Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walking consumes more gasoline than driving
Brad Ideas ^ | 6/2/14 | Brad

Posted on 06/02/2014 10:49:10 AM PDT by NowApproachingMidnight

Note to new readers: This article explores the consequences of using so much fuel to produce our food. If you come out of it thinking it’s telling you to drive rather than get some exercise, you didn’t read it!

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science
KEYWORDS: gas; green; research; walking

1 posted on 06/02/2014 10:49:10 AM PDT by NowApproachingMidnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

The Flintstones had it right from the beginning: combining walking and driving!

2 posted on 06/02/2014 10:51:53 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

The solution is obvious: get cars for the cows to graze from.

3 posted on 06/02/2014 10:55:28 AM PDT by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

4 posted on 06/02/2014 11:13:25 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve

5 posted on 06/02/2014 11:27:41 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to being a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

This source does not require excerpting.

In my growing research on transportation energy economics, I’ve come upon some rather astonishing research. I always enjoy debates on total cost analysis — trying to figure out the true energy cost of things, by adding in the energy spent elsewhere to make things happen. (For example, the energy to smelt the metals in your car adds quite a bit to its energy cost.)

Humans are modestly efficient. Walking, an average person burns about 100 Calories per mile at 3mph, or 300 per hour, while sitting for the same hour burns around 80 Calories just keeping you warm. In other words, the walking 3 miles uses about 220 extra Calories. Calories are kilocalories, and one Calorie/kcal is about 4 BTUs, 4200 joules or 1.63 watt-hours.

While walking 1 mile burns an extra 74 Calories, on a bicycle we’re much better. Biking one mile at 10mph takes about 38 extra calories over sitting. Again, this is the extra calories.

A gallon of gas has about 31,500 Calories in it, so you might imagine that you get 815 “mpg” biking and 400 “mpg” walking. Pretty good. (Unless you compare it to an electric scooter, which turns out to get the equivalent of 1200 mpg from pure electricity if you allow the same perfect conversion.)

But there’s a problem. We eat, on average about 2700 Calories/day in the USA, almost all of it produced by agribusiness. Which runs on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provide the fertilizer. They run the machines. The process and transport and refrigerate the food. In many cases our food — cows — eats even more food produced with very high energy costs.

I’ve been digging around estimates, and have found that U.S. agriculture uses about 400 gasoline-gallon equivalents per American. Or 1.1 gallons per day, or about 10 Calories (40 BTU) from oil/gas for every Calorie of food. For beef, it’s far worse, as close to 40 Calories of oil/gas (160 BTU) are used to produce one Calorie of beefy goodness.

You can see where this is going. I’m not the first to figure it out, but it’s worth repeating. Your 3 mile walk burned 220 extra Calories over sitting, but drove the use of 2,200 Calories of fossil fuel. That’s 1/14th of a gallon of gasoline (9oz.) So you’re getting about 42 miles per gas-gallon of fossil fuel.

If you eat a lot of beef or other livestock, and want to consider your incremental food as having come from beef, it’s around 10 miles per gallon. A Hummer does better!

So yes, if you drive your Prius instead of walking it’s going to burn less fossil fuel. If 2 people drive in a more ordinary car it’s going to burn less fossil fuel than both of them walking.

Biking’s better. The average-diet cyclist is getting 85 miles per gallon of fossil fuel. Still better for 2 to share a Prius. The beefeater is, as before only 1/4 as good. At 21mpg he’s better than a Hummer, but not that much better.

This is a fuel to fuel comparison. The fuel burned in the cars is the same sort of fuel burned in the tractors. It has extra energy costs in its extraction and transport, but this applies equally to both cases. And yes, of course, the exercise has other benefits than getting from A to B. And we have not considered a number of the other external costs of the vehicle travel — but they still don’t make this revelation less remarkable. (And neither does this result suggest one should not still walk or bike, rather it suggests we should make our food more efficiently.)

And no, picking transit isn’t going to help. Transit systems, on average, are only mildly greener than cars. City buses, in fact, use the same energy per passenger mile as typical cars. Light rail is sometimes 2 and rarely even 3 times better than cars, but in some cities like San Jose, it uses almost twice as much energy per actual passenger than passenger cars do. Taking existing transit vehicles that are already running is green, of course, but building inefficient lines isn’t.

