Re: Powered by Sweat / Oil-Free and Happy

[oilfreeandhappy]

Chris,
You should double and triple check your Math on this one. There have
been numerous studies that show that this is simply not true. Common
problems with the calculations include:
1. Using calories burned by a bicyclist, but not subtracting the
calories burned by an idle person.
2. Using the raw data for BTUs contained in a gallon of gasoline for
the calculations. Other factors should include energy inputs for
refining, shipping, and extracting the oil from the ground. Other
factors should include the energy for the shipping of the gasoline to
service stations. Might as well factor in all the electricity to power

the service stations.
3. Exercise is a benefit for all. Most healthy people do exercise. If

somebody is driving to the gym to exercise (as opposed to commuting for

exercise), he/she is then burning close to an equivalent amount of
metabolic calories, and fossil fuel calories to boot.
4. It takes a lot more energy to manufacture and ship automobiles than
it does bicycles.
5. It takes a lot more energy to maintain an automobile infrastructure
than it does a bicycle infrastructure.

This just touches the surface. The auto/oil industry are extreme users

of energy resources, whether it be Hondas, Toyotas, SUVs, or
semi-trucks.
----
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/index.html


Chris BeHanna wrote:
> Alas, there is less oil used when transporting yourself via a
> compact car (e.g., Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris) than when transporting
> yourself by bicycle (yes, I did the math). Per mile, your body consumes
> more energy than the compact car and, alas, agriculture these days
> consumes staggering amounts of petrochemicals, from diesel for the tractor
> to artificial fertilizers for farmed-out soil and beyond.
>
> :-/
>
> If you want to ride your bicycle, that's great. Take care when
> being smug about it, however.
>
> --
> Chris BeHanna

 

[Jim Higson]

> This just touches the surface. The auto/oil industry are extreme users
>
> of energy resources, whether it be Hondas, Toyotas, SUVs, or
> semi-trucks.

Another point is, these kind of calculations are usually just done for one
type of diet (the American one), and the typical USA diet is not
particularly healthy anyway.

Meat takes a lot more oil, land, water etc to make than other foods, because
you have to farm it twice by growing the plants, then feeding them to
animals etc instead of just eating the plants.

I haven't done any maths, but I strongly suspect an American eating a
healthy diet, or even a typical diet by world standards, would use much
less oil to 'fuel' their bike than their car. I'm not necessarily saying
complete vegetarianism, just a more balanced diet with less meat.

The reduction in land use could even be used to make more oil in the form of
biodiesel (although I'm usually critical of biodiesel, it is at least more
environmentally friendly than livestock for meat) - it wouldn't make much
extra oil, but it'd be a net gain instead of a net usage.

Unfortunately, the diet here in the UK seems to be moving towards the USA
one. Although, there are some pleasing signs this could be changing.

--
Jim