From: MasonS on
On 5 Dec, 18:38, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> mileburner <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
> > While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what the
> > vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED would be if there was
> > any. I came to the conclusion that the emissions are nil and the VED would
> > be zero.
>
> <shrug> So you came to an erroneous conclusion. The Cycling and Health
> booklet produced by Cycling England gives a figure of 1200kcal/h for
> cycling. That's equivalent to burning 300g of sugar per hour, about one
> mol/hour. That's 144g of carbon per hour or about 500g CO2 per hour.
>
> You might think that's insignficant, however if you are cycling at 12
> miles per hour then your emissions are 26g CO2 per km. Again you might
> argue that is insignificant. However a car such as VW Polo Blue Motion
> can take five occupants and emits 100g CO2 per km. The same five people
> travelling by bicycle would emit 130g CO2 per km.

Only if the car's occupants held their breath all the way!
Dear oh dear.

--
Simon Mason
From: Peter Grange on
On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:38:08 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>mileburner wrote:
>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:uUpSm.11996$Ym4.7207(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>> You have well & truly overstepped the mark pal.
>>
>> Don't you see the irony?
>>
>> Someone who fiddles their own tax who complains about those who do
>> not pay the tax they are not subjected to.
>
>Once again you acuse me of tax fraund on a public forum.

And your incitement to murder on a public forum counts for what?

--

Pete
From: MasonS on
On 5 Dec, 19:06, d...(a)telent.net wrote:
> %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
> > <shrug> So you came to an erroneous conclusion. The Cycling and Health
> > booklet produced by Cycling England gives a figure of 1200kcal/h for
> > cycling.
>
> Are you sure about that?  I'd have expected it to be about half that or
> a little more, which is what most other sources list.
>
> > You might think that's insignficant, however if you are cycling at 12
> > miles per hour then your emissions are 26g CO2 per km. Again you might
> > argue that is insignificant. However a car such as VW Polo Blue Motion
> > can take five occupants and emits 100g CO2 per km. The same five people
> > travelling by bicycle would emit 130g CO2 per km.
>
> Er, some mistake there surely?  I don't know about the VW Polo Blue
> Motion (maybe it's biodiesel?), but most cars are running on fossil
> fuels: the carbon they're releasing has been stuck at the bottom of the
> ground for the past n million years.  The carbon released by my cycling
> came from metabolising sugars: renewable plant resources that next
> season's growth will suck back out of the atmosphere.  I find it very
> odd if that doesn't make a difference
>
> -dan

Of course it makes a difference. My gaffers have made the same simple
mistake in the past and we are building a massive bioethanol plant
here!
They are PhDs and think that I emit more CO2 on my bike as I breathe
more than them and therefore emit more CO2 than their 4.2 litre 4x4s -
there's no hope is there?

--

Simon Mason
From: Steve Firth on
<dan(a)telent.net> wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:
>
> > <shrug> So you came to an erroneous conclusion. The Cycling and Health
> > booklet produced by Cycling England gives a figure of 1200kcal/h for
> > cycling.
>
> Are you sure about that? I'd have expected it to be about half that or
> a little more, which is what most other sources list.

Yes, I'm sure that's what it says. I'm not sure that it's correct, but
then again it was written by two blokes trying to promote cycling.

> > You might think that's insignficant, however if you are cycling at 12
> > miles per hour then your emissions are 26g CO2 per km. Again you might
> > argue that is insignificant. However a car such as VW Polo Blue Motion
> > can take five occupants and emits 100g CO2 per km. The same five people
> > travelling by bicycle would emit 130g CO2 per km.
>
> Er, some mistake there surely?

No. Although I'm always open to correction on my chemistry and maths.

> I don't know about the VW Polo Blue Motion (maybe it's biodiesel?), but
> most cars are running on fossil fuels: the carbon they're releasing has
> been stuck at the bottom of the ground for the past n million years. The
> carbon released by my cycling came from metabolising sugars: renewable
> plant resources that next season's growth will suck back out of the
> atmosphere. I find it very odd if that doesn't make a difference

I see. No tractors, fertilisers, trucks, warehouses, distribution chain
packaging, processing etc to consider at all, eh?
From: Conor on
In article <hfe63g$6ql$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says...

> While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what the
> vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED would be if there was
> any. I came to the conclusion that the emissions are nil and the VED would
> be zero.
>
So you're a clueless cyclist. I'll give you a lesson.

When you cycle, you exert energy over and above that of a person who is
driving a car or walking. That additional energy is converted from food.
Someone who cycles needs to intake more calories than someone who is
walking or driving. In addition to that, you are also breathing more
heavily and thus exhaling higher levels of CO2. When you take into
account the emissions caused by the source of your energy plus those
exhaled which are directly attributable to the activity of cycling, it
is not zero.


--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.