The major advantage of an assisted bike is that it allows a cyclist to arrive fresh
at his work after a long or difficult trip, and at the same time, economizing 95
% of the energy and 80% of ground space, compared to the same trip by car.
Given this fact, to concentrate on the origin of the 5% energy needed is may be more
a question of
communication rather than a concern for the environment.
Our point of view is rather:
- Use a Delta fuelled by gasoline, which is available everywhere rather than alcohol
which often would oblige one to use the car to buy a can of alcohol …
(Without speaking about its doubtful production by agriculture to feed vehicles,
when some populations are hungry)
- Use your Ebikes as often as possible, even though in France they are at the moment
nuclear and essentially coal powered elsewhere (the source of the electricity), the
interest is not there.
It is important to note :
Is it possible to compare the energy efficiency of very different types of vehicles
To compare the consumption of vehicles using petrol, alcohol, diesel or LPG in terms
of liters/100Km or Miles/gal makes no more sense than to say " He was completely
drunk, he drank one liter this evening", but a liter of what ?
A liter of diesel contains 10 Kwh; gasoline 8.3 Kwh, LPG 6.8 Kwh, alcohol 6 Kwh and
to make 1 Kwh of electric power, one needs at least 3 Kwh of something else and the
situation is identical for hydrogen.
The equivalences and comparisons are now possible…
To find a valid solution, we must at least add the parameters, costs, taxes, local
and planetary pollution, geopolitics aspects and lobbies, which complicate things
"The only energy without problems, is the energy we don’t use" and that is where
the interest of assisted bicycles lies. They have a record for energy sobriety with
a reasonable motor system.
And here is the interest of the assisted bike, which has a record of energy consumption,
with a reasonable motorization.