Electric scooters aren't as eco-friendly as they seem, study finds
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I can't find the source study - but even so I'd have to see some caveats on bus + moped (2 cycle are brutal pollution wise).
I know there's a lot of hate for e-scooters, but I really like them. They're a nice transportation option that supplants taking uber/lyft in many cases and definitely an improvement over cars.
Also, it includes the scooter company driving around at the end of the day to pick up all the scooters. Obviously not applicable if you are using your own personal scooter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20597711
Something I pointed out yesterday is that these articles are focusing on greenhouse gases. We still have a major pollution problem in large cities. Reducing this alone makes scooters worth it, IMHO.
Owning an electric scooter looks pretty damned clean - ~200kg/CO2e to manufacture the scooter, plus 0 - 300g to generate enough electricity to charge the battery.
So, odd as it may seem, electric cars may be better for the environment.
...or stick with either a (kick) scooter or standard bicycle? Definitely better for the environment and almost certainly better for your health, too.
The smaller ones can also be taken on the bus or subway.
Egret escooters have better range but are heavier.
Both brands are well built and durable, but not cheap.
I've had my Egret 10 for over a year, use it every day on rough roads with heavy loads and it's held up nicely. I did break the trigger going over a pothole, but was able to fix it myself. Otherwise only changed the back tire and brake pads (standard parts).
However, there are more and more slim carbon fiber "micro" electric scooters entering the market that look absolutely incredible!
How is this worse than a moped? Silly article.
A moped typically lasts 10,000-100,000 miles, so even though it's much heavier, the energy and cost are amortized over a far longer period.
“The average vehicle went 163.2 miles over 92 trips during its lifetime”
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/hit-by-big-loss-bird...
They lost $100 million on 40 million in revenue.
That's why you spend billions of dollars of VC money.
I don't know what's wrong with some people but apparently "drive it like you stole it" also applies to "rented it". Based on how a lot of those bikes look—and this is while Lime is actively maintaining and culling the fleet and—it seems many users end their ride by leaping off the bikes in mid sprint and letting it crash into whatever, sometimes punctuated with an angry kick or maybe smearing a little dirt and food into the seat and basket.
It's completely careless use that raises the ecological and economic price of these ride shares. If people were less shitty, they'd be way better in every respect.
[1]https://qz.com/1561654/how-long-does-a-scooter-last-less-tha...
One Chinese bike rental company lost its entire fleet in about a week, 10,000 bikes lost in less than 10 days.
More broadly, this is how capitalism works. Capital is allocated relatively efficiently but there is a lot of failure and waste inherent in the competitive process.
And scooters would still be found wanting. Pants and shoes can survive a few months of daily wear. With proper care, even cheapo stuff from Target/Walmart can last for years.
Right now, Bird and its competitors are struggling to get six months of lifespan out of scooters used an average of just 3 times a day.
When you're arguing that your mode of transport is green but it only lasts a few weeks with relatively sparse usage, then the manufacturing carbon footprint is absolutely relevant. When the mode of transport lasts for decades and the manufacturing footprint is spread out amongst millions of others vehicles, the manufacturing footprint isn't very relevant.