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

51–60 of 103 posts

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

#51

Post by imtringued »

hinkley wrote: post #45
crca wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't understand your comment. You're complaining about lying but the one who is lying is you.

1. The phrase "265-mile-range BEV" appears 9 times in the document. That's not 2.5x times that range. It's more than 3.1 times the range of the small BEV.

2. The document never mentions a 35% emissions reduction. On page 21 (or 31) you can see a chart showing a 51% CO2 reduction for the 84 mile BEV and a 53% reduction for the 265 mile BEV.

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

#52

Post by on_and_off »

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?

not at all, we are talking about replacing an existing vehicle or retrofitting it.

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

#53

Post by manicdee »

on_and_off wrote: post #49
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If the replaced vehicle is used in some way, it’s a net win.

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

#54

Post by whatshisface »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #40
TheRealPomax wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 C…

You could also have a dollar-neutral carbon tax by lowering, say, income tax to exactly offset the revenue from the carbon tax. The population as a whole would not lose any money, but low-carbon behavior would be incentivised.

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

#55

Post by [deleted] »

hinkley wrote: post #45
crca wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by bobthepanda »

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…

In the US we already have Medicare and SS taxes dedicated to that. Many other jurisdictions also have dedicated tax funds for various purposes established by law, e.g. a sales tax used solely for funding transit services, for example.

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

#57

Post by rgbrenner »

hinkley wrote: post #45
crca wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is in the report.. the 84mi EV is a Nissan Leaf. That was a very popular EV for 2015 (the year of the report). People definitely did and still do drive it. It's one of the best selling EVs every year.

I would suggest reading the report a little more closely.. It also has numbers for a 265mi Model S... so you don't need to make up estimates for such an EV.. it's in the report.

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

#58

Post by egdod »

rfrey wrote: post #46
egdod wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the end of the day, every government regulation is enforced at the point of a gun.

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

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet »

karmakaze wrote: post #42
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.

On the other hand, a central facility can often be more efficient (other things being equal) than a bunch of small facilities. (A central generating facility, for example, is more efficient than a bunch of car engines.)

That said, my money is on the higher concentration of CO2 winning by far.

Post reply on HN