6 ms·

> removing about 4.5lb of Carbon-dioxide per 20,000 miles In familiar units: 0.05 g/km. Contrast that to the ~100 g/km emitted by a modern ICE car with decent

by runtu 4y ago

> removing about 4.5lb of Carbon-dioxide per 20,000 miles In familiar units: 0.05 g/km. Contrast that to the ~100 g/km emitted by a modern ICE car with decent efficiency. Of course, as mentioned: > same amount of carbon as a mature tree absorbs annually Is enough of a comparison to understand that this is more of a gimmick than a viable solution to anything. Cool student project nonetheless; the "dashboard made of cooking oil", 3D printed parts and the added solar panels are likely of more significance.

fahadkhan 4y ago
Genuine question, is it a good start? When does become not a gimmick? At 0.5g/km, 5g/km or 100g/km?
- HPsquared 4y ago
  We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar". This cost includes capital cost, and energy cost. Because location doesn't matter, putting lots of small battery-powered mobile units is always going to lose to a large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply. Probably orders of magnitude worse on both CAPEX and OPEX.
  - fahadkhan 4y ago
    Who is going to be paying for "large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply"?
    - HPsquared 4y ago
      Anyone can, that's actually another benefit. It can be funded by anyone who wants to.
      - fahadkhan 4y ago
        Then we're at the tragedy of the commons and no one will.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        Well ... yes? I's clear that with many environmental matters, and specifically atmospheric CO2, we are at the tragedy of the commons, and have been for a long while, and strategies should be around getting us out of there.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      If few will pay for it, then even fewer will pay for more expensive and less efficient mobile units.
    - stephen_g 4y ago
      Who is going to pay for a lot of extra power and reduced driving range for the idea in the article, the power costing far in excess per year than planting two trees (which would do more for the environment)?
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar" No, we need to look at externalities and real world long term side effects. The "per dollar" part is why we're in the current situation in the first place
    - nsxwolf 4y ago
      Solutions have to come from reality, and in reality nothing happens without money. Even socialism requires money.
- vkou 4y ago
  > Genuine question, is it a good start? No, because it doesn't scale, and its dramatically worse than a lot of other approaches, which range from 'also don't scale' to 'somewhat scale'.
michaelteter 4y ago
> this is more of a gimmick than a viable solution to anything It is a positive gain, even if small. Now multiply that gain across thousands of cars (assuming this tech became mass market) and you have a significant positive impact.
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  "In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass."
  - nazgul17 4y ago
    That carbon comes from animals and plants that took it from the atmosphere in the first place. It's the normal carbon cycle: we don't drink oil. Well, not the kind that's extracted from underground and so is out of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, if the filter was disposed of appropriately, that carbon would be removed from the carbon cycle and the atmosphere would be freed of some CO2 as a consequence.
    - jnsaff2 4y ago
      I suspect that the physical extra effort these students made during assembly of this car (or even increased mental activity coming up with the clickbaity filter addition) completely negates the lifetime benefit of the co2 removal. Talk about bikeshedding. The clicks are probably worth it tho.
    - jnsaff2 4y ago
      Modern agriculture uses quite a bit of fossil fuels and the land-use penalty is there as well. In that light your quip about us not drinking oil is quite disingenuous.
- casenmgreen 4y ago
  CO2 is a very large and global-scale problem. If everyone does just a little, all you get is a little, but on a global scale.
unhammer 4y ago
So if we get about 2000-3000 of these for every other car in the world (there's only like a billion, right?) we should be set :)

by runtu 4y ago

fahadkhan 4y ago

Genuine question, is it a good start? When does become not a gimmick? At 0.5g/km, 5g/km or 100g/km?

HPsquared 4y ago
We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar". This cost includes capital cost, and energy cost. Because location doesn't matter, putting lots of small battery-powered mobile units is always going to lose to a large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply. Probably orders of magnitude worse on both CAPEX and OPEX.
- fahadkhan 4y ago
  Who is going to be paying for "large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply"?
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Anyone can, that's actually another benefit. It can be funded by anyone who wants to.
    - fahadkhan 4y ago
      Then we're at the tragedy of the commons and no one will.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
        Well ... yes? I's clear that with many environmental matters, and specifically atmospheric CO2, we are at the tragedy of the commons, and have been for a long while, and strategies should be around getting us out of there.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    If few will pay for it, then even fewer will pay for more expensive and less efficient mobile units.
  - stephen_g 4y ago
    Who is going to pay for a lot of extra power and reduced driving range for the idea in the article, the power costing far in excess per year than planting two trees (which would do more for the environment)?
- lm28469 4y ago
  > We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar" No, we need to look at externalities and real world long term side effects. The "per dollar" part is why we're in the current situation in the first place
  - nsxwolf 4y ago
    Solutions have to come from reality, and in reality nothing happens without money. Even socialism requires money.
vkou 4y ago
> Genuine question, is it a good start? No, because it doesn't scale, and its dramatically worse than a lot of other approaches, which range from 'also don't scale' to 'somewhat scale'.

michaelteter 4y ago

> this is more of a gimmick than a viable solution to anything It is a positive gain, even if small. Now multiply that gain across thousands of cars (assuming this tech became mass market) and you have a significant positive impact.

jnsaff2 4y ago
"In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass."
- nazgul17 4y ago
  That carbon comes from animals and plants that took it from the atmosphere in the first place. It's the normal carbon cycle: we don't drink oil. Well, not the kind that's extracted from underground and so is out of the carbon cycle. On the other hand, if the filter was disposed of appropriately, that carbon would be removed from the carbon cycle and the atmosphere would be freed of some CO2 as a consequence.
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    I suspect that the physical extra effort these students made during assembly of this car (or even increased mental activity coming up with the clickbaity filter addition) completely negates the lifetime benefit of the co2 removal. Talk about bikeshedding. The clicks are probably worth it tho.
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    Modern agriculture uses quite a bit of fossil fuels and the land-use penalty is there as well. In that light your quip about us not drinking oil is quite disingenuous.
casenmgreen 4y ago
CO2 is a very large and global-scale problem. If everyone does just a little, all you get is a little, but on a global scale.

unhammer 4y ago

So if we get about 2000-3000 of these for every other car in the world (there's only like a billion, right?) we should be set :)