ElectricMotorcycleForum.com
Makes And Models => Zero Motorcycles Forum | 2012 and older => Topic started by: machone on December 05, 2012, 02:44:47 AM
-
I'm expecting the delivery of my S and I have already started fielding questions/attacks on why?!!...
One of the difficult questions to answer is the one that everybody first thinks of as a reason to buy an electric bike and it's this:
How green is your bike, actually?
Ignoring the running costs, many people quote the many Toyota Prius comparisons made by Jeremy Clarkson:
3m35sec in
Supercars: The One Gallon Fuel Crisis Race - Top Gear - BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxUsGiGp3w#ws)
They say that because of the Lithium or nickel processing and parts/product transportation costs, these bikes are having a much bigger impact on the environment than a locally produced gas bike would. At minimum my S is part of a container load on a high carbon use vessel across the Atlantic but I suspect the transportation impact is even higher than that.
My argument is that gas bikes are nearly all produced at least in part, in countries where labour can be exploited to reduce cost and so there is very little difference in green production cost. This doesn't always hold true, and is a little weak.
Has anybody done a green impact study on the production of a Zero? Is it just the 'investment in future tech' that will eventually lead to green production and running costs or are there better green arguments out there?
-
I always make the point that i didn't buy my Zero to save the planet. I bought the Zero because its a bloody brilliant bike to ride and I love the power delivery, lack of maintenance, handling etc. etc. The green and money saving thing is a welcome bonus. Nobody has ever had a negative comeback to that.
-
Well . . . I did buy my Zero to save the planet (or at least to avoid personal responsibility for wrecking it). Plus, it is the most thrilling ride I have ever owned.
Noiseboy, you raise a really good question. Anti-green vehicle folks are always pointing out the extra environmental impacts involved in making extra green vehicles. I don't know a definitive answer, but I suspect that the carbon impacts of transporting Zero components is pretty quickly offset by the near-zero carbon emissions of a Zero in operation.
Back of the envelope - according to a Wikipedia article (caution: "disputed"), the carbon impacts of transporting one ton of freight one mile by container ship is .04 kg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport)
So, figuring that the Zero components for one bike are about 0.1 ton, and they travel 10,000 miles from the Far East to Long Beach, CA, that works out to about 400 kg, or about 1,000 pounds, of carbon emissions for the transportation. Incidentally, the same Wikipedia article says truck shipping is about .167 kg per ton mile, so the carbon emissions of shipping a "local" bike (whatever that is) across the country by truck are equal to the carbon impacts of shipping the same weight from the Far East by container ship.
At 20 lbs of carbon per gallon of gasoline, and figuring about 50 mpg for a comparable ICE bike, your carbon "break even" is probably somewhere around 2,500 miles or so.
Of course, this is not taking into account local environmental impacts of mining the battery elements, or whatever carbon impacts are involved in battery manufacture. I don't know what those numbers are.
So whenever anyone says, "Oh yeah, your electric motorcycle had carbon emissions in manufacturing it that are more than the carbon impacts of making an ICE bike" ask them to quantify those "extra" carbon impacts in the Zero, divide by twenty pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas, and you figure out how quickly your gas savings pay any extra impacts back.
Karl
-
Also, here's a link to a study of the impacts of Li Ion EV batteries:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903729a (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903729a)
Bottom line: Li Ion battery manufacture has very small environmental impacts as very little lithium is actually needed. The biggest environmental impacts of EVs is the impact of the electricity generation used to power them. So, if you can use renewable energy, you can nearly eliminate these impacts. Plus, with a 500 mpg energy equivalent efficiency, a Zero will do better than pretty miuch any other EV or ICE out there other than another electric bike.
Karl
-
Thanks for the links. It's difficult to find info on the actual environmental impact or by-products of lithium or copper mining.
I must admit I'm not buying a Zero for the greenness, but it would be an added bonus if it helped. It's a pity there's not an overwhelming green argument for buying a production ev as there is with a 'recycled' home grown electric bike.
Like all things green, it's a complicated issue and difficult(but not impossible) to quantify the relative production and delivery emissions. It is possible in parts of Europe to pay additional cost for 'green' energy from renewable sources. When available here in Holland I will be doing it and eventually will sort out my own solar and wind generation(the landlord wouldn't be happy where I live now!). This has all got to help. I would have thought it would be in Zero's interest to publish the carbon cost of producing one of their bikes compared to the ICE equivalent?
