Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Catching CO2 from trucks and reducing their emissions by 90%

nuadox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

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

#41

Post by hanniabu »

zapnuk wrote: post #10
perfunctory wrote: post #4

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

Start by proposing it to a goverment who is actually interested in facing cimate change

Not sure why you're being downvoted. The US has a president that actively acts against such interests. He drops out of the Paris Agreement and has done tons of environmental protection rollbacks.

One example: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/24/5-major-trump-climate-rollba...

Just one example from there:

> The new rules make it easier to take out protections for threatened animals and plants and allow federal agencies to conduct economic assessments when deciding whether to protect a species from things like construction projects in a critical habitat. The rules also remove tools used by scientists to predict future harm to species from climate change.

As you can see, as with previous actions, he makes changes to benefit business because it's too difficult for businesses to thrive when they need to worry about the environment (paraphrasing of what he's actually said in the past).

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

#42

Post by karmakaze »

gus_massa wrote: post #5

This is too complicated and I'm not convinced, but the research paper has more details that make more sense that the short press release https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2019.0014... They don't use the collected CO2 to make diesel fuel, they make methane. Some trucks may use methane as fuel. IIUC they don't expect every gas station to have a converted from CO2 to fuel, but to have the conversion in…

One reason why it should be much more efficient in energy expended for CO2 captured is that the concentrations from the truck exhaust is so much higher than in the atmosphere.

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

#43

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #33
crca wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To the point where semis typically have more digits on their odometers.

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

#45

Post by hinkley »

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...

I'd heard similar complaints to GP about embodied energy, but not for electric vehicles. Only with HEVs and ULEVs, which are far more complicated than either of their competitors. It's no wonder they'd have higher embedded energy footprints.

> Under the average U.S. electricity grid mix, we found that producing a midsize, midrange (84 miles per charge) BEV typically adds a little over 1 ton of emissions to the total manufacturing emissions, resulting in 15 percent greater emissions than in manufacturing a similar gasoline vehicle. However, replacing gasoline use with electricity re-duces overall emissions by 51 percent over the life of the car.

This has steam coming out of my ears, and I agree with the goal they set for themselves. I haaaAAAAaaate when scientists pull tone-deaf shit like this. It's why I ran away from theory into applied as fast as my legs could carry me. Nobody is gonna drive an 84 mile range vehicle. The market has shouted this from the rooftop and if Concerned Scientist have not heard this, then they're nowhere near as smart as they want everyone to think they are. Use real numbers and spare us your white tower bullshit. A competitive car will have 2.5x times that range. That probably lowers that lifetime number into the high 3X%'s which is not as compelling but also not lying.

Lying to prove a point is the worst kind of lying, because when your detractors catch you in it then the unconvinced have confirmation bias against your original premise. Cut that shit out. For everybody's sake.

35% lifetime emissions reduction is not a slam dunk. Many more additional efforts (read: lifestyle changes) will have to go along with that improvement. And that's nearly as hard a pill to swallow as a car that only gets 84 miles per charge brand new.

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

#46

Post by rfrey »

egdod wrote: post #6
perfunctory wrote: post #4

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

Let’s wait to see if it actually works before we start threatening to put people in prison for not using it.

I’m pretty sure the proposal is actually for on-the-spot extra-judicial executions of anybody who even criticizes the idea. Or maybe it’s just a call for a bit of regulation, I dunno.

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

#47

Post by smt1 »

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…

The point is not to augment cars via the proceeds of the tax, it's to change consumer or business behavior from the consumption of things that create otherwise uncaptured negative externalities like pollution or global warming - a market failure. As a side effect, these taxes are thought to create the economies of scale and investment necessary to make substitutes work in the market with minimization of consumption or economic output if the tax is introduced is scaled up with time.

This is why many well known economists are for a carbon tax:

https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

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

#49

Post by on_and_off »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #22
on_and_off wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well. The figure that is often used is that building your car generates just as much CO2 that what it will generate during its lifetime of driving. So even if your truck runs 100% on renewable energy (and that's a big if, not to mention that creating this system also generates pollution before becoming green), retrofitting existing vehicles with technol…

> Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well And building a regular fuel car doesn't? (Assuming we need to build some kind of car anyway?) "Electric cars are bad for environment because of building them and producing batteries" is plainly just a myth.

that's quite a nice strawman you have there.

I haven't claimed that electric cars are bad for the environment, just that replacing a perfectly working vehicle by another one is not necessarily a win.

Cars don't appear out of thin air and that manufacturing process ? it pollutes a ton.

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

#50

Post by [deleted] »

crca wrote: post #20
on_and_off wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Building an electric car emits a ton of CO2 as well. The figure that is often used is that building your car generates just as much CO2 that what it will generate during its lifetime of driving. So even if your truck runs 100% on renewable energy (and that's a big if, not to mention that creating this system also generates pollution before becoming green), retrofitting existing vehicles with technol…

That’s pure fiction. Even large batteries (100+ KWh) pay for their manufacturing emissions within a few years.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN