The Best Part of Electric Vehicles

[Rigby5]

Sorry but no motorized vehicles on the multi purpose trails. And guess what? The trails would be full of mopeds if they were allowed. But they are not. So you don't see them. Not one. I've covered hundreds of miles and not a one. And I showed you the rules/laws.

Now, each section of the trail is governed by the city it is in. So one city might say ok fine let mopeds on the path. But there isn't one of those cities at least not in Michigan.

I just learned something. I can't take my Ebike on Mackinaw Island. Electric bicycles are banned on Mackinac Island by local ordinance in accordance with State Law. Those with a mobility disability are exempt in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since motorized vehicles are typically not allowed on multiuse trails, this precludes their use on these facilities, as well as in bike lanes and on sidewalks.

Sorry pal

Under California law, an e-bike is essentially treated the same as a standard bicycle—with a few exceptions. E-bikes are to be operated like conventional bicycles in California and are not considered motor vehicles under the California Vehicle Code.

If you can show me in your state that this is different please do.

So then since a Tesla is electric, it does not have to obey speed limits, etc.?
Face it, eBikes are motorized.
If CA writes their regulations in violation of common law, then it is their legislators who should be prosecuted.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes yes yes we've gone over that before. It's better a coal or oil run factory make us vehicles that don't pollute and then we aren't all running around spewing poison into the atmosphere. Just one factory is producing pollution in an effort to make us green bikes.

What makes a gas guzzling harley or moped? Oh that's right. A coal/gas plant. So your way we pollute to make the bikes and then the bikes pollute after that. My way we pollute to make the bike and then the bike doesn't pollute.

Wrong.
Due to the additional layers of electrical inefficiency, an eBike pollutes about 8 times more than one that burns gasoline. And a bio fuel diesel does not pollute at all.
Again, the turbo diesel and electric motor are about the same efficiency, around 50%.
But generating electricity is also only about 50%, transmission lines only 90%, battery charge only 50%, battery discharge over 50%, and the battery weight doubles the load for another 50%.
I don't dislike eBikes, but bio fuel, hydrogen, methane fuel-cells, or many other means are much better than heavy batteries.

 

[Rigby5]

I found this interesting. From 2008 someone wrote

Motorcycles and scooters are an appealing alternative to shelling out big bucks filling up the family truckster, which is one reason sales are going through the roof. But riding on two wheels may not be any more environmentally responsible than riding on four. Turns out the average motorcycle is 10 times more polluting per mile […]

So you see, Ebikes are better. For one reason, I have to peddle to make mine move. So I'm getting some exercise. And I'm not polluting like a motorcycle is. Which is 10 times worse than a car! And if I use full power it's like you are Captain America and you can ride 4 times as far as a regular bike. Trust me, ride one for 4 hours and you'll say "damn I got to get me one of these. What state do you live in? I want to see how many bike trails you have.

Motorcycles are NOT worse than a car, and especially not 10 times worse.
Motorcycles typically get around 80 mpg, so it is impossible for them to produce more carbon emissions than a car.
The only way to beat a motorcycle is with a bus that holds almost 100 people.

Without reading the details, likely what they like to ding motorcycles over is their high compression releases NOx due to heat, but NOx not only is a necessary fertilizer for plants, but quickly breaks down. CO2 does not ever normally break down by itself.

So then no, eBikes are not cleaner than fuel based motorcycles.
I like eBikes, but they are not cleaner.

 

[sealybobo]

What do you mean by suddenly? I'm simply pointing out that electric vehicles really aren't all that "green" when you account for their entire life cycle. You can feel good that you're not spewing gasses into the air when you're riding that bike, but the batteries pose a big disposal problem.

But rechargeables have 28 times less impact on global warming, 30 times less impact on air pollution, 9 times less impact on air acidification, and 12 times less impact on water pollution!

 

[sealybobo]

Ebikes are better for what? For a trip of a few miles, the extra time it takes on a bike may not be significant. Making a trip into town and covering 50 miles in a day, OTOH, requires something faster.

Yesterday I saw a concert was going in the next town over. It was 7pm so I decided to ZIP down on my ebike. What took me 10 minutes would have taken you much longer. But here's the best part. On the way home it is mostly up hill. While you're struggling to get home before dark, I'm riding up that hill like I'm Captain America. See you when you get home 20 minutes after me.

