5 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThat 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 agoI 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 agoModern 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 agoCO2 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.
- Timshel 4y agoDepends with values so low how many km are needed before it breaks even with the co2 production emissions ...
- mlatu 4y agoif you could trade your old car for one of those: definetly. if you have to pay any amount comparable to a low-end car: maybe. any more than that and the answer becomes: highly unlikely. but whether or not this is a good idea or efficient under any definition of the word? idk. probably a bad idea, too consumer oriented for a problem that could be better tackled on a larger scale
- michaelteter 4y agoProbably every technology starts out expensive and inefficient, but fortunately we don't just stop because we don't see the immediate benefit. Computers were once huge and slow and inefficient, but now for example we have Raspberry Pi which is orders of magnitude faster, cheaper, smaller, and more energy efficient than most computers 15+ years ago. This new carbon capture tech could see similar gains.
- mlatu 4y agothen go ahead and improve it, nobody is telling anyone to stop improving shit. but claiming you could use a tech at a point in time where it is not much more than a gimmick, people wont take it serious or too serious. just like with ChatGPT: just because it can return highly probable language doesnt mean its correct. just because you can drive one "artificial tree" around doesnt mean you should pursue in making those on a scale fit to dent the problem, because in making those "trees" you just release more dead-tree-gas and make the problem worse before you can make it better.
- michaelteter 4y ago> but claiming you could use a tech at a point in time Where did I specify the point in time when this would be practical? > nobody is telling anyone to stop improving shit Look up "vitriolic". Also ask yourself why you are so angry at a stranger's neutral comments. This kind of interaction does not make the internet a better place.
- 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jackmott42 4y agoThe car would be lighter and more aerodynamic and require less energy to produce without the scrubbers, the idea is a net loss.
- lm28469 4y agoWith 1.4B personal vehicles on earth, pro tip: the future won't be clean even if they're battery powered