separation that bike manufacturers and retailers don’t see it coming.
I found this article quite enlightening: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2023/02/can-we-make-bicycles-sustainable-again.html
tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.
You can produce 28 aluminium bicycle with motors for the emissions of ONE Citroen C1 or 163 such bicylces for ONE Land Rover Discovery. The numbers for steel framed without a motor is nearly twice as high. It really does not matter what kind of bicycle you buy, as long as it lowers car usage it is a really good idea enviromentally speaking. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Sure, but the point is that a ebike with a steel frame is more enjoyable to drive (important factor for wide adoption) and also more sustainable than aluminum frame regular bikes. And there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.
It really doesn’t. The extra weight is about 1kg, 1.5kg max, on a total weight of 70-120kg, so around 1% to 1.5% lighter weight to get up hills. E.g. my inexpensive, 30 year old rigid steel mountain bike frame & fork is 7.5lb / 3.4kg. Tire choice and aero are much more significant than weight, typically.
People think the lighter bike is significantly faster, because it feels faster, because it has less momentum under you so surges forward when you pedal, but in reality it’s a tiny percentage. Also, bikes have been marketed on weight. That feeling is great, it’s enjoyable, so it’s not nothing, but it’s hugely exaggerated in people’s mind in terms of journey time or effort.
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
Open source bike and parts on a steel frame.
Or find old steel frame bikes?
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
A couple of years back I saw some napkin math claiming e-bikes has a lower CO-2 impact than normal bikes or walking since power plants and motors are more effective than your body at energy conversion. Couldn’t find the same source (and it was in my language anyways) but did find this (with a ton of other sites claiming similar things when searching)
… and I’m deeply skeptical of that. Bodies use a lot of energy sitting still and when we do work it’s not all additional energy burnt.
On top, if you start bike commuting it’s not necessarily extra exercise in your day. For a lot of people it’ll be more a case of shifting how and when you get exercise. My commute’s up to 7 miles with some hills now and I am absolutely doing less physical work the rest of the time as a result. I’m getting a great amount of exercise and having shorter commute time and saving a lot of money and getting healthier. Perhaps I eat more as a result of doing this commute, but I don’t perceive it. I just eat the same meals at the same size as ever.
… and … I don’t remember the article justification for sure, but I seem to recall they were comparing the full lifecycle energy cost of the ebike, including ultimate disposal and reuse of motors and batteries. All in all, I frankly flat out don’t believe it, though I freely admit this mostly my gut feel.
Aren’t we supposed to be growing and eating local food in a solarpunk future?
Just finished reading @poVoq@slrpnk.net’s link, and it is a bit more detailed than the food footprint.
I’d love to, but until then I don’t want to starve or hold off on movement :D
Thanks for bringing my attention to that source, much better! Seems similar as to how I remembered it but I could obviously have worded it better
Thank poVoq. lowtech is the posterchild for most of what we are discussing.
I find it interesting you can get basically different results by focusing on singular points. I can’t imagine in the future there will be a strong mining industry still churning out batteries that fit every proprietary connector. Perhaps if the e-bike industry went open source and shared designs would be the best of both worlds.
A used, commonly found steel framed bike with nonproprietary parts, local carbohydrates, downhill both ways sounds like the perfect situation.