4 ms·

CO2ube – Carbon Dioxide Filtration System

11 points by ngoel36 13y ago

rjohnk 13y ago
Hasn't everyone at one time thought of attaching a small tree or bush to their exhaust pipe (of course, we know it wouldn't do much)? This is the exact same thing, although with much more thought put into it.
ams6110 13y ago
Needs some help on the design side. The thing looks like it was made out of plumbing connectors sourced at the Home Depot. So basically it's using algae to convert CO2 to sugar. Great. What happens to the sugar when it's disposed of in the environment? It breaks down, releasing the CO2...
- Someone 13y ago
  I don't think that is a valid argument. In theory, you could burn it to power your car and have this thing convert it again, ad infinitum. I don't see how this thing would work, though. Whatever you do, if you burn a kilogram of gas, a kilogram of stuff comes out. What comes out of this thing, and where does it store it? From the reactions, I see that over half of it must be either sodium carbonate or sugar (rounding down significantly; the sugar from the reaction already has thre times the oxygen of the oxygen coming out, and the sodium carbonate has 50% more oxygen than the water), if this handles all exhaust gases. Also, you will need two sodium atoms to capture one carbon atom. How much sodium would that be over 6-8 weeks? Where is it stored? Finally, I notice that the FAQ does not answer the question how much this process decreases your CO2 emissions. The cynic/realist in me would guess it's too tiny to measure because most exhaust gases pass through the thing unhindered.
incorporated 13y ago
Good luck mate :)
mikeyouse 13y ago
This whole thing is very confusing. There is over 17 gallons of carbon dioxide for every gallon of fuel burnt. Volume is a strange choice of measurement for a gas... The EIA[1] shows that about 8kg of CO2 are created for every gallon of gas that a car burns. We use a baseline stoichiometric consumption of about 1.8kg of CO2 per 1 kg of algal biomass. They say these CO2ubes are good for 8-10 weeks, which if you average 200 miles per week, and 25mpg, you'd burn over 70 gallons of gas. This gas would've produced about 560kg of CO2. I can't imagine more than 1kg of biomass accumulating in this tip (especially since it's cantilevered at the furthest point from the exhaust clip) so you'd have used maybe 2kg of the CO2, reducing your consumption by 0.3%. We are using the process of photosynthesis and applying it to where carbon dioxide is being released. Since the process of algae photosynthesis is not fast enough to accomodate for the free flowing exhaust emissions, we have implemented a secondary reactant into the device. There's problem #2. Not only is photosynthesis not fast enough, it NEEDS SUNLIGHT. It doesn't use the "sun's energy" as is shown in that chart, it literally needs photons to excite the reaction centres.[2] So they're not using photosynthesis at all. Apparently the tip arrives with a supply of NaOH inside, which reacts with CO2 in the exhaust stream and then is emitted out the tailpipe as carbonic acid. So why use algae at all? Pending approval, users of the CO2ube will be able to drive in the H.O.V. lane without meeting the occupancy minimum requirement [...] Also pending approval, users of the CO2ube will receive an additional tax credit from the EPA! [...] We have applied to give our customers a tax credit (similar to the electric vehicle tax credit) for using our technologies. Once that is approved, we plan to push for regulation approval. I'm shocked that they'd make these claims. There is virtually no chance they'll get HOV access. The 1st generation Chevy Volt, which made something like 65mpg equivalent didn't qualify for HOV access, why would this tech? They also expect that they're going to get Federal tax credits? Come on.. Also worth mentioning is that restricting the exhaust flow will also make the engine burn less efficiently, which will use more gasoline and create more CO2... [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre
- avree 13y ago
  Agreed, the scientific claims are simply baffling. Science aside, the post comes across as a thinly-veiled attempt to brag about the founder. Press logos up top, followed by 'green buzzwords'. Then, a photo of the founders from the socialite party photo website "Guest of a Guest". Constant reference to a single accolade: their appearance on the Forbes 30 under 30 list, a list with no scientific review (or need for a demonstrable proof of concept) and an open nomination process. So strange why someone would do a campaign like this. It seems like the majority of the attention it's receiving is through Vanderbilt University's PR arm: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-jaggi/ http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-jaggi/ (In fact, this story was submitted by a senior at Vanderbilt University! Surprise, suprise!)
WiseWeasel 13y ago
I couldn't find any information on the expected performance of the device, including the absolute and relative quantities of CO2 removed from the exhaust stream in various climates (even if they're resistant to high exhaust temperatures, I'd expect a good freeze to kill off any algae). How much of an impact is this product expected to have, and what are its limitations? What assumptions are made on mileage driven to give it a two-month lifespan?

