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

91–100 of 103 posts

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

#91

Post by aurelwu »

fulafel wrote: post #88
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.

Syn-fuels are never carbon neutral, you always have CH4 Emissions when producing, transporting,storing or burning fuel (and N2O too if you burn the fuel using air and not pure oxygen). CH4 is not only a rather potent GHG, it also oxidizes to CO2. Obviously the emissions are a lot lower than using fossil fuels but they are still there.

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

#92

Post by tyfon »

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…

> This and technologies like it sound like something that could literally save the planet.

The planet itself will be fine, it's the humans that are at risk from global warming.

However I don't think this is good enough, we need to go carbon negative which means electrification, clean energy sources and CO2 capture/storage (CCS) at large scale, and a whole lot of other changes. Unfortunately there are a couple of countries in the world that will piss in the well for the rest of us in this respect so I don't have much hope of actually fixing the problem.

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

#93

Post by hhjj »

H8crilA wrote: post #86

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.

I don't follow your logic. Could you explain your thoughts a bit more please ?

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

#94

Post by conceptme »

fulafel wrote: post #88
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.

Most busses here (the Netherlands) already are electric I have read in China it's the same. For trucks it will be harder though

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

#95

Post by H8crilA »

hhjj wrote: post #93
H8crilA wrote: post #86

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.

I don't follow your logic. Could you explain your thoughts a bit more please ?

It's okay to collect the CO2, but what source of energy will be used to reverse the C -> CO2 reaction? Renewables and even nuclear are by far insufficient.

Global warming is fundamentally a problem of sourcing enough energy in a different way than we used to. And the world/technology is nowhere near ready.

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

#96

Post by LessDmesg »

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.

They're bad because the world isn't producing nearly enough electricity for us all to go electric. And producing more electricity IS going to be bad for the environment.

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

#97

Post by hinkley »

rgbrenner wrote: post #57
hinkley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 2017 Nissan Leaf had a range of 107 miles. The 2018 and 2019 Have an EPA mileage of 150 miles. The 2019 also has a large battery version with a range of 226 miles.

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

#98

Post by hinkley »

imtringued wrote: post #51
hinkley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reading further: the increased embodied energy for the Leaf is one tone of carbon. The Tesla is six tons.

The fact that the Tesla retains the same emission reduction is because it’s a much larger vehicle. The same sedan would burn much more gas. So what I’d want to know is what’s the footprint of the 2019 extended range Leaf? 2 tons? Five? What’s the lifetime efficiency profile there?

(Also I didn’t realize that power in the Midwest was quite that dirty. That’s nuts and it drags the profile down for everyone else. Apparently EVs in the West are a slam dunk, and also on parts of the eastern seaboard. Iowa? Not much of an improvement)

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

#99

Post by rgbrenner »

hinkley wrote: post #97
rgbrenner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 2017 Nissan Leaf had a range of 107 miles. The 2018 and 2019 Have an EPA mileage of 150 miles. The 2019 also has a large battery version with a range of 226 miles.

It's the 2015 leaf that had a 84mi range... it was a step up from 2014's 75mi range. The 2011 version had a 73mi range.

The Leaf was the best selling EV from 2011-2014 and in 2016. It lost out to the Model S in 2015 by 10%. 400k Leafs sold (bestselling EV of all time)... Tesla is just now starting to surpass that number.

Obviously a report from 2015 wouldn't include Leafs from the future.

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

#100

Post by Ericson2314 »

catalogia wrote: post #66
Ericson2314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does that actually matter though? They'd replace the batteries, not the full truck.

Perhaps not, but just something to keep in mind.
Post reply on HN