Purely from a cost saving perspective I worked out it would take roughly 50000km for my bike to 'pay for itself' but that's very rough. That's a lot of km but still a fraction of the battery life. An efficient petrol car over an inefficient car would take a lot longer than that.
The reason I ordered my Zero was for the 'feeling' of not being tied to the petrol pump and lack of maintenance for my commuting tool. The 100Euro or so I hand over for going back and forth to the pump hurts and I look forward to not having to do that. I'm still not convinced by the performance arguments and I hope I'll be converted by the 2013. Until people start posting drag races against 600 and up ICE bikes or I experience it at the lights myself I won't understand the 'linear power delivery' arguments. I rode the 2012 and felt it was like a powerful scooter, but that's a personal thing....Why are there no drag race videos?
-
The buying a Zero isn't green argument doesn't float for me. On average I change my bike every 2 years, usually second hand but as I was recently promoted if I hadn't bought the Zero I would have bought a new ICE bike so the production of the raw materials is nullified. You don't buy an ICE bike and keep it forever.
Re: Performance: if you want to drag race you bought the wrong bike. Eventually electric bikes will be faster but for now it is the rideability that matters. It may not feel as fast but I bet if you timed yourself over a twisty route you would be quicker on the zero. No botched gear changes, no waiting for the power or being in the wrong gear and having to change down mid corner etc. Swing through the bends rather than pointing and squirting like most ICE riders and the turn of pace is surprising. The thing that stuns me on the Zero is how with the lack of vibration from the bike itself you can feel exactly what the road surface is made of and what the tyres think of it, Hence I can push the zero on its crap OEM tyres much closer to its limit than I would ever do on my race-wet shod supermoto.
Bikes should be judged not by how fast they go but by how fast you can ride them.
-
Ignoring the running costs, many people quote the many Toyota Prius comparisons made by Jeremy Clarkson:
The Jeremy Clarkson video is pretty lame. The Prius was designed to excel in high-traffic stop-n-go city driving situations. To put it up against a BMW on a race track ostensibly to make a 'real life comparison' of gas mileage is total crap. But them in a real-life city driving comparison and the prius would have 3x the gas mileage of the BMW.
His premise that "it's how you drive, the car has no bearing" is at best a half-truth. I hate to see videos like this because 90% of the population will take it as fact and go out and buy a giant SUV, smugly thinking that by not driving it like a Lamborghini they're doing just as well as someone driving a prius.
-
Obviously, the "Prius is less environmentally friendly than a hummer/range rover/etc" is completely baloney. You would have to ignore almost everything commonly referred to as a "fact" to believe this. Here is a slate article that concisely debunks the original "Dust to Dust" Pruis vs Hummer study.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/tank_vs_hybrid.2.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/tank_vs_hybrid.2.html)
An example of the ridiculousness of the study:
"claiming that a Prius will last only 109,000 miles, well below the stated "industry straight average" of 178,739 miles—not to mention the whopping 379,000 miles ascribed to the Hummer H1."
Have you ever heard of a Hummer that lasted almost 400,000 miles? Really?
Also, most of their other assumptions are in the absurd to factually untrue realm.
Since we all have heard this bogus claim, here's my short answer "Do you really think that mining lithium for 1 battery is worse than drilling for oil to fill up your tank every week?"
-
On the Prius vs m3 comparison.. pretty obvious that the m3 was drafting. I would also wager that the m3 's grippy tires, while a economy loss in real world driving, are a win on the racetrack because you can coast around the corner instead of powering through, slipping the whole way.
Regarding "it's not what you drive, it's how you drive it":
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3/2008 (http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3/2008)
16.6 mpg average. 18.3 mpg best. 19 mpg imperial = 23 mpg US.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/2008 (http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/2008)
45.4 mpg average.
If we assume Clarkson's claim is accurate and a reasonable representation of on-track economy, then it's very much about what you drive.. because the m3 gets worse economy in real world driving than it does in some spurious show test.
-
Obviously, the "Prius is less environmentally friendly than a hummer/range rover/etc" is completely baloney.
On the Prius vs m3 comparison..
Of course - but you guys have a brain. What about the other 90% of the population and their inability to see through the showy-made-for-ratings-crap like that? Clarkson does the world a disservice. He should be ashamed. Hopefully his true motivation was sensationalism and ratings; and that he wasn't taking kickbacks from the oil industry (or BMW) under the table as well.
-
Obviously, the "Prius is less environmentally friendly than a hummer/range rover/etc" is completely baloney.
