Bike vs. Roadster

[warmweatheronly]

one giant caveat

"They only consider the cost of a trip, not the production and end-of-life costs of the bike and car, which would doubtless greatly favor the bike."

I would be seriously interested in what the 'genuine' carbon footprint is of a Tesla rather than this abbreviated version. Just how much waste is produced in the sourcing and manufacturing of the rare earth metals used in its construction? Those figures compared to a standard automobile alone would be quite interesting. Then, factoring in construction, labor (count all the calories for workers involved, hah) and I feel that it would make our various meals and exhales operating any such machine completely arbitrary in terms of a REAL comparison. I heard (so take this with a pound of salt, hah) that anywhere from 50%-70% of an automobiles carbon footprint is exacted in its creation alone.

 

[vfx]

...
I would be seriously interested in what the 'genuine' carbon footprint is of a Tesla rather than this abbreviated version...

"Waste" is a relative word. If you need to get somewhere far and quickly while carrying a payload, building a car is not wasting resources.
I too would be interested in the same carbon footprint data on a Internal Combustion car. Compare two similar vehicles like a Nissan Versa and a Nissan LEAF or an Infifniti VS Model S.

What rare earth is in an AC electric car?

 

[Doug_G]

Just how much waste is produced in the sourcing and manufacturing of the rare earth metals used in its construction?

The car does not contain any significant quantity of rare earths. There are none in an AC induction motor. There are none in a Lithium Ion battery.

Do not confuse this with a car using permanent magnet motors and NiMH batteries.

 

[TEG]

Current Roadster batteries have some cobalt.
I think they said they are working with Panasonic to create new chemistry with more nickel, and less cobalt for Model S.

 

[Doug_G]

Of course Cobalt isn't classified as a rare earth.

 

[TEG]

OK. I guess I see it listed on some rare earth sites because it is sometimes mixed with Samarium in magnets.
Samarium Cobalt
Samarium-Cobalt magnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


List of "Rare Earths" here:
Rare earth element - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vfx]

"Rare Earth" get bantered about as if it's diamonds. Many are not realy that rare. We have mines here in the US, China is just undercutting everyone.

... The term "rare earth" is an archaic one, dating back to the elements' discovery by a Swedish army lieutenant in 1787. In fact, most (though not all) of the 15 (or 16, or 17, depending on which scientist you're talking to) elements are fairly common; several of them are more abundant in the Earth's crust than lead or nitrogen. The flints in cigarette lighters are made out of rare earths, and they've been used in incandescent gas lamps for more than a century. The stuff has been mined everywhere from Sweden to Southeast Asia to the American West...

...But the limited supply of the minerals in the marketplace is the result of economics and environmental concerns, not scarcity. Even with iPads flying off the shelves and high-end electric cars on showroom floors, the world consumes only a tiny amount of rare earth -- about 130,000 metric tons of it a year, or just over a tenth of the amount of copper produced last February alone...

 

[doug]

Another, if not particularly deep, look at this:

Is a Bicycle Really More Efficient Than a Car? | The Truth About Cars

 

[JRod0802]

I realize that the article there is just trying to look at an exact comparison between biking to work and driving to work, but I think it's missing one thing. Exercise is healthy.

Exercising on a regular basis (which does produce CO2 in the short term due to heaver breathing, and cost more due to increased caloric intake), ends up saving money in the long run due to having a healthier body and thus having a lower probability of running into health related complications later on. Prevention is almost always the cheapest form of health care.

To save money, one might drive back and forth to work, but then come home and run 4 miles on a treadmill. If you're going to be burning the energy anyway (since exercising saves money in the long run), you might as well bike to work instead of running after work. That would completely offset the cost of gas, since you would have been exercising anyway.

 

[dmckinstry]

I realize that the article there is just trying to look at an exact comparison between biking to work and driving to work, but I think it's missing one thing. Exercise is healthy.

Exercising on a regular basis (which does produce CO2 in the short term due to heaver breathing, and cost more due to increased caloric intake), ends up saving money in the long run due to having a healthier body and thus having a lower probability of running into health related complications later on. Prevention is almost always the cheapest form of health care.

