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

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by adrianN »

thereisnospork wrote: post #80
adrianN wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Converting CO2 to Methane makes a lot of sense if you want to store large amounts of power. Every country already has the infrastructure for storing and distributing gas and turning it into electricity and heat.

Not compared to doing pretty much anything else with that power. Which includes easy things like pumping water uphill, charging lithium batteries, or just making H2 and distributing that into the gas grid directly. To make CH4 from CO2 takes 8 electrons at (near enough) 2V, giving 1 / (96450 * 8) moles CH4 per amp second. Per tonne, that works out to roughly 1000$/tonne CH4 or 2900$/tonne CO2. Assm 4c/kwh. So with an…

Hydrogen is a lot harder to store than Methane, and afaik you can't substitute 100% Hydrogen for natural gas without changing large chunks of the heating infrastructure. But you're of course right that making hydrogen has a much better efficiency.

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

#82

Post by thereisnospork »

adrianN wrote: post #81
thereisnospork wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not compared to doing pretty much anything else with that power. Which includes easy things like pumping water uphill, charging lithium batteries, or just making H2 and distributing that into the gas grid directly. To make CH4 from CO2 takes 8 electrons at (near enough) 2V, giving 1 / (96450 * 8) moles CH4 per amp second. Per tonne, that works out to roughly 1000$/tonne CH4 or 2900$/tonne CO2. Assm 4c/kwh. So with an…

Hydrogen is a lot harder to store than Methane, and afaik you can't substitute 100% Hydrogen for natural gas without changing large chunks of the heating infrastructure. But you're of course right that making hydrogen has a much better efficiency.

Britain is/was looking into just that with some moderate seriousness[0]; a quick google suggests as much as 30% enrichment. Though as I recall they wanted to use SMR/ATR on natural gas and bury the resulting CO2 in the north sea as opposed to electrolysis.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180611133412.h...

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

#83

Post by perfunctory »

Iv wrote: post #63
joe_the_user wrote: post #62

Wow, umh, hmm This and technologies like it sound like something that could literally save the planet. If this sort of thing could be used for trucks, it could be used for trains, ships and stationary engines. As far as I can tell, the approach involves recycling the CO2 into other fuels and I assume eventually burning everything in a fashion that creates other pollutants but I assume much less CO2. I assume that at…

"So what's stopping this?" In US? Climate denialism. In EU. Not much, this is after all something reasearch in Switzerland that has already done other CO2 extraction research, despite scorn and cynicism by misguided ecologists. I think the time for this tech has finally come. There used to be an argument that if we talk too much about these, emissions habits may never change. Now it is clear that simply cutting down…

> In US? Climate denialism.

Hm, not sure.

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein

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

#84

Post by Taniwha »

on_and_off wrote: post #69
manicdee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It sound like a tough sell to me if the vehicle can be retrofitted to capture 90% of the CO2 it emits. To be fair, once it is captured, I am guessing (e.g. no data) that using it as fuel would release CO2 as well, so we would be somewhere below these 90%. Still, the new vehicle won't appear out of thin air, and the electricity it uses won't either (hopefully it is nuclear or renewable). Either way, I don't see why su…

Well because it's 90 percent efficient vehicles will emit 10% the amount of CO2, but the thing is all the CO2 eventually gets emitted, just more slowly. That might be ok if we weren't already at the world's carrying capacity for CO2, instead we need to be drastically reducing our emissions this is just an expensive stopgap measure that keeps us digging up carbon.

As others have pointed out we're not just burning the Amazon, we are burning all the Amazons back through geological time.

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

#86

Post by H8crilA »

This will probably not work because the joules maths does not add up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

It's a cool student project though, and could possibly work on a large scale if we actually had a solution for the fundamental energy problem.

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

#87

Post by H8crilA »

joe_the_user wrote: post #62

Wow, umh, hmm This and technologies like it sound like something that could literally save the planet. If this sort of thing could be used for trucks, it could be used for trains, ships and stationary engines. As far as I can tell, the approach involves recycling the CO2 into other fuels and I assume eventually burning everything in a fashion that creates other pollutants but I assume much less CO2. I assume that at…

Basic maths on joules (or TWh):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

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

#88

Post by fulafel »

remote_phone wrote: post #11

Making electric trucks makes more sense. Then you can centralize the CO2 collection to the power plants and make it much more efficient.

Regulating buses and trucks to be electric in short timespan would be much harder politically.

Having the conversion option available would be a great addition to synthetic carbon neutral diesel compatible fuels.

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

#89

Post by duelingjello »

remote_phone wrote: post #11

Making electric trucks makes more sense. Then you can centralize the CO2 collection to the power plants and make it much more efficient.

Or go 100% renewables power and EVs (keep it in the ground), no carbon capture + sequestration needed for emissions. For net negative GHG emissions, sequestration using bio-remediation such as ferrous oceanic seeding and kelp bloom capture/sequestration makes infinitely more sense (cheaper/easier) than direct emissions or atmospheric capture. Phasing-out ICEs and FF extraction must be global goals if we are to survive.

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

#90

Post by manicdee »

on_and_off wrote: post #69
manicdee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It sound like a tough sell to me if the vehicle can be retrofitted to capture 90% of the CO2 it emits. To be fair, once it is captured, I am guessing (e.g. no data) that using it as fuel would release CO2 as well, so we would be somewhere below these 90%. Still, the new vehicle won't appear out of thin air, and the electricity it uses won't either (hopefully it is nuclear or renewable). Either way, I don't see why su…

Capturing 90% of the CO2 is a nonsense claim.
Post reply on HN