3 ms·

In the article they said the study included 'well to wheels' in their calculations, so it's not just one side of the story, they factored in all you're talking

by nekopa 14y ago

In the article they said the study included 'well to wheels' in their calculations, so it's not just one side of the story, they factored in all you're talking about.

waps 14y ago
The problem is the true answer to light environmental impact does not fit very well in either side's political ideology. Pick whatever mode of transportation that costs the least, and the chance is very good that it's environmental impact is also the least of the available options. This provides a good rule of thumb. A small gasoline car (there are no small electrical cars) will easily win out over all alternatives, in some cases even over public transport. Even human power (ie. bikes, walking) is not as green as you'd think. Humans eat expensive multiple times reprocessed food. Especially meat is expensive. And moving does actually cost energy. I wonder if anyone's ever done a rigorous calculation of that. I did some back of the envelope calculations, and knowing that a trained athlete's body can approach efficiencies of 25% in some cases (normal people, 10% at best), and that food has to be transported > 100km on average, I found walking/biking is only barely more environmentally friendly than an efficient, small car (assuming equivalent distance, of course, and assuming 5liters/100km). Using energy gained from eating meat to walk is very likely to be less efficient than driving (yet that's exactly what athletes do, although they have their increased efficiency). Of course that's not to say walking/running/biking doesn't have other advantages. But humans burn fuel to produce co2 + work just as cars do, it's just much less visible.
- jsingleton 14y ago
  If you're interested in these sorts of calculations then I can recommend this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-everything/dp/1846688914 http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-everything/dp/18... I found it a really good read and to geek it off it's written by the brother of the inventor of the web.
- notdonspaulding 14y ago
  > ...(there are no small electrical cars)... Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i-MiEV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i-MiEV http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-fiat-500-ev-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-fiat-500-ev-featur...
  - waps 14y ago
    Heh, so there are. I've never seen those before, outside from special test installations. I didn't think they were even cleared for public roads. Thanks, interesting links. I can't seem to find a locations where I could buy one of those though.
megaman821 14y ago
The briefly mention it in the parent article and found electric vehicles to be more efficient. Then they throw in lithium battery production which is probably the least efficient step of the electric vehicle ecosystem. Why not throw in oil pipeline construction impact vs electric grid construction or waste by-products of a coal plant or wind farm vs a crude oil refinery?

by nekopa 14y ago

In the article they said the study included 'well to wheels' in their calculations, so it's not just one side of the story, they factored in all you're talking about.

waps 14y ago

The problem is the true answer to light environmental impact does not fit very well in either side's political ideology. Pick whatever mode of transportation that costs the least, and the chance is very good that it's environmental impact is also the least of the available options. This provides a good rule of thumb. A small gasoline car (there are no small electrical cars) will easily win out over all alternatives, in some cases even over public transport. Even human power (ie. bikes, walking) is not as green as you'd think. Humans eat expensive multiple times reprocessed food. Especially meat is expensive. And moving does actually cost energy. I wonder if anyone's ever done a rigorous calculation of that. I did some back of the envelope calculations, and knowing that a trained athlete's body can approach efficiencies of 25% in some cases (normal people, 10% at best), and that food has to be transported > 100km on average, I found walking/biking is only barely more environmentally friendly than an efficient, small car (assuming equivalent distance, of course, and assuming 5liters/100km). Using energy gained from eating meat to walk is very likely to be less efficient than driving (yet that's exactly what athletes do, although they have their increased efficiency). Of course that's not to say walking/running/biking doesn't have other advantages. But humans burn fuel to produce co2 + work just as cars do, it's just much less visible.

jsingleton 14y ago
If you're interested in these sorts of calculations then I can recommend this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-everything/dp/1846688914 http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Bad-Are-Bananas-everything/dp/18... I found it a really good read and to geek it off it's written by the brother of the inventor of the web.
notdonspaulding 14y ago
> ...(there are no small electrical cars)... Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i-MiEV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_i-MiEV http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-fiat-500-ev-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-fiat-500-ev-featur...
- waps 14y ago
  Heh, so there are. I've never seen those before, outside from special test installations. I didn't think they were even cleared for public roads. Thanks, interesting links. I can't seem to find a locations where I could buy one of those though.

megaman821 14y ago

The briefly mention it in the parent article and found electric vehicles to be more efficient. Then they throw in lithium battery production which is probably the least efficient step of the electric vehicle ecosystem. Why not throw in oil pipeline construction impact vs electric grid construction or waste by-products of a coal plant or wind farm vs a crude oil refinery?