Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90% • Hacker News Board

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#31

Post by egdod » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #18

nothrabannosir wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a carbon tax. It will automatically make fossil fuels more expensive, while this device produces a fuel not subject to the tax.

Carbon tax is a good idea. But it's not happening! Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. I mean, how do we actually make it happen?

> Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping.

It’s almost as if the majority disagrees with you that it’s a good idea. Welcome to democracy.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#32

Post by NickNameNick » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

crca wrote: post #26

tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to an analysis?

Here’s a comprehensive study from the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...

Is that the one that was massively revised about a month ago, where all the 'worst-case' assumptions for ev production related emissions were dramatically reduced?

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#33

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

crca wrote: post #29

jsjw7sbw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car is a bit more than a large battery.

You’re manufacturing a car either way aren’t you?

In fairness, I hear that the lifespan of large working trucks is far longer than vanity consumer cars.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#34

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

crca wrote: post #26

tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to an analysis?

Here’s a comprehensive study from the Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cl...

The numbers in this report compare the emissions cost of a new BEV to that of a new ICE. But I don't see anyone seriously arguing that people should buy new ICE's; rather, the claim seems to be that people should keep modern ICEs on the road as long as possible before replacing them (with something better than an ICE). This analysis says it takes 19,000 miles of driving to make the acquisition of a BEV emissions-neutral compared to buying a new ICE; how many miles do you have to drive to make it neutral compared to holding on to your Honda?

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#35

Post by nothrabannosir » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #18

nothrabannosir wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a carbon tax. It will automatically make fossil fuels more expensive, while this device produces a fuel not subject to the tax.

Carbon tax is a good idea. But it's not happening! Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. I mean, how do we actually make it happen?

It's happened in the UK (£18/tonne of CO₂ equivalent) and Canada (varies per state), and probably others. UK total CO₂ emissions are below 1900 (!) levels, mostly due to many people switching to green energy, and substituting what coal remained with natural gas, which is most efficient power per tCO₂ among the fossil fuels.

Don't give up hope :) keep bringing up carbon price whenever relevant. The tide of public opinion will turn. Late, as always, but it will turn. People didn't think a black man could ever be president but lo and behold you did it. You just need to keep telling people that there is a solution, and that it is carbon price. Keep beating the drum.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#36

Post by TheRealPomax » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #12

perfunctory wrote: post #4

Brilliant. Now let's force the governments to put in place the right incentives. How do we do that?

With a carbon tax. It will automatically make fossil fuels more expensive, while this device produces a fuel not subject to the tax.

The problem is that people focus on the word "carbon" and then ignore what the word "tax" means: tax is collected into a single account. Where it came from is irrelevant, and what's done with it is in no way tied to where it came from, so if you want a carbon tax, you better damn well also have some system in place that forces X% of a munipal/state/provice/federal/whatever budget to first be formally declared as reserved for spending on this particular issue. Otherwise that carbon tax goes to basically everything before it goes to "augmenting cars".

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#37

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #27

perfunctory wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon tax is a good idea. But it's not happening! Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. I mean, how do we actually make it happen?

> voting isn't helping Because the will of the people is in the other direction. At this point, its a matter of convincing the greater public of the evidence. People are stubborn and difficult to convince. And you need to convince roughly half of the voting population (maybe ~50-million people) before things happen in the USA. That's how democracy works. There's also a power-imbalance that gets somewhat political: ho…

There is some bipartisan lobbying for a carbon tax. There is also bipartisan whinging, which is crazy. Just pair it with a dividend like Canada.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#38

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

egdod wrote: post #31

perfunctory wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon tax is a good idea. But it's not happening! Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. I mean, how do we actually make it happen?

> Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. It’s almost as if the majority disagrees with you that it’s a good idea. Welcome to democracy.

I doubt a majority of Americans are for or against, and support on most issues is very fluid when partisanship holds longer than policy.

While there is legislative deadlock nothing will happen, and that won't change for at least a year.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#39

Post by hanniabu » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #27

perfunctory wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon tax is a good idea. But it's not happening! Writing proposals, calling representatives, signing petitions and voting isn't helping. I mean, how do we actually make it happen?

> voting isn't helping Because the will of the people is in the other direction. At this point, its a matter of convincing the greater public of the evidence. People are stubborn and difficult to convince. And you need to convince roughly half of the voting population (maybe ~50-million people) before things happen in the USA. That's how democracy works. There's also a power-imbalance that gets somewhat political: ho…

> And you need to convince roughly half of the voting population

Not with gerrymandering, you'll effectively need much more. And then there's the fact that people are consistently voted in on a set of plans/promises that either are never followed through with or they do they opposite because they were just saying the things that get votes rather than what they actually intend to do. The system is broken, plain and simple, and it's not going to change because it benefits those with the ability to change it.

Re: Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

#40

Post by nothrabannosir » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 10:57 PM UTC

TheRealPomax wrote: post #36

nothrabannosir wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a carbon tax. It will automatically make fossil fuels more expensive, while this device produces a fuel not subject to the tax.

The problem is that people focus on the word "carbon" and then ignore what the word "tax" means: tax is collected into a single account. Where it came from is irrelevant, and what's done with it is in no way tied to where it came from, so if you want a carbon tax, you better damn well also have some system in place that forces X% of a munipal/state/provice/federal/whatever budget to first be formally declared as rese…

A carbon tax is a pigovian tax which works by disincentivising the undesired behaviour. It makes burning fossil fuels more expensive, thereby making everything else cheaper; in that sense you could also call it a "green subsidy".

What you do with that money is irrelevant. Turn it into a big paper boat and float it down the Hudson. The effect is in the levying of the tax, not in what is done with it.

See for example Canada, who directly deposits the revenue back to its residents.

The "augmenting cars" bit comes from people who don't want to pay the (now high) price of fossil fuels anymore, and instead want to avoid that tax by going green. That's how pigovian taxes work. See the UK who introduced a carbon tax, and promptly saw a huge shift in energy production to green energy and lower CO₂ emitting fuels.