On the Prius vs m3 comparison..
Of course - but you guys have a brain. What about the other 90% of the population and their inability to see through the showy-made-for-ratings-crap like that? Clarkson does the world a disservice. He should be ashamed. Hopefully his true motivation was sensationalism and ratings; and that he wasn't taking kickbacks from the oil industry (or BMW) under the table as well.
Now really, Clarkson works for the BBC and we all know that the BBC never takes kickbacks or bribes and is entirely above-board and honorable when fishing for news. ::)
-
I often visit bbc.co.uk for news from a non-American perspective. Are there incidents where BBC reporters have taken kickbacks or bribes?
-
It's a hot topic in the UK at the moment. Although I'm sure there are cases of kickbacks and bribes I can't think of any offhand. There has been inaccurate reporting and the reason the topic is hot is because a very well known BBC celeb named Jimmy Saville now deceased has been thought(not yet proven, but loads of accusations) to have been a serial child abuser and worse. Many people were thought to have, at the least, suspected this but a BBC investigation was shelved because, in part, of the amount of money he raised for charity. It was thought he used this as leverage many times.
At the same time The http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ (http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/) has just concluded an independant press complaints commission should oversee the press in the UK for reasons mentioned above. Comparing with Sky, RTL or Al Jezeera I'll take the BBC every time, thanks!
Back to the topic ;):
I don't agree with the Cradle to grave Prius vs Range Rover argument either but it would be nice to know a little more fact. Every consumer product has an impact of some sort but you can't ignore production environmental cost any more than you can ignore running environmental cost. A friend has a convincing argument that I should buy a second hand Kawasaki 1000 at less than 1/3 the price and it will still produce less CO2 than my car and will pay for itself compared to the car in less time and also prolong the life of that kawasaki saving the world that way. It's all about relative cost with vehicles isn't it?
I've never been in a position to change a vehicle every 2 years and this seems normal to some people, is there a higher environmental cost in doing this than keeping an inefficient 'old knacker' running for 20 years? Where's the break even point?
I've emailed Zero requesting more information on their energy usage and production impact, purely so I can give as close approximation to factual answers as I can manage and not just join the partisan flag flying game. I cannot believe that buying a new zero is less 'green' than buying an old Kawasaki 1000 but I really don't know - how costly was the kawasaki to build in the first place, how do the mining practices of the metals in the kawa compare to those in the zero? How bad are the conditions in the Kawa factory to those in the Zero parts producers.
The bottom line for me is it would be nice to know fact which only Zero can provide and I am pretty confident that the facts would be strongly in favour of Zero, as they are 'environmentally aware', probably more so than the ICE bike competition. Without the fact the argument I can give is almost as lame as the Clarkson camp.
-
On a sort-of sidenote. A 1000c motorbike will probably cost more than a car to run aside from fuel, oil changes every 6k miles, tyres every 3000, chain every 12,000 and so on. Bikes with powerful engines cost a fortune to run (unless they are Electric).
-
My Triumph triple(995) didn't. I had it when I wasn't paying too much attention to the economics of it....oh how I miss those days! :)
However, I did lots of miles, changed the tires and oil a couple of times and I remember at that time a tank would cost about 15-20Euro to fill up. Can't remember how many miles I did but lots of touring and commuting, it was my only transport. I never actually thought of the maintenance as a pain - cleaning and lubing the chain, oil changes were all part of the experience which is very much rose tinted now but still a good one. A good bike. I'm hoping the Zero will give me at least as much pleasure and for the commuting I'll be doing the low maintenance is a bonus.
The environment issue is a side issue but it's something everybody I speak to about it talks about so I'd like to be better informed.
-
On the Prius vs m3 comparison.. pretty obvious that the m3 was drafting. I would also wager that the m3 's grippy tires, while a economy loss in real world driving, are a win on the racetrack because you can coast around the corner instead of powering through, slipping the whole way.
Regarding "it's not what you drive, it's how you drive it":
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3/2008 (http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/m3/2008)
16.6 mpg average. 18.3 mpg best. 19 mpg imperial = 23 mpg US.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/2008 (http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/2008)
45.4 mpg average.
If we assume Clarkson's claim is accurate and a reasonable representation of on-track economy, then it's very much about what you drive.. because the m3 gets worse economy in real world driving than it does in some spurious show test.