The extra time it takes on a bike may not be signifiwhat? I do trips on weekends with my buddies you could not do. The Macomb Orchard Trails connects to the Clinton River trail which connects to the West bloomfield trail which connects to my trail. Oh and we usually do the side trails off these trails. So not only do we ride the Macomb/Orchard trail, we ride around Stony Creek Metropark. And there's a side trail off the Clinton river one. For normal bikers that side trail is the entire day. They wouldn't dream of doing the Clinton River trail and that side trail.

The other day we rode to a town 3 towns over. When we got there we were wondering where a normal bike would be at that point. We figured they would only be half way to the restaurant that we are at. So have fun riding 20 miles while we ride 60-80.

My brother has a place in Gaylord

North Central State Trail - Gaylord to Mackinaw City

www.trailscouncil.org

This trail is 66 miles long. So we can't ride it and ride it back. We can't go 132 miles in one day. So we either are going to do it in two trips. 33 miles up and back one time and the other 33 the next time we go. Or we can drive one truck to the end and drive back to the start with a car and ride all 66 miles in one day. I'd like to do the 66 miles in one day. You could never do this on a regular bike. No way. And this isn't all paved so you probably don't want to bring your 22 speed racing bike.

 

[sealybobo]

Motorcycles are NOT worse than a car, and especially not 10 times worse.
Motorcycles typically get around 80 mpg, so it is impossible for them to produce more carbon emissions than a car.
The only way to beat a motorcycle is with a bus that holds almost 100 people.

Without reading the details, likely what they like to ding motorcycles over is their high compression releases NOx due to heat, but NOx not only is a necessary fertilizer for plants, but quickly breaks down. CO2 does not ever normally break down by itself.

So then no, eBikes are not cleaner than fuel based motorcycles.
I like eBikes, but they are not cleaner.

Did I say carbon emission?

The results showed that motorcycles were generally more fuel efficient than cars, and emitted less carbon dioxide. But they were also found to emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.

We should send this one to Myth Busters. Oh wait! We did.

The upshot? Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested -- from the '00s -- the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.
The MythBusters' conclusion: "At best, it's a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars," Savage said on the show. "At worst, they're far worse."

'MythBusters' asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links.

latimesblogs.latimes.com

 

[sealybobo]

Motorcycles are NOT worse than a car, and especially not 10 times worse.
Motorcycles typically get around 80 mpg, so it is impossible for them to produce more carbon emissions than a car.
The only way to beat a motorcycle is with a bus that holds almost 100 people.

Without reading the details, likely what they like to ding motorcycles over is their high compression releases NOx due to heat, but NOx not only is a necessary fertilizer for plants, but quickly breaks down. CO2 does not ever normally break down by itself.

So then no, eBikes are not cleaner than fuel based motorcycles.
I like eBikes, but they are not cleaner.

I'm going to repeat it so it sinks in.

the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

 

[Rigby5]

But rechargeables have 28 times less impact on global warming, 30 times less impact on air pollution, 9 times less impact on air acidification, and 12 times less impact on water pollution!

That is totally wrong.
Since batteries rely mostly on coal for recharging, they are very inefficient in charging/discharging, and they double the weight load, they produce over 20 times the amount of pollution.

ICE engines produce no water pollution at all, since CO2 does not interact with water.

 

[Rigby5]

Did I say carbon emission?

The results showed that motorcycles were generally more fuel efficient than cars, and emitted less carbon dioxide. But they were also found to emit higher levels of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.

We should send this one to Myth Busters. Oh wait! We did.

The upshot? Motorcycles were indeed more fuel-efficient than cars and emitted less of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, but they emitted far more smog-forming hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen, as well as the toxic air pollutant carbon monoxide. For the most recent model year vehicles tested -- from the '00s -- the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than the comparable decade car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.
The MythBusters' conclusion: "At best, it's a wash. Motorcycles are just as bad for the environment as cars," Savage said on the show. "At worst, they're far worse."

'MythBusters' asks: Are motorcycles greener than cars?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links.

latimesblogs.latimes.com

Wrong.
Since motorcycles get 80 mpg instead of 25 mpg, they have to produce less hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, etc.
NOx is greater with any high performance engine, but there is no evidence NOx is really a problem, since it quickly breaks down and is quickly absorbed by plants are a fertilizer.

Mythbusters is often wrong and does not have enough expertise.

What people also do not know is that the catalytic converters cars use to reduce CO, produces lots of toxics not tested for, like cyanates, formalins, etc. Catalytic converts are a very bad and deadly idea.

 

[sealybobo]

That is totally wrong.
Since batteries rely mostly on coal for recharging, they are very inefficient in charging/discharging, and they double the weight load, they produce over 20 times the amount of pollution.

