>>2044369Well like I said I once did the math (of course you can always debate the data and the method but usually if youre in or out by orders of magnitude that strongly implies youre right or wrong.
There is a reason why I called the results 'surprising' as in 'counterintuitive' or 'not what widespread sentiment and media would want us to believe' (our opinions do not form in a vacuum).
Cycling at leisurly pace is, per distance covered (!) more efficient than walking. It's faster as a neat side effect. Time trial your trip and it will quickly become less efficient than walkjng leisurly (but even faster).
The weight of the bicycle (or electric moped) has very little impact on its efficiency. Aerodynamic resistance absolutely dominates bicycle efficiency at any reasonable speed. Below that it's rolling resistance which does not scale linearly with load.
I dont get the speed argument about the electric moped. I didn't really get it's first occurence either. Efficiency of modes of transport is generally evaluated on the basis of energy per distance, joules per meter that is. Speed is not a factor. Speed usually leads to a penalty.If a mode of transportation is faster at the same efficiency as another then that's nice to have but the efficiency is the same.
Anyways the reason to why you most likely underestimate the CO2-equivalent efficiency of the electric moped ('ebike') is for two very simple reasons: Very high well to wheel efficiency compared to the very poor efficiency of human / mammal mechanical energy output and also the generally underestimated high CO2-equivalent cost of food production. The average grid energy mix in developed countries is just that much better. So the electric drive starts with 'cleaner' energy and has far better efficiency well to wheel. As such every bit of the work the human does not do but the electric bits do is a net benefit. It quickly offsets the CO2e of 'muh lithium'. >cont
