6 ms·

This is covered in the fine article: > On the other hand, the CO2 emissions from fuel production and combustion are not praiseworthy. First, there is the burni

This is covered in the fine article: > On the other hand, the CO2 emissions from fuel production and combustion are not praiseworthy. First, there is the burning of plastic on the roof. Making 1 liter of diesel requires burning 1 kg of plastic, which results in 2-2.7 kg of carbon emissions. Second, there is the combustion of diesel fuel while driving, which emits 2.7 kg of carbon dioxide per liter. Together, that becomes 4.7 to 5.4 kg CO2 per liter. Consequently, with a fuel economy of 7.14 liters per 100 km, the Volvo emits 33.6 to 38.6 kg of greenhouse gases per 100 km. > In contrast, the emissions of the average fossil fuel-powered car in Europe amount to 25.8 kg/100 km, including crude oil production, fuel refining, and vehicle manufacturing The emissions of a small electric car like the Nissan Leaf amount to 10.9 kg/100km in Europe, including the emissions of electricity production. The article make some other interesting points: > Much of the plastic waste that the Volvo 240 burns burns anyway. Not in cars but in incinerators. That is the case for 44% of plastic waste in Europe. > The carbon emissions are the same. So is the air pollution, although it’s easier to put a flue gas scrubber on thousands of incinerators than on millions of cars. The main difference is that burning plastic waste in incinerators to power electric cars allows many of us to externalize the side effects of car driving. An incinerator can be (and always is) located in a poor neighborhood, where it causes high incidences of cancer and other health problems despite air pollution control. And moreover, this isn't really meant to be for widespread adoption: > In contrast, Schalkx’s Volvo internalizes all the side effects of driving automobiles. The car is not a pleasure to drive, at least not regularly. It is dirty. Its interior stinks of plastic, which cannot be healthy – Gijs keeps the car windows open no matter the weather. Furthermore, he needs to spend a lot of time collecting plastic and making fuel, and all these disadvantages make him think twice before he gets behind the wheel. There's plenty more interesting points, and the article is relatively short and worth the read.

wkat4242 3y ago
Good point. Most of it is indeed incinerated here.
- yreg 3y ago
  But an incineration plant has probably better filters on its chimneys than the homebrew mobile refinery.
tsimionescu 3y ago
Sure, it calls it out to some extent, but overall both the article and the art piece itself seem to imply that this is a somewhat good idea, and definitely imply that plastic waste is a comparable problem to global warming (or even more pressing, given that the art piece massively sacrifices carbon emissions per km for the massive gain of burning some plastic). The reality is that plastic waste is a much, much lesser problem than global warming. Burning plastic to power cars, even a statement, is insane given that we have already blown past the 1.5 degrees warming and are on a trajectory that will probably lead to much more than 2 degrees, which is now the most optimistic target for 2100 - and even this assumes 0 net emissions in 10 years, which is obviously a fantasy. Overall this is an idiotic art piece that entirely misses the point of what we should really care about in environmentalism.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  > overall both the article and the art piece itself seem to imply that this is a somewhat good idea Literally this is not the case, and should be evidenced by the quotes I highlighted. It's more an intellectual deep dive on an interesting concept. It's not advocating that people ought to do this. To quote TFA: > Carbon emissions are not the only worry. Because of the chemicals added to plastic, burning it to make fuel creates a lot of nasty air pollution. Nobody in their right mind would propose a switch to cars fuelled by plastic waste. However, it is instructive to examine the motives behind this unanimous conclusion. Low-Tech Magazine's niche is low tech self-sufficiency, which is the main talking point of the article. Here from the first paragraph: > During the Second World War, many motorized vehicles in continental Europe were converted to drive on firewood. 1 That happened as a consequence of the rationing of fossil fuels. Wood gas vehicles were a not-so-elegant alternative to their petrol cousins, but their range was comparable to today’s electric vehicles. In Germany alone, around 500,000 wood gas cars, buses, and trucks were operated by the end of WWII. An even more cumbersome alternative was the gas bag vehicle.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > It’s unlikely that Schalkx will drive 12,000 km per year, and so, ultimately, he will produce less pollution than the drivers of more sustainable-looking cars that face none of these problems. > Somehow, the Dutch authorities, who are not known for their permissivity, officially approved the car after inspection. Schalkx drives tax-free and – thanks to his car being an oldtimer – can enter low-emission zones, where he parks alongside the latest electric SUV. Justice is not yet out of this world. To me this seems to be an overall endorsement of the project as an environmentally friendly idea.
akira2501 3y ago
> and all these disadvantages make him think twice before he gets behind the wheel. So.. it's a toy and not a tool. It tries to invest interest around this mans childish ambitions, but it fails to produce anything of lasting or shared value.
- RespectYourself 3y ago
  [dead]
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  Think of it more like conceptual / performance art.
  - Smoosh 3y ago
    Performance art = "it fails to produce anything of lasting or shared value".
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  It would be a useful tool in a post-apocalyptic scenario: > During the Second World War, many motorized vehicles in continental Europe were converted to drive on firewood. That happened as a consequence of the rationing of fossil fuels. Wood gas vehicles were a not-so-elegant alternative to their petrol cousins, but their range was comparable to today’s electric vehicles. In Germany alone, around 500,000 wood gas cars, buses, and trucks were operated by the end of WWII. An even more cumbersome alternative was the gas bag vehicle. > Nowadays, there’s much less firewood available than in the 1940s, especially in industrialized regions. So, what would be the solution to the disruption of gasoline or electricity in the Third World War? Dutch designer Gijs Schalkx found another fuel supply, which is abundant: plastic waste.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    It could be useful, at the beginning, but sooner rather than later you’re running out of fuel. A wood gas car is infinitely renewable. Wood gas may not work as well in cities, but in a truly post-apocalyptic world cities are the first to go anyway. In an SHTF situation, such as a country at war? I can sooner believe that, since plastics are more energy-dense than woods. It’s still not all that useful, but at least there is some minor niche it could possibly achieve.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
> The emissions of a small electric car like the Nissan Leaf amount to 10.9 kg/100km in Europe, including the emissions of electricity production. Why are they measuring carbon impact per mile for manufacture? Is this based off some assumed period of ownership after which the car magically is useless and the battery can't be recycled, etc?