11 points by ngoel36 13y ago

Hasn't everyone at one time thought of attaching a small tree or bush to their exhaust pipe (of course, we know it wouldn't do much)? This is the exact same thing, although with much more thought put into it.

ams6110 13y ago

Needs some help on the design side. The thing looks like it was made out of plumbing connectors sourced at the Home Depot. So basically it's using algae to convert CO2 to sugar. Great. What happens to the sugar when it's disposed of in the environment? It breaks down, releasing the CO2...

Someone 13y ago
I don't think that is a valid argument. In theory, you could burn it to power your car and have this thing convert it again, ad infinitum. I don't see how this thing would work, though. Whatever you do, if you burn a kilogram of gas, a kilogram of stuff comes out. What comes out of this thing, and where does it store it? From the reactions, I see that over half of it must be either sodium carbonate or sugar (rounding down significantly; the sugar from the reaction already has thre times the oxygen of the oxygen coming out, and the sodium carbonate has 50% more oxygen than the water), if this handles all exhaust gases. Also, you will need two sodium atoms to capture one carbon atom. How much sodium would that be over 6-8 weeks? Where is it stored? Finally, I notice that the FAQ does not answer the question how much this process decreases your CO2 emissions. The cynic/realist in me would guess it's too tiny to measure because most exhaust gases pass through the thing unhindered.

incorporated 13y ago

Good luck mate :)

mikeyouse 13y ago

This whole thing is very confusing. There is over 17 gallons of carbon dioxide for every gallon of fuel burnt. Volume is a strange choice of measurement for a gas... The EIA[1] shows that about 8kg of CO2 are created for every gallon of gas that a car burns. We use a baseline stoichiometric consumption of about 1.8kg of CO2 per 1 kg of algal biomass. They say these CO2ubes are good for 8-10 weeks, which if you average 200 miles per week, and 25mpg, you'd burn over 70 gallons of gas. This gas would've produced about 560kg of CO2. I can't imagine more than 1kg of biomass accumulating in this tip (especially since it's cantilevered at the furthest point from the exhaust clip) so you'd have used maybe 2kg of the CO2, reducing your consumption by 0.3%. We are using the process of photosynthesis and applying it to where carbon dioxide is being released. Since the process of algae photosynthesis is not fast enough to accomodate for the free flowing exhaust emissions, we have implemented a secondary reactant into the device. There's problem #2. Not only is photosynthesis not fast enough, it NEEDS SUNLIGHT. It doesn't use the "sun's energy" as is shown in that chart, it literally needs photons to excite the reaction centres.[2] So they're not using photosynthesis at all. Apparently the tip arrives with a supply of NaOH inside, which reacts with CO2 in the exhaust stream and then is emitted out the tailpipe as carbonic acid. So why use algae at all? Pending approval, users of the CO2ube will be able to drive in the H.O.V. lane without meeting the occupancy minimum requirement [...] Also pending approval, users of the CO2ube will receive an additional tax credit from the EPA! [...] We have applied to give our customers a tax credit (similar to the electric vehicle tax credit) for using our technologies. Once that is approved, we plan to push for regulation approval. I'm shocked that they'd make these claims. There is virtually no chance they'll get HOV access. The 1st generation Chevy Volt, which made something like 65mpg equivalent didn't qualify for HOV access, why would this tech? They also expect that they're going to get Federal tax credits? Come on.. Also worth mentioning is that restricting the exhaust flow will also make the engine burn less efficiently, which will use more gasoline and create more CO2... [1] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre

avree 13y ago
Agreed, the scientific claims are simply baffling. Science aside, the post comes across as a thinly-veiled attempt to brag about the founder. Press logos up top, followed by 'green buzzwords'. Then, a photo of the founders from the socialite party photo website "Guest of a Guest". Constant reference to a single accolade: their appearance on the Forbes 30 under 30 list, a list with no scientific review (or need for a demonstrable proof of concept) and an open nomination process. So strange why someone would do a campaign like this. It seems like the majority of the attention it's receiving is through Vanderbilt University's PR arm: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-jaggi/ http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-jaggi/ (In fact, this story was submitted by a senior at Vanderbilt University! Surprise, suprise!)

WiseWeasel 13y ago

I couldn't find any information on the expected performance of the device, including the absolute and relative quantities of CO2 removed from the exhaust stream in various climates (even if they're resistant to high exhaust temperatures, I'd expect a good freeze to kill off any algae). How much of an impact is this product expected to have, and what are its limitations? What assumptions are made on mileage driven to give it a two-month lifespan?