Many people take this idea as a condemnation of cycling or exercise. It isn’t. Cycling is my favourite exercise. It is a condemnation of how much fossil fuel is used in agriculture. And, to a much lesser extent, a wakeup call to people who eat the average diet that they can’t claim their human-powered travel as good for the planet — just good for them. What would be good for the planet would be to eat a non-agribusiness diet and also walk or bike. How your food is farmed is more important though, than where it comes from. It’s the farming, not the shipping, that’s the big energy eater.

Obviously if you were going to need the exercise anyway, doing it while getting from A to B is not going to burn extra oil. Human powered travel well above the need to exercise is the only thing that would hurt, if fueled by U.S. agriculture. And eating a high calorie diet and not exercising would be just as bad.

Happy eating!

What’s not wrong with these numbers

As I note, since most of us need to exercise anyway, this is not at all a condemnation of walking and cycling, but rather of the amount of fossil fuel that agriculture uses. However, a lot of people still find faults with this analysis that I don’t think are there.

No, it doesn’t matter that making the fuel costs energy. It’s (roughly) the same fuel going into the tractors as going into the gas tanks. We’re comparing fuel in tank to fuel in tank. But if you really want to factor that in, about 82% of well energy makes it to the gas tank of the car or tractor.

Yes, I do account for the fact that just eating or sitting consumes calories. This calculation is based on the extra calories that biking or walking take, compared to sitting in a car. The base “keep you alive” calories are not counted, but they do require more fossil fuel to create.

I don’t include the energy required to make a car, which ranges from 25% (Prius) to 7% (Hummer) of its lifetime energy usage. However, most cyclists and pedestrians still own cars, so this is still spent if it sits in the garage while you walk. And while a 2000lb car may take 60-100 times as much energy to make as a 30lb bike, this is not so large a difference if expressed per lifetime vehicle-mile.

This is based on the USA averages. Of course different food means different results, but doesn’t change this story, which is about the average eater.

I don’t include the energy needed to build roads for bikes, cars and food delivery trucks. The reality is, we’re not going to build fewer roads because people take some trips walking for exercise. Nor are people going to not buy a car because they do that.

6 posted on 06/02/2014 11:31:13 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

Is this an example of Common Core math? sarc/off

7 posted on 06/02/2014 11:32:17 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NowApproachingMidnight

What I think in light of the BLM takeovers, the Bundy ranch episode, and the sending of salmon and poultry to China for processing with the intent being to eventually just get our chicken from China - is they are trying to eliminate food production in this country.

8 posted on 06/02/2014 12:42:03 PM PDT by MarMema (Run Ted Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

When mechanized agriculture came on, roughly a century ago, land started to come OUT of production because there was no further need to feed horses and oxen 365 (or 366) days a year.

Demand for most farm labor fell, with a percentage shift toward migrant labor to handle the short time frame of fruit harvest. A single farmer could make do with more land and fewer hands (often, just the kids, who were fewer than ever before).

One of my grandfathers couldn’t find work on any of the neighboring farms, the other one gradually sold off most of the original farm to a more prosperous relative. The land-less grandpa wound up working as a carpenter building barracks for the WWI mobilization, and spent the next 15 or 20 years roofing and repairing those big barns, which have been in the process of vanishing or falling out of use and deteriorating over the past 40 years or so (at least around here).

Also as pointed out above, chemical agriculture (fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides) helped boost yield, as did the switch to higher yield hybrids. Much of the chemistry came from petroleum products, at least in part.

Hybrids also arose to combat various plant diseases (fungi and virii mostly), and the OP varieties that don’t ship well also became local products before nearly vanishing. Since we went from being mostly agrarian (basically 100% 400 years ago) to being perhaps 2% agrarian by the end of the 1950s, the distance from producer to consumer rose, and continues to rise.

The US will be importing more and more of its food supply, and from greater distances. By the end of the 21st century, assuming the US still exists, its population will have risen threefold (or more; I’d not be surprised if it is tenfold, and US territory may not even have expanded in either case) and the US and for that matter world food supply will be grown in currently arid and mostly unpopulated regions, such as the Sahara, supported by both irrigation (via heavy lift blimps bearing blocks of freshwater ice from the Arctic) and desalination.

9 posted on 06/02/2014 3:53:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson