alt Hacker News> Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot?
Because bicycles use 5x less energy per mile than electric scooters, which would be a reasonable analogue for slow electric delivery robots [0].
> It is very inefficient (approx 25%) to use food as an energy source,
By comparison, fossil fuel conversions are about 30-45%, depending on the energy source [1].
> and humans are always burning energy. They can't turn off at night or when they are idle. I think it is very likely that the robot would be better for the environment than the person.
That's a really, really weird baseline to use. Turning off a robot when not performing a task is standard procedure. Turning off a human when not performing a task is not standard procedure, and is frowned upon in polite society.
[0] https://www.statista.com/chart/28710/energy-efficiency-of-mo...
[1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html (Smaller numbers are better. To find efficiency, divide 3412 (1 kilowatt*hour in Btu) by the value in the column [2].)
I live in a place with excellent bicycle infrastructure. All the delivery people ride electric bicycles. A robot would be that, minus the human. So probably better in terms of energy expenditure, cost, etc.