this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
829 points (98.1% liked)

Fuck Cars

12992 readers
1273 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pc486@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure a diesel generator is much better. In the US, petrol power generation is 2.46 pounds CO2/kwh and coal is 2.31 pounds/kwh. Maybe coal is less efficient in Germany, but I doubt it's significantly worse than petrol.

And there are other negative emissions with oil, like forced methane production (burn, bottle, or release). Though coal has similar issues too (e.g. more radioactive release than nuclear power).

That said, there's a disconnect in our debate. Coal plants are an energy source. Cars and ebikes are an energy load. You can't really say "coal is worse than cars" because you cannot replace coal plant emissions by adding more cars. Similarly, you'll have cars even if you replaced coal with zero-emission renewables.

The argument becomes interesting when you add bikes into the picture. You can replace a large portion of petrol-car kilometers with coal-ebike kilometers and gain far more kilometers traveled per kilo of CO2. This argument can also be extended for emissions related to calories in acoustic bike kilometers.

The "per mile" in "ebikes produce less CO2 per mile" is critically important to the argument.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago

There are, like you said. A lot of other pollutants than just CO2. Focusing on the CO2 only, is a huge disservice.

The point of our project was simply to show just how bad they are. We often hear that we should skip the car and take a bus for the environment. And while I agree that we can all do what we can.

It's like fighting a forest fire by pissing at it. While someone else is literally, dumping coal on the fire.

I don't have the research infront of me. It was a long time ago. But I know the pollutants from coal, was astronomically worse than any other form of power generation.

But regardless if an ebike is powered by coal is worse or not. It is a moot point. The solution isn't to stop using bikes. The solution is to stop using coal.

And on that, I think we agree.