OK, at the risk of being outed as an terribly inconsistent environmentalist but a passionate owner of vehicles, I think I am in a pretty good position to judge this one as I have owned both a Prius (2006) and a 2008 M3 (6mt). Both driven for the same mission: mostly local driving, little to no highway commuting or long distance driving, and a rather hilly location in the NE of the US, so big temp swings. Our cumulative average MPG in the Prius was ~35mpg, a bit better in the summer and a bit worse in the winter. Our average MPG for the M3, which is by its nature driven WAY more aggressively for the exact same mission, ~14mpg. When my wife did commute into NYC with the Prius we could get the MPG just north of 40 for those commutes, the M3 into the city it will see mileage just a tick above 20MPG for that same ride. Of course, if you mash the accelerator down and drive it the way it wants to be driven, that 20MPG drops like a stone into the mid-high teens, whereas the prius mileage would only decline marginally with "aggressive" driving.
-
Very interesting topic.
I'd like to add my point of view regarding buying an used ICE vs new Zero.
English isn't my native language but I think the saying 'Putting money where your mouth is' is applicable here. Talk green - invest green. Zero is paving the road for the future e-bikes. The more successful Zero is, the more attention e-bikes will get and the big ICE brands will start to invest in EV too.
Owning and using a vehicle (or any product for that matter) is product-placement in real-life, whether you like it or not. Just by riding a e-bike you may cause butterfly effects to have other choosing EV over ICE.
Also - less of your money to the oil industry.
-
Not disputing the pros - I believe in EVs for at least our short term personal transport, enough to already put some money where my mouth is followed next Feb by a whole lot more.
What I'd like to do, is have solid answers to the environment question. There are plenty of misconceptions over range, speed, acceleration, practicality which are easy to put right but the environmental question, if not tackled in an overly simplistic way - 'I have no exhaust pipe therefore I don't pollute', is complicated.
You can't just right off environmental and social concerns because you don't fill up at a gas station. Yes, it's great that you don't. It's great there's low maintenance, it's great that the power delivery is constant and linear but I'm convinced, I'm trying to sway others. I can't help thinking if I would have some sort of grasp on where the parts were made, how the labour is treated and paid well by western standards, how the carbon in transport is offset, how delivery to my Zero branch is carbon offset, how the water used in production is recycled I'd have an easier time of arguing the environmental case. I'm sure all the bases are covered but where are the facts and why aren't they highlighted, surely it's a selling point?
The Clarkson video like most TopGear set pieces, is cooked up bollox, I posted it to illustrate the general direction people approach EVs and the Environmental benefit of buying them - the cradle to grave argument. I thought the data might be out there but it doesn't seem to be readily available.
-
Clarkson family (great-great-great-great grandfather, John Kilner (1792-1857) owned glass manufacture of famous English Kilner Jars. An 1871 court case brought by the estate of the Earl of Scarborough against the Kilners. It was argued that smoke from the Thornhill Lees factory was polluting land around the factory. The judge ruled against the Kilners arguing that, “no man has the right to interfere with the supply of pure airâ€.
The Kilners were given three months to buy six gas furnaces at the then huge cost of £1,500 each. Jeremy has stumbled on the “dawn of Greenpeaceâ€. No fan of environmentalists, he’s not impressed, preferring to point out that Huddersfield’s grand civic buildings were “paid for by smokeâ€.
http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/episode/jeremy-clarkson (http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/episode/jeremy-clarkson)
Fully Charged videos explain alot about electric vechicle and solar tecnologhy
Pilot | Fully Charged (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTiRNzbSko#ws)
edited with facts from original story I read.
-
Clarkson family (great grand parents ~1800) owned a glass manufacture of famous english pickle jars. They were forced to close it and move because the polution was killing fruit orchards and crops nearby . farmers took them to court and judge ruled in the farmers favour that clean air was right and closed the factory down. That why clarkson hates greenies and green technology.
fully charged videos explain alot about electric vechicle and solar tecnologhy
Pilot | Fully Charged (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTiRNzbSko#ws)
I love the Fully Charged videos. Look forward to some day meeting him. Nice to see someone in the media who GETS it.
-
I'm finding myself arguing against the 'side' I'm on but that's the point, buying a Zero should/does stand up on it's own but if there are chinks, I want to know about them.
Not sure how you guys interpret the opening sequence of this:
Scrapheap Challenge - Season 10 Episode 11 - Land Tugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhsL9DI2w9w#ws)
but I've got my take on it.
