One way to do it is have a small Python (or any other scripting language really) script that performs text replacements in the Latex source file. This is much easier in Latex because it’s plain text. I don’t know of a solution that doesn’t involve writing your own code (apart from LO/Word serial letters).

Is using Latex an option? I’ve done that and it works quite nicely. You can easily populate a template e.g. using Python.

You’re right that the calories burned while riding the E-Bike would also need to be considered. The site you linked gives 220 kcal/hr for “Motor scooter, motorcycle” and 630 kcal/hr for “Bicycling, 12 - 13.9 mph, leisure, moderate effort”. This corresponds to 1960 kcal / 100km excess calories for biking (at 75kg weight). Going slower than that (which I certainly don’t do ;-) ) somewhat reduces the difference. But then the E-Bike is faster and you somehow have to account for that… I’m sure that people have written scientific publications on such considerations. My napkin math certainly doesn’t have that level of rigor.

Overall there’s certainly better ways to reduce your CO2 footprint than switching from a bike to an E-Bike. But perhaps E-Bikes are better than their reputation.

I agree that the comparison between the two is quite complex (given the many side effects). But I was interested in this question and have done a few back-of-the-envelope calculations on the ongoing CO2 emissions:

Regular Cycling:

• The caloric consumption of cycling is approximately 2300 kcal / 100 km [1]. Or 2.7 kWh / 100 km.
• The CO2 footprint of 1 kcal is approximately 1 (vegan) to 3 (meat-heavy) gCO2/kcal [2]. The average is approximately 2 gCO2/kcal.
• This yields 2.3 kgCO2 / 100 km for a vegan diet and 4.6 kgCO2 / 100km.
  • The result is in the same ballpark as the Guardian article [3] at 2.5 to 3.5 kgCO2/100km.
  • The 96 kgCO2 for production [3] would correspond to 0.5 kgCO2/100km over the 19200km lifetime [3].

(Motor-only) E-bikes:

• The energy use is about 2 kWh / 100 km (3.3 kWh per 100 miles) [4].
  • But pedal-assisted commuter e-bikes only use 0.7 kWh / 100km (1.1 kWh per 100 miles) [4]??
  • This also seems quite high compared to the 2.7 kWh / 100 km above, given that human muscles are only about 30% efficient [6].
• With the US carbon intensity (0.368 kgCO2/kWh [5]), this yields 0.736 kgCO2/100km.
  • This result is much lower than the Guardian article [3], probably because it doesn’t include manufacturing.
  • The 165 kgCO2 for production [3] would correspond to 0.86 kgCO2/100km over the 19200km lifetime [3].

Based on this, it seems quite plausible that an E-Bike is significantly more efficient than a regular bike, even if the rider is a vegan. But, both are way better than all types of cars and even public transport.

References

• [1] https://www.canyon.com/en-ch/blog-content/advice/calories-burned-cycling/b24062022.html
• [2] https://bitsabout.me/en/the-carbon-footprint-of-your-diet/
• [3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/sep/23/why-arent-more-big-bike-firms-tracking-their-environmental-impact
• [4] https://sites.google.com/view/ebikestudy/results
• [5] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?country=~USA
• [6] https://www.germanjournalsportsmedicine.com/fileadmin/content/archiv2017/Heft_9/Standard_EN_Boening_Wirkungsgrad_Muskelarbeit_9-2017.pdf

The article says they are aiming for 1W in the next couple of years, which can probably do it.

They won’t magically improve the power density by three orders of magnitude. They’re just trying to defraud their investors.

Do you have a source for that? According to WikiChip Fuse, Intel 4 is comparable to TSMC N3 in density and offers better performance: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/6720/a-look-at-intel-4-process-technology/4/

On paper, those PPA characteristics positions the company’s new Intel 4 process at performance levels better than TSMC N3 and Samsung 3GAE. On the density front, Intel 4 appears highly competitive against N3 high-performance libraries.