A person riding a bike has to consume extra food to burn energy in their muscles to propel them. The energy has to come from somewhere. There are CO2 emissions associated with producing food.
How exactly is it more efficient than regular bike, are we actually counting human breathing out CO2 as emissions now? And even if that ain't no way it breaks even with the production and distribution of the batteries not to mention what it takes to produce and upkeep the electricity farms. This seems a bit too much like propaganda to me, e bikes are great but we don't need to sell everything as the savior for it to be a better alternative for cars.
Why should regular bikes use more energy, given they're only manufactured once (as are bikes), have no degenerating batteries and don't need electricity are less efficient than ebikes?
Thank you for clarification! That fits what I presumed.
(Does not take nutrition into account, though. So this leaves the question whether that indeed is the most significant contribution in manual transport...)
It's strange that they didn't include the food offset by the ebike though. This link tries to give a comparison between the two accounting for a typical European diet (which is also far more sustainable than the typical American diet).
Yeah, doesn't quite make sense unless it's implying that it's within the average lifespan of the vehicle. Maybe then you can get further on an eBike than you can on an equivalent regular bike before it falls apart?