As far as I'm concerned, journalists and actors are not the best sources of information for anything other than acting and journalism. Their motivation is to sell copy or up ratings. They have to put food on the table just like anybody else and that usually means pandering to the masses. I don't think, unless you've talked to him, you can possibly know what Clarkson's motivations or even his views are. Watching his very successful light entertainment programme where he continues to do what made him successful in the first place doesn't mean you know where he is 'coming from'. Neither do you know where Robert Llewellyn is coming from. Look in the bottom right of the screen on many fully charged videos and you'll see British Gas. Now google fracking.
What I find a little frustrating is that having decided that EVs are the way forward, many people seem to be making the same mistake journalists and politicians make by thinking they are more intelligent than everybody else. 'There's no point letting people know the facts, just give them the bullshit'. Maybe these people are right and the old adage of 'bullshit baffles brains' really does work. It doesn't work with me(I'm more intelligent than everybody else :D)! If Zero are producing parts in Asia with workers on less than MacDonalds salaries, I want to know about it, because I think that's exploitation and wrong, even if everybody else is doing it. If the energy difference to produce my 2013S over a cheap kawa is massive, I want to know about it because it is significant.
WRT environment impact I believe in EV technology and know we have to grow the industry by buying. I'm buying. However, I still don't want to be handed bullshit to swallow, give me the fact, even the nasty stuff. I can take it.
-
Nothing wrong with questioning one's assumptions, or "conventional wisdom". It's healthy.
I guess it's a good thing that "being green" wasn't my primary driver for buying a Zero. I don't know how one can even locate all the information needed to do pinpoint comparisons of environmental impact of manufacturing different motorcycles. You could go crazy trying to figure it out.
I simply tell people that after riding a Zero, I believe that electric is a superior drivetrain in many ways to IC, and will become so in many more ways as the technology and infrastructure develop. I also tell them that I'm doing my part to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.
-
Several points I would like to make.
1st. Most of the material used in a battery are recyclable. So, as more batteries are recycled, and more completely recycled, the environmental impact goes down. In no way, shape, or form,, can any educated person draw a comparison to the extreme measures currently employed (fracking, etc..) to extract oil and other "fuels" from our earth.
2nd. Even if the current design, manufacture, and use (the entire wells-wheel process) is less than perfect currently. The only path to success is to put your money where your mouth is and show there is a market, and to enable the companies developing these technologies to continue improving. We will not get there in one single, massive, leap.
3rd. EV's are and "energy neutral" technology. I hate the argument that "your energy just comes from a power plant instead" and "your exhaust is now coming out of the smokestacks of the power plant". This is true only if you choose that to be your energy source. You can pay for "clean energy" over the grid, or make or obtain your energy elsewhere.
4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.
http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf (http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf)
Personally, I am a bit on the fence, and I think in the end it really comes down to your specific situation.
Bottom line? E-Bikes, of whatever flavor, are indisputably the lowest impact form of personal transportation available.
-
I don't mind Top Gear / Clarkson and some of their topics make me laugh and are good fun. Any test or comparison or ranking they do cannot be taken seriously ! Its not their intention to compare anything on practical or real life terms, guess is more the "British Humour" than anything else.
I believe as well that most viewers get that, as it means most often that big sports car that they favour is not affordable to 99% of their viewers ...
So would we have them test a Zero ? It would generate publicity - right ? Certainly they would thrash it and make unrealistic comparisons... still the product is being promoted.
-
An example of the ridiculousness of the study:
"claiming that a Prius will last only 109,000 miles, well below the stated "industry straight average" of 178,739 miles—not to mention the whopping 379,000 miles ascribed to the Hummer H1."
I'm in big trouble. My '07 prius has over 107,000 miles and according to these guys the car will die at 109,000 miles. ;D The funny thing is the car drives almost like new, just a little more "broken in". The car has been very reliable. I only had to replace a water pump and that I bought online for $33 for a toyota manufactured pump plus $8 shipping (I know because I just did it last month :D). The only other things are routine maintenance items like oil changes, etc. No brake work because of regen.
-
4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.
http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf (http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf)
Interesting study. Ride an e-bike and lower your environmental impact, but get less exercise and die earlier. Or go the 100% human-powered route, live longer but in a more-damaged landscape you contributed to. What a choice ;)
E-bikes are cool, and I can see their utility. But for me personally, if I ride a bicycle, I want as much exercise as I can stand. With few bike routes where I live and generally non-cooperative weather, I'm enduring discomfort or even danger for little other benefit. The only e-bike I'd probably be interested is something like LFP's deathbike. At least then I get an adrenaline shot or two. Otherwise I'll just stick to elmotos :)
-
And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.