ICE engines produce no water pollution at all, since CO2 does not interact with water.

Ok, you're right and the scientific community who measures this stuff is wrong. No surprise that even when presented with the facts, you deny them.

 

[sealybobo]

That is totally wrong.
Since batteries rely mostly on coal for recharging, they are very inefficient in charging/discharging, and they double the weight load, they produce over 20 times the amount of pollution.

ICE engines produce no water pollution at all, since CO2 does not interact with water.

How about you show me the research that went into your findings.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46420.pdf

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong.
Since motorcycles get 80 mpg instead of 25 mpg, they have to produce less hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, etc.
NOx is greater with any high performance engine, but there is no evidence NOx is really a problem, since it quickly breaks down and is quickly absorbed by plants are a fertilizer.

Mythbusters is often wrong and does not have enough expertise.

What people also do not know is that the catalytic converters cars use to reduce CO, produces lots of toxics not tested for, like cyanates, formalins, etc. Catalytic converts are a very bad and deadly idea.

Of course you can't produce one article verifying what you are saying

Turns out the average motorcycle is 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV. It seems counter-intuitive, because motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit a lot less C02.

although motorcycles and scooters comprise 3.6 percent of registered vehicles in California and 1 percent of vehicle miles traveled, they account for 10 percent of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions.

I thought everyone knew this. Of course leave it to USMB Republicans to argue everything and anything that doesn't fit into their narrative.

Motorcycle engines are twice as efficient as automobile engines, she notes, so they generally emit less carbon dioxide. But they emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, which along with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are measured by state and federal air quality regulators to determine whether vehicles meet emissions rules.

Catalytic converters and other emissions control devices would clean things up, but they're often too big, too heavy or too hot to install on motorcycles. For that reason and others that Carpenter outlines in the column, the Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board are more lenient when it comes to motorcycle emissions.

"The emissions picture [for motorcycles] is pretty grim," she quotes John Swanton of the Air Resources Board saying, "but we think it's fair for where motorcycles are today."

Motorcycles Pollute More Than SUVs

Motorcycles and scooters are an appealing alternative to shelling out big bucks filling up the family truckster, which is one reason sales are going through the roof. But riding on two wheels may not be any more environmentally responsible than riding on four. Turns out the average motorcycle is...

www.wired.com

 

[Rigby5]

I'm going to repeat it so it sinks in.

the motorcycle used 28% less fuel than car and emitted 30% fewer carbon dioxide emissions, but it emitted 416% more hydrocarbons, 3,220% more oxides of nitrogen and 8,065% more carbon monoxide.

Even you should be able to figure out that if you are using less fuel, you can be emitting more hydrocarbons.
Look up NOx and you will see it is very unstable so doesn't persist, and nitrates are good for plants.
The method cars use to cut CO is the catalytic converter, which is hundreds of times more deadly than any other exhaust, because catalytic converters produce exotic toxins like cyanates, formalins, etc. (cyanide, formaldhyde, etc.)

{...
Exposure to gas-phase isocyanic acid (HNCO) has been previously shown to be associated with the development of atherosclerosis, cataracts and rheumatoid arthritis. As such, accurate emission inventories for HNCO are critical for modeling the spatial and temporal distribution of HNCO on a regional and global scale. To date, HNCO emission rates from light duty gasoline vehicles, operated under driving conditions, have not been determined. Here, we present the first measurements of real-time emission factors of isocyanic acid from a fleet of eight light duty gasoline-powered vehicles (LDGVs) tested on a chassis dynamometer using the Unified Driving Cycle (UC) at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Haagen-Smit test facility, all of which were equipped with three-way catalytic converters. HNCO emissions were observed from all vehicles, in contrast to the idealized laboratory measurements. We report the tested fleet averaged HNCO emission factors, which depend strongly on the phase of the drive cycle; ranging from 0.46 ± 0.13 mg kg fuel(-1) during engine start to 1.70 ± 1.77 mg kg fuel(-1) during hard acceleration after the engine and catalytic converter were warm. The tested eight-car fleet average fuel based HNCO emission factor was 0.91 ± 0.58 mg kg fuel(-1), within the range previously estimated for light duty diesel-powered vehicles (0.21-3.96 mg kg fuel(-1)). Our results suggest that HNCO emissions from LDGVs represent a significant emission source in urban areas that should be accounted for in global and regional models.
...}

Real-time emission factor measurements of isocyanic acid from light duty gasoline vehicles - PubMed

Exposure to gas-phase isocyanic acid (HNCO) has been previously shown to be associated with the development of atherosclerosis, cataracts and rheumatoid arthritis. As such, accurate emission inventories for HNCO are critical for modeling the spatial and temporal distribution of HNCO on a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

They just do not do emissions test for cyanates of formalins when you renew you registration.
Catalytic converters are more deadly than without.

