Humans are actually unusually energy efficient for mammals when walking and even more so when cycling. Here’s a little info graphic showing a breakdown.
One thing to keep in mind if you have a dog is they’re less energy efficient than humans. While dogs can run faster, a reasonably fit human can easily out distance an equally fit dog when walking or distance running.
Nice graphic. But it seems like it doesn’t factor in kg of mass moved. A human and a bike is a lot lighter than a car or a horse. You could also argue that the vehicle weigh should be ignored but then again you could easily argue back that weight of goods move can possibly be a lot higher with a car if you load it up to capacity. Ignore that. I did not see it said 5 riders for the car
I’m back with better data. I’m assuming the travel path is perfectly flat because I don’t feel like modeling elevation changes. I’m being energy efficient (read: lazy).
For cycling, I’m using the global average human weight of 62 kg, assuming the cycle is 8 kg, and the pace is 10 kph, which is pretty relaxed.
For walking, I’m using the 62 kg person walking at 4 kph.
For driving with petrol, we’ll use the same spherical 62 kg human and a 2024 Toyota Prius with a fuel efficiency of 4.8 L/100 km and a mass of 1570 kg. One liter of petrol is approximately 8174 kcal. Double the energy expenditure for an estimate for your typical SUV.
For electric, I chose a 2024 Hyundai Ioniq 5 N with an energy efficiency of 21.2 kWh/100km and a mass of 2235 kg. One kilowatt-hour is approximately 860 kcal.
Oh really. It seems to contradict the graphics. Cars are also stupid efficient now. I also ran some quick calculations on my electric bike and it is crazy how many km*kWh⁻¹ you get and how little it cost to run.
I’ve heard about some research showing that an electric bike over it’s entire lifetime is more environmentally friendly than a traditional one because the amount of extra food you need to consume without the electric help is over time more co2 than the co2 it costs to charge the battery. I don’t know where the research is from since I just heard it from a colleague so don’t quote me on it, but electric motors are really efficient so it sounds very plausible to me.
Electric bikes are super efficient, I’m a big fan.
While the petrol and electric vehicles are surprisingly efficient moving a given unit of weight, that also includes their own weight, constantly, making their overall energy use…not great.
Yes and no. They take less energy to move a given unit of weight around, but they’re massively heavy so they expend tons of energy moving themselves the entire time.
It still doesn’t give us kcal•km-1•kg-1 (or an equivalent), which is what I was looking for. We could do some math to get us some loose estimates, though. I’ll do exactly that and report back shortly.
Humans are actually unusually energy efficient for mammals when walking and even more so when cycling. Here’s a little info graphic showing a breakdown.
One thing to keep in mind if you have a dog is they’re less energy efficient than humans. While dogs can run faster, a reasonably fit human can easily out distance an equally fit dog when walking or distance running.
Also, I love the units. Using miles on one axis and km on the other.
This is very useful. My four friends and I will have to stop swimming to work, and take the car instead.
Nice graphic.
But it seems like it doesn’t factor in kg of mass moved. A human and a bike is a lot lighter than a car or a horse. You could also argue that the vehicle weigh should be ignored but then again you could easily argue back that weight of goods move can possibly be a lot higher with a car if you load it up to capacity. Ignore that. I did not see it said 5 riders for the carI’m back with better data. I’m assuming the travel path is perfectly flat because I don’t feel like modeling elevation changes. I’m being energy efficient (read: lazy).
For cycling, I’m using the global average human weight of 62 kg, assuming the cycle is 8 kg, and the pace is 10 kph, which is pretty relaxed.
For walking, I’m using the 62 kg person walking at 4 kph.
For driving with petrol, we’ll use the same spherical 62 kg human and a 2024 Toyota Prius with a fuel efficiency of 4.8 L/100 km and a mass of 1570 kg. One liter of petrol is approximately 8174 kcal. Double the energy expenditure for an estimate for your typical SUV.
For electric, I chose a 2024 Hyundai Ioniq 5 N with an energy efficiency of 21.2 kWh/100km and a mass of 2235 kg. One kilowatt-hour is approximately 860 kcal.
Walking: 0.74 kcal•km-1•kg-1
Cycling: 0.34 kcal•km-1•kg-1
Driving(p): 0.24 kcal•km-1•kg-1
Driving(e): 0.08 kcal•km-1•kg-1
Oh really. It seems to contradict the graphics. Cars are also stupid efficient now. I also ran some quick calculations on my electric bike and it is crazy how many km*kWh⁻¹ you get and how little it cost to run.
I’ve heard about some research showing that an electric bike over it’s entire lifetime is more environmentally friendly than a traditional one because the amount of extra food you need to consume without the electric help is over time more co2 than the co2 it costs to charge the battery. I don’t know where the research is from since I just heard it from a colleague so don’t quote me on it, but electric motors are really efficient so it sounds very plausible to me.
Electric bikes are super efficient, I’m a big fan.
While the petrol and electric vehicles are surprisingly efficient moving a given unit of weight, that also includes their own weight, constantly, making their overall energy use…not great.
Wait so cars are more efficient than cycling now ?
Seems so. Even cheating it in favor of the bikes. But looking at electric car numbers it should make ebikes even more effecient.
Yes and no. They take less energy to move a given unit of weight around, but they’re massively heavy so they expend tons of energy moving themselves the entire time.
It still doesn’t give us kcal•km-1•kg-1 (or an equivalent), which is what I was looking for. We could do some math to get us some loose estimates, though. I’ll do exactly that and report back shortly.