Good luck with that! ;)
Trikester
-
And if I can resist the upgrade jones (yeah right) for 5 or 6 years, the bike will pay for itself in fuel savings.
Good luck with that! ;)
Trikester
Haha takes one to know one! ;)
-
4th. Electric bicycles, scooter, mopeds, and motorcycles (etc...) are THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION that we know of. Even more-so than a conventional bicycle or other human powered vehicle, if you believe this article.
http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf (http://www.ebikes.ca/sustainability/Ebike_Energy.pdf)
Personally, I am a bit on the fence, and I think in the end it really comes down to your specific situation.
Bottom line? E-Bikes, of whatever flavor, are indisputably the lowest impact form of personal transportation available.
I am really really skeptical of claims that "bicycling has bigger impacts than X because of all the environmental impacts of the extra food production needed." That might be true for someone on a starvation diet who really needs to make up the extra calories burned through exercise. But all of us in the developed world (including even poor people n the US) get plenty of calories and can afford to burn quite a few without adding to their diet (for people at the poverty level, it's not the number of calories, but the quality of the calories that is the problem).
I even remember hearing about some British tabloid that claimed that walking across town had a bigger impact than driving a Land Rover (is there a theme here?). To reach this conclusion, they assumed the walker would make up allow the extra calories burned by eating STEAK! (With all the GHG impacts of meat production).
Me, I often bicycle 23 miles to work when not riding my Zero . . . nd I don't eat anything extra. OK, maybe one cookie extra.
-Karl
-
I got a reply from Zero after enquiring about their green credentials. They said they would keep me updated when they update their website with regard to sustainability. One thing I found interesting was their mention of the scheme for taking back used batteries where possible. They also sent me some links, one of which, from the Guardian Newspaper, is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment)
Full marks to them for responding to me as it wasn't a 'stock' reply. Good points have been made on this forum and as is so often the case, for a whole raft of reasons, fact is very difficult to come by in this emerging industry.
One thing is clear, in the long term, if coupled with policy changes in energy generation, EV usage can dramatically reduce the impact personal transport has on the environment. At the moment, due to the small scale of EV production, the comparative time a Zero takes to 'pay for itself' in terms of production cost(financial AND energy/pollution) with an ICE bike is longer than I expected. However, the fact that it will eventually 'pay for itself' in terms of energy emission and finance should be enough for the entire commuting motorbike community to make the leap to electric.
-
I think the (understandable) fact that electric motorcycles are unlikely to pay their original owner back in either money or reduced impact to the environment during the time that they will likely own the bike is true. But how about the future owners of the EV? Not only will they likely get a very good deal when buying used, but their "pay-back" will be much quicker and assuming the the vehicle is not totaled in some way, it may last for many years as an around-town commuter and if you could look at its entire lifetime, the statistics might change, compared with an IC vehicle. It will take a long time to accumulate this lifetime experience, as there is no reason that a Zero could not be running 20 years from today, if their battery life claims are to be believed. But I think the future looks bright in the long run. :)
P.S. My factory tour was rescheduled to next Wednesday as Mr. Walker is in Europe right now and apparently would like to meet me when he returns. I find that amazing. As someone who is used to getting the "bums rush" from BMW over the years, never have been able to speak with or even correspond with anyone from the factory (much less an officer in the company) without all communications going through an authorized dealer first (to be sanitized), being able to meet with Zero's CEO is a real privilege. :)
-
When I bought my Zero, I calculated a 100k mile / 10 year financial break-even point vs a 250cc gas bike. I'll see what my riding numbers look like after a full year, but I'm at 6k miles now 9 months in, with 3 months of downtime.
However.. if you bought a new 2012 today at $9k, your break-even point would be only 50k miles / 5 years. And if you bought a used 2012 at $7k, your break-even point would be 40k miles / 4 years (vs a 1 year used $3k 250cc bike). So if you're willing to wait you can do much better : )
In truth, I doubt I'll keep the Zero for 10 years.. improvements in just one year make the 2012 bikes look outdated, at this rate the 2022 bikes will have an optional flying mode. So probably at some point I will pass the bike on to its 2nd owner and pick up a one-year old bike with the initial depreciation hit.
Until that point I'm content to wait.
-
Interesting numbers.