 

[Rigby5]

How about you show me the research that went into your findings.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46420.pdf

Wrong.
Your own link says Battery Electric Vehicles pollute much more, especially water use.

{...
However, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs emits, on average, an estimated 15% more fine particulate matter and 273% more sulfur oxides, largely due to battery production and the electricity generation source used to charge the vehicle batteries. Further, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs consumes, on average, an estimated 29% less total energy resources and 37% less fossil fuel resources, but 56% more water resources. These results are global effects, based on the system boundaries and input assumptions of the study.
...}

 

[sealybobo]

So then since a Tesla is electric, it does not have to obey speed limits, etc.?
Face it, eBikes are motorized.
If CA writes their regulations in violation of common law, then it is their legislators who should be prosecuted.

You are insane and stubborn. It's a states rights issue by the way. If your state wants to let motorized vehicles on the bike paths, or if they want to keep the ebikes off the bike paths, they can try. I can tell you that they tried to keep ebikes off the bike paths and a disabled man sued and won. But only class 1 ebikes are allowed. Like mine. It only goes so fast and you have to peddle.

For the record my buddies have bikes with peddles and throttles. Not sure if they are breaking the rules but who's going to say anything as long as they aren't going as fast as a class 2 or 3 ebike goes. And one of them is a veteran so he's going to give someone an ear full if they say anything to him.

But I can tell you one thing. If you have a motorized bike on the bike path the cops will stop you at the next intersection. We will call the police and they will arrest you. Do you think a YZ 100 Motorcycle can go on the bike path? Then why would you think a moped could? No motorized vehicles! What don't you understand? And class 1 ebikes are not considered motorized. Look it up. Don't argue it. Look it up.

What state do you live in? I want to see what the laws/rules are in your state.

This is what I love about Ebikes. Only we can go on these trails

Rail-Trail Stats​

• 132 total rail-trails
• 2,478 miles of rail-trails
• 23 current projects
• 217 miles of potential rail-trail

I mean besides peddle bikes but who wants to ride those?

 

[sealybobo]

Even you should be able to figure out that if you are using less fuel, you can be emitting more hydrocarbons.
Look up NOx and you will see it is very unstable so doesn't persist, and nitrates are good for plants.
The method cars use to cut CO is the catalytic converter, which is hundreds of times more deadly than any other exhaust, because catalytic converters produce exotic toxins like cyanates, formalins, etc. (cyanide, formaldhyde, etc.)

{...
Exposure to gas-phase isocyanic acid (HNCO) has been previously shown to be associated with the development of atherosclerosis, cataracts and rheumatoid arthritis. As such, accurate emission inventories for HNCO are critical for modeling the spatial and temporal distribution of HNCO on a regional and global scale. To date, HNCO emission rates from light duty gasoline vehicles, operated under driving conditions, have not been determined. Here, we present the first measurements of real-time emission factors of isocyanic acid from a fleet of eight light duty gasoline-powered vehicles (LDGVs) tested on a chassis dynamometer using the Unified Driving Cycle (UC) at the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Haagen-Smit test facility, all of which were equipped with three-way catalytic converters. HNCO emissions were observed from all vehicles, in contrast to the idealized laboratory measurements. We report the tested fleet averaged HNCO emission factors, which depend strongly on the phase of the drive cycle; ranging from 0.46 ± 0.13 mg kg fuel(-1) during engine start to 1.70 ± 1.77 mg kg fuel(-1) during hard acceleration after the engine and catalytic converter were warm. The tested eight-car fleet average fuel based HNCO emission factor was 0.91 ± 0.58 mg kg fuel(-1), within the range previously estimated for light duty diesel-powered vehicles (0.21-3.96 mg kg fuel(-1)). Our results suggest that HNCO emissions from LDGVs represent a significant emission source in urban areas that should be accounted for in global and regional models.
...}

Real-time emission factor measurements of isocyanic acid from light duty gasoline vehicles - PubMed

Exposure to gas-phase isocyanic acid (HNCO) has been previously shown to be associated with the development of atherosclerosis, cataracts and rheumatoid arthritis. As such, accurate emission inventories for HNCO are critical for modeling the spatial and temporal distribution of HNCO on a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

They just do not do emissions test for cyanates of formalins when you renew you registration.
Catalytic converters are more deadly than without.