wkat4242 3y ago

Good point. Most of it is indeed incinerated here.

yreg 3y ago
But an incineration plant has probably better filters on its chimneys than the homebrew mobile refinery.

tsimionescu 3y ago

Sure, it calls it out to some extent, but overall both the article and the art piece itself seem to imply that this is a somewhat good idea, and definitely imply that plastic waste is a comparable problem to global warming (or even more pressing, given that the art piece massively sacrifices carbon emissions per km for the massive gain of burning some plastic). The reality is that plastic waste is a much, much lesser problem than global warming. Burning plastic to power cars, even a statement, is insane given that we have already blown past the 1.5 degrees warming and are on a trajectory that will probably lead to much more than 2 degrees, which is now the most optimistic target for 2100 - and even this assumes 0 net emissions in 10 years, which is obviously a fantasy. Overall this is an idiotic art piece that entirely misses the point of what we should really care about in environmentalism.

h0l0cube 3y ago
> overall both the article and the art piece itself seem to imply that this is a somewhat good idea Literally this is not the case, and should be evidenced by the quotes I highlighted. It's more an intellectual deep dive on an interesting concept. It's not advocating that people ought to do this. To quote TFA: > Carbon emissions are not the only worry. Because of the chemicals added to plastic, burning it to make fuel creates a lot of nasty air pollution. Nobody in their right mind would propose a switch to cars fuelled by plastic waste. However, it is instructive to examine the motives behind this unanimous conclusion. Low-Tech Magazine's niche is low tech self-sufficiency, which is the main talking point of the article. Here from the first paragraph: > During the Second World War, many motorized vehicles in continental Europe were converted to drive on firewood. 1 That happened as a consequence of the rationing of fossil fuels. Wood gas vehicles were a not-so-elegant alternative to their petrol cousins, but their range was comparable to today’s electric vehicles. In Germany alone, around 500,000 wood gas cars, buses, and trucks were operated by the end of WWII. An even more cumbersome alternative was the gas bag vehicle.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > It’s unlikely that Schalkx will drive 12,000 km per year, and so, ultimately, he will produce less pollution than the drivers of more sustainable-looking cars that face none of these problems. > Somehow, the Dutch authorities, who are not known for their permissivity, officially approved the car after inspection. Schalkx drives tax-free and – thanks to his car being an oldtimer – can enter low-emission zones, where he parks alongside the latest electric SUV. Justice is not yet out of this world. To me this seems to be an overall endorsement of the project as an environmentally friendly idea.

akira2501 3y ago

> and all these disadvantages make him think twice before he gets behind the wheel. So.. it's a toy and not a tool. It tries to invest interest around this mans childish ambitions, but it fails to produce anything of lasting or shared value.

RespectYourself 3y ago
[dead]
xyzzy123 3y ago
Think of it more like conceptual / performance art.
- Smoosh 3y ago
  Performance art = "it fails to produce anything of lasting or shared value".
h0l0cube 3y ago
It would be a useful tool in a post-apocalyptic scenario: > During the Second World War, many motorized vehicles in continental Europe were converted to drive on firewood. That happened as a consequence of the rationing of fossil fuels. Wood gas vehicles were a not-so-elegant alternative to their petrol cousins, but their range was comparable to today’s electric vehicles. In Germany alone, around 500,000 wood gas cars, buses, and trucks were operated by the end of WWII. An even more cumbersome alternative was the gas bag vehicle. > Nowadays, there’s much less firewood available than in the 1940s, especially in industrialized regions. So, what would be the solution to the disruption of gasoline or electricity in the Third World War? Dutch designer Gijs Schalkx found another fuel supply, which is abundant: plastic waste.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  It could be useful, at the beginning, but sooner rather than later you’re running out of fuel. A wood gas car is infinitely renewable. Wood gas may not work as well in cities, but in a truly post-apocalyptic world cities are the first to go anyway. In an SHTF situation, such as a country at war? I can sooner believe that, since plastics are more energy-dense than woods. It’s still not all that useful, but at least there is some minor niche it could possibly achieve.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

> The emissions of a small electric car like the Nissan Leaf amount to 10.9 kg/100km in Europe, including the emissions of electricity production. Why are they measuring carbon impact per mile for manufacture? Is this based off some assumed period of ownership after which the car magically is useless and the battery can't be recycled, etc?