I'm going to try and do a part by part environment/social impact analysis of the bike compared with an ICE equivalent just for my own interest and because the environment is an electric bike strong suit. I'll wait to ride my bike and for other riders' opinions before deciding which ICE bike to choose for the comparison but suggestions are welcome! Any info regarding where the parts are made is also greatfully received! So far I've done some work on the frame, controller, battery and motor. It's a complicated process but the biggest surprise is that everything ends up in one way or another pointing East towards China. Naturally, it is difficult to obtain too much information across the Chinese border but some is available. China is the only place I've ever seen solar panels on lamp posts despite popular media coverage of Beijing smog! The information I have found out so far is a mix of good and bad news. I'm most interested to discover where the Chinese made frame Aluminium comes from ie whether it is recycled or refined?
-
Can't you assume the tires, wheels, brakes, frame, etc. have the same environmental impact as a gas bike? If an e-bike does better with a handle bar, then a gas bike could also do the same. Things like this have nothing to do with gas or electric. The difference between the two bike types is gas or electric. So I don't think the handlebar is a valid part to include in the comparison.
I find it interesting most gas bikes have e-start. More popular now than in the past. So they have both an electric motor plus battery and a gas motor. Is it that much more impact to make a larger electric motor than a smaller one? Probably some, since more materials are used in a larger motor, but it looks to me the gas bike would have a lot more impact to build since it has both systems.
-
I have found some interesting figures on the production of LiIon batteries and it boils down to 75kg of CO2 per KWh of battery.
Im not sure my maths is right but a VFR800 emits approx 250g of CO2 per mile travelled by euro3 standards. Meaning you would have to travel 300 miles to emit as much CO2 as the production of 1KWh of battery. Which means you would have to cover the staggering total of 2700 miles on your VFR before you matched a ZF9. That is roughly the average yearly mileage of a UK motorcyclist.
Assuming that your power from renewable or nuclear as i do, that is +1 to electric bikes.
Figures from here: http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/202/pdfs/0068.PDF (http://www.electrochem.org/dl/ma/202/pdfs/0068.PDF)
-
you would have to cover the staggering total of 2700 miles on your VFR before you matched a ZF9.
So my break-even (carbon wise) on my ZF6 is only about 1800 miles then? Hooray, I am over half way there already. On dollars, not so much. :D
-
Can't you assume the tires, wheels, brakes, frame, etc. have the same environmental impact as a gas bike?
If you were doing a general or averaged production comparison then yes, that would be true but there seems little point in that, yet, until electric bike production grows. The difference between two ICE bikes production cost can be huge.
For example, take the Aluminium. Recycled Al takes about 5% the energy that primary Al takes to produce. If the Zero Chinese made frame is recycled Al that's great but a comparable Yamaha or Kawasaki might have a primary Al frame which would make a huge difference to the production energy usage. I think the only way to go is to cover all the components in the zero and get at least an idea of where the sustainability effort is going in and then compare. If the brakes or tyres are then the same for a comparison bike it will eventually make the task easier.
http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/filer/2012/06/12/fl0000181.pdf (http://www.world-aluminium.org/media/filer/2012/06/12/fl0000181.pdf)
Thanks for the link noiseboy. With batteries is it not the same as the frame - it depends entirely on which batteries and how they were made and where the metals used come from?
-
According to this (outdated) video of Neal Saiki, where he talks about the batteries, he seems environmentally committed and knowledgeable. I know the batteries are not the same anymore as in this video but for me, it's enough to make a biased assumption. ;)
http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/zero-motorcycles-high-performance-electric-bikes/ (http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/zero-motorcycles-high-performance-electric-bikes/)
I understand, @machone, biased assumptions are indeed not what you are looking for and this might add very little value. I respect your research and will follow your findings with great interest. I myself, however, are tired and fed up with always having to defend the 'greener choice'. Generally, I found them who throw the stones usually have no interest in the environment anyway and won't listen because they don't want to know.
Sorry for the pessimistic tone, I guess I've just heard "How can you wear leather boots as a vegetarian?" once to many.
-
Hi Tudor,
I've seen that video but it doesn't do any harm to remind myself why I got interested in electric bikes in the first place. After seeing the first Mission press releases and being amazed by the performance claims, Zero and what Neal Saiki had to say was my second stop followed by Brammo. NASA, his children playing around the edible battery and US based industry - peeeerrrfect, I thought, and think. What is obvious from that is the intention was good.
From the video, you wouldn't guess that many of the parts are made in China to keep the cost down, would you? Cost down why? Because labour is cheap. Why is labour cheap? Because the labour laws we benefit from in the West and our parents and grandparents fought for are not available to the often under age, under paid labour force in China.