Are you sure what you are showing me contradicts what I'm saying?

Motorcycle engines are twice as efficient as automobile engines so they emit less carbon dioxide but they emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides

Turns out the average motorcycle is 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV. It seems counter-intuitive, because motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit a lot less C02.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course you can't produce one article verifying what you are saying

Turns out the average motorcycle is 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV. It seems counter-intuitive, because motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit a lot less C02.

although motorcycles and scooters comprise 3.6 percent of registered vehicles in California and 1 percent of vehicle miles traveled, they account for 10 percent of passenger vehicles' smog-forming emissions.

I thought everyone knew this. Of course leave it to USMB Republicans to argue everything and anything that doesn't fit into their narrative.

Motorcycle engines are twice as efficient as automobile engines, she notes, so they generally emit less carbon dioxide. But they emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, which along with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are measured by state and federal air quality regulators to determine whether vehicles meet emissions rules.

Catalytic converters and other emissions control devices would clean things up, but they're often too big, too heavy or too hot to install on motorcycles. For that reason and others that Carpenter outlines in the column, the Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board are more lenient when it comes to motorcycle emissions.

"The emissions picture [for motorcycles] is pretty grim," she quotes John Swanton of the Air Resources Board saying, "but we think it's fair for where motorcycles are today."

Motorcycles Pollute More Than SUVs

Motorcycles and scooters are an appealing alternative to shelling out big bucks filling up the family truckster, which is one reason sales are going through the roof. But riding on two wheels may not be any more environmentally responsible than riding on four. Turns out the average motorcycle is...

www.wired.com

Obviously it is impossible to use less fuel and then pollute more.
The US car makers simply have been bribing the government into cheating, in order to sell fewer motorcycles and sell more cars.

NOx is not really a pollution at all.
Anything hot produces NOx, including an incandescent light bulb.
There are many types of NOx, but the NOx in ICE exhaust is not harmful or persistent.
The US EPA simply uses NOx as a means of promoting US vehicles.
For example, the EPA has no problem with this:

 

[sealybobo]

Wrong.
Your own link says Battery Electric Vehicles pollute much more, especially water use.

{...
However, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs emits, on average, an estimated 15% more fine particulate matter and 273% more sulfur oxides, largely due to battery production and the electricity generation source used to charge the vehicle batteries. Further, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs consumes, on average, an estimated 29% less total energy resources and 37% less fossil fuel resources, but 56% more water resources. These results are global effects, based on the system boundaries and input assumptions of the study.
...}

It also says BEVs have lower life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than ICEVs.

 

[Rigby5]

You are insane and stubborn. It's a states rights issue by the way. If your state wants to let motorized vehicles on the bike paths, or if they want to keep the ebikes off the bike paths, they can try. I can tell you that they tried to keep ebikes off the bike paths and a disabled man sued and won. But only class 1 ebikes are allowed. Like mine. It only goes so fast and you have to peddle.

For the record my buddies have bikes with peddles and throttles. Not sure if they are breaking the rules but who's going to say anything as long as they aren't going as fast as a class 2 or 3 ebike goes. And one of them is a veteran so he's going to give someone an ear full if they say anything to him.

But I can tell you one thing. If you have a motorized bike on the bike path the cops will stop you at the next intersection. We will call the police and they will arrest you. Do you think a YZ 100 Motorcycle can go on the bike path? Then why would you think a moped could? No motorized vehicles! What don't you understand? And class 1 ebikes are not considered motorized. Look it up. Don't argue it. Look it up.

What state do you live in? I want to see what the laws/rules are in your state.

This is what I love about Ebikes. Only we can go on these trails

Rail-Trail Stats​

• 132 total rail-trails
• 2,478 miles of rail-trails
• 23 current projects
• 217 miles of potential rail-trail

I mean besides peddle bikes but who wants to ride those?

There is no such thing as "states rights".
Only individuals have rights, and states can not legally infringe arbitrarily.
They can not legally treat electric motors differently than ICE motors.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you sure what you are showing me contradicts what I'm saying?

Motorcycle engines are twice as efficient as automobile engines so they emit less carbon dioxide but they emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides

Turns out the average motorcycle is 10 times more polluting per mile than a passenger car, light truck or SUV. It seems counter-intuitive, because motorcycles are about twice as fuel-efficient as cars and emit a lot less C02.

No one has ever shown NOx from ICE engines is harmful.
There are many forms of NOx, but the only really toxic ones are not produced by ICE engines.
NOx also rapidly breaks down and is harmless.
NOx also is needed by plants.