To save money, one might drive back and forth to work, but then come home and run 4 miles on a treadmill. If you're going to be burning the energy anyway (since exercising saves money in the long run), you might as well bike to work instead of running after work. That would completely offset the cost of gas, since you would have been exercising anyway.

Of course, cycling (or jogging) in air polluted by ICEs is unhealthy. If all ICEs were replaced by EVs, then outdoor exercise would become healthier.

 

[doug]

I realize that the article there is just trying to look at an exact comparison between biking to work and driving to work, but I think it's missing one thing. Exercise is healthy.

Agreed. I essentially made those arguments up thread.

 

[JRod0802]

Oh, sorry. I skimmed the thread to see if it had already been said, but I must have missed it.

 

[rolosrevenge]

Something that I recently realized, as I started bike commuting, is that I have to take 2 showers a day instead of just 1. I don't know if many people consider the extra hot water needed as a cost of cycling.

 

[bolosky]

To save money, one might drive back and forth to work, but then come home and run 4 miles on a treadmill. If you're going to be burning the energy anyway (since exercising saves money in the long run), you might as well bike to work instead of running after work. That would completely offset the cost of gas, since you would have been exercising anyway.

Go back and read the last line of my post that started this thread.

 

[clea]

one reason not to cycle to work ...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=city-cyclists-suck-in-soot-11-09-28

 

[SByer]

Clearly, those cyclists aren't taking the right route to work.

 

[TEG]

Phew - home to work, eh? Beautiful ride. You must be in good shape!

 

[clea]

and GM thinks you are doing the wrong thing ...

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/10/1...ity-backs-down-from-anti-pedaling-college-ad/

 

[zack]

Reading this thread reminds me of several things. 1] The greatest good we can do for the planet is to not exist, because every moment we're present, we add to the problem. 2] We like being here, so leaving the planet early is not the solution. 3] Everything we do generates CO2 and we've probably reached the tipping point and we can't convince everyone to slow down, so the earth is likely going to steadily warm up, releasing unimaginable amounts of greenhouse gas from various forms of sequestration like the oceans and the frozen tundras. 4] As a result, we'll need more tax dollars to spend on subsidizing the efforts needed to protect ourselves from the massive upheavals in everything as a result of climate change. 5] The biggest amount of our tax spending is on the military, whose primary job has been, in recent years, to protect "our" oil. 6] The quickest way for us to eliminate the need for foreign oil is to switch to electric vehicles, so we can use our own oil for those things that simply must be oil-based and eliminate our need for wars because of foreign oil. 7] Eliminating these wars frees up enough tax dollars to subsidize (faster than China, hopefully) the industries needed to put us out in front as far as future carbon sequestration and alternative energy and high-efficiency mass transportation and all of that other nice stuff that will make the future bright and shiny.

Bicycles aren't going to improve national security. As I see it, US national security rests squarely on the shoulders of electric car manufacturers. And principally on the shoulders of Elon Musk, who is out in front. I believe he should have a Secret Service detail, personally.

 

[JRod0802]

...The greatest good we can do for the planet is to not exist...

I'm pretty sure the planet is just a lump of rock and metal. I don't think it will mind, considering it's not alive.

The Earth has existed in many different configurations since it was created. Some of those configurations have been hospitable to humans, and some haven't. We're not destroying the planet, we're just making it less hospitable to humans and other life forms. We don't like this because it makes life harder for us. In order to self-preserve, we would like the planet to be hospitable to us. If all humans were somehow removed from the planet, the planet wouldn't suddenly be all harmonious for the rest of eternity. It would continue to go through re-configurations which may cause extinction events, followed by a resurgence of life in new and interesting forms.

Considering I'm a human, though, I would prefer we don't let the Earth change. If the Earth becomes less hospitable to humans (whether caused by us, or by a natural event), I would prefer we do everything in our power to minimize the change. But by reducing green house gasses, we're not saving the planet. We're saving ourselves.