You're right, we're all hypocrites when it comes to the environment - look how many posts have been on this thread, how many google searches I've done, how much energy I personally have expended just to find out some worthless information that won't effect whether I or anybody else buys or doesn't buy a Zero. Compared to the population crisis(https://plus.google.com/s/how%20many%20people%20can%20live%20on%20planet%20earth (https://plus.google.com/s/how%20many%20people%20can%20live%20on%20planet%20earth)) electric vehicles pale in comparison anyway.
However, one of my big drivers is that I hate to be treated like an idiot. I'll happily ride an electric motorbike and feel good that I'm likely doing my bit to reduce certain emissions long term. However, I think I also have the right to ask the question about how sustainable it really is. If I know the truth, I'm in a lot better position to defend the bike from detractors, of which there are many.
Although Zero have been gracious enough to reply to my email and sent some good general links, I want to know about MY bike. I know Aluminium is the most recycled metal on the planet - but is the frame Aluminium that MY zero is made from recycled? If not, it's a very high energy consumptive process.
From what I've learned so far, things are looking ok for my Zero. Although some of the parts are shipped in a high carbon way, they're only light parts that are otherwise manufactured very responsibly with all reasonable steps being taken .. great! There may be one or two less than perfect elements but as has been said, progress won't be one giant leap and being green costs money. However, and I repeat, if I know fact it's far more convincing than blathering on about Ice Caps and polar bears etc
-
I have had a different experience with buying the zero. I like electric bikes because of the power delivery, ease of use, lack of trips to the gas station and because I am fed up of the dirty time consuming and fiddly work required to keep an ICE running. When people asked about the environment I told them I didn't really care but I love riding my bike.
What amazes me is that since riding it my view has totally changed. I have always strived for efficiency not just in machinery but the switch in my mind was sitting in traffic with the zero totally quiet and hearing the hundreds of cars sitting there with engines running and smoke streaming from the exhaust and I just thought WHY? There is no need for all this waste and nobody has to sacrifice their lifestyle to achieve a reduction in their energy waste.
I'm now much more conscious about energy use so to me it doesn't matter if the zero is better for the environment because the change in attitude is far more important.
-
I am in Noiseboy's camp when it comes to why I ride electric. While I can appreciate trying to save the environment, it is just too big a subject for me to wrap my thoughts around. But the smaller question of why I like to ride an electric motorcycle was expressed well by the "Boy". :)
-
If the theory is to show the Zero has less impact, then I guess the aluminum frame does matter for that comparison. But that just shows one brand, or maybe just one bike has less impact. It doesn't say anything about electric. I think I understand the point now. Those people who look at recycled content numbers when they shop for random items at the store would probably be interested in learning the whole story on a particular bike. I am not one of those. I mostly care about the difference between electric and gas. If the electric drive was lower impact than gas bikes, yet a particular gas bike had a bunch of recycled materials etc, that made it to be a lower impact product, I would still give more credit to electric for being lower impact. All those other items could be done for any bike. If it really turned out that gas bikes started to really reduce their impact in other areas than the gas drive system, and made bikes with much less impact compared to electric bikes, would you really put down the electic bike and go buy a gas one? I wouldn't go that route.
-
I am in Noiseboy's camp when it comes to why I ride electric. While I can appreciate trying to save the environment, it is just too big a subject for me to wrap my thoughts around. But the smaller question of why I like to ride an electric motorcycle was expressed well by the "Boy". :)
I am hopeful that the $900 check from California Air Resources Board, on the condition that I keep my Zero for three years, was based on rational thinking.
-
I am in Noiseboy's camp when it comes to why I ride electric. While I can appreciate trying to save the environment, it is just too big a subject for me to wrap my thoughts around. But the smaller question of why I like to ride an electric motorcycle was expressed well by the "Boy". :)
I am hopeful that the $900 check from California Air Resources Board, on the condition that I keep my Zero for three years, was based on rational thinking.
really? lol
-
I am in Noiseboy's camp when it comes to why I ride electric. While I can appreciate trying to save the environment, it is just too big a subject for me to wrap my thoughts around. But the smaller question of why I like to ride an electric motorcycle was expressed well by the "Boy". :)
I am hopeful that the $900 check from California Air Resources Board, on the condition that I keep my Zero for three years, was based on rational thinking.
You will also love the rational thinking that requires you to retun some of that $900 back to the State and to the IRS come income tax time. The government giveth and the government taketh away. ::)