Tenrath t1_jbjehnb wrote
So they are making an electric car less efficient by putting an energy draining device on the front? Fun concept but the thermodynamics don't work in their favor. It would be more energy efficient to just plug the carbon capture device into your house and skip the charging step.
MarmonRzohr t1_jbjgk2i wrote
>So they are making an electric car less efficient by putting an energy draining device on the front?
It's an absolutely absurd marketing gimmick.
If we consider that the filters need to be changed, the loss in efficiency and the absurd amount of these cars that it would take to equal a wooded park or small forest it makes no sense.
Example:
Central Park in NY has 18000 trees. Even if we accept that ten of these cars over 20 000 miles equal an average tree - that would mean you'd need 180 000 of these cars driving 20k miles per year to equal just central park.
Saving money on the filter and being more efficient and just planting more trees would be vastly more useful.
PanVidla t1_jbjq3s7 wrote
It's the classic case of "if you buy our pineapple, we'll give 1% of the price towards offsetting the damage to the environment that is caused by transporting it from another continent". Slavoj Žižek calls this a genius capitalist idea - you do nothing to solve the problem, but by spending some money you get to feel good, like you're contributing.
brucebrowde t1_jbk7445 wrote
> by spending some money you get to feel good, like you're contributing.
Similarly how I feel when I eat three times as much as I need to...
CILISI_SMITH t1_jbjjjps wrote
>It's an absolutely absurd marketing gimmick.
Doesn't matter, now that the majority accept climate change is an issue the car manufactures have to invent and push the idea that "cars are part of the solution".
Expect a lot of these stories in the coming years and very little challenge to the viability of the ideas in them.
lochnesslapras t1_jbjp1f0 wrote
If some boffin manages to create a car that can entirely create its energy from photosynthesis then suddenly it drives converting CO2 to oxygen.
That I would hail a breakthrough miracle.
Tenrath t1_jbjx87h wrote
The problem is that moving a big thing fast and for long distances is energy intensive. So solar power is just not enough if you are expecting it to be self contained on a personal vehicle.
More to your point though, photosynthesis is an energy capture mechanism. In order to derive mechanical energy from the molecules produced (sugar and oxygen) the car would then need to react the sugar with oxygen. So in effect, you'd just be making a bad solar panel with extra steps.
randomusername8472 t1_jbjyxbk wrote
Thinking about the maths of it, I reckon a car with current level solar panels built into the roof would be a serious suppliment to the energy required.
I'm in the north of England and the 2.5kW, suboptimal panels on my roof generate about 15kWh on a sunny day.
Going by the size of the panel, I reckon at leat 1kW of capacity could be embedded on the average car roof, boot and bonet.
So a sunny day would then provide 5-6kW. So that's like 15-20 miles of driving?
Obviously the car would need external energy for the most part, but I don't think that's an insignificant amount of energy. And considering a concern for electric cars is still range and availability of charge points, knowing that you can get free mileage just by parking in an unshaded location for a few hours would be a big selling point to me.
I imagine the electrics of it are the most difficult part though.
Tenrath t1_jbk203p wrote
For a super efficient car your math seems about right. A gallon (~4L) of gasoline is roughly 33kW/h of energy, so 100-120 miles per gallon equivalent car is possible, but difficult (sorry for US units, that's how we measure car efficiency).
It may be good as a supplement like you said, or can possibly keep the AC running or something like that.
aesemon t1_jbk7kzx wrote
Just so you know, when it comes to car efficiency the UK uses miles per gallon. Petrol stations however show prices by the litre, oh and we use miles and yards for distance.
TlDR: mpg is fine to use with us.
randomusername8472 t1_jbk8xai wrote
Yeah I went off Google's estimate of electric cars tend to get 3-4 miles per kWh (which I guess will actually vary massively)
And the car panel will be less optimal as the panels will be flat. Although unlike roof panels you could potentially move the car around to stay in the sun for longer.
For me, this would actually be an ideal car. I need a car for where I live, but I only use it a couple of times a week and almost always journeys of 5-6 miles or less. I'd only need to charge the car from mains in the depths of winter!
IDontReadRepliez t1_jbkvesv wrote
The amount of energy generated is lower than the loss of efficiency due to the added weight of a solar panel. It’s significantly more efficient to mount a solar panel on top of a pole wherever you spend the most time parked (house for personal vehicle, office for business vehicle).
randomusername8472 t1_jbm65ts wrote
Hmm, going by Googling the weight of a Tesla (1600 - 2000kg), and going by the 100W camping solar panel I have that ways 3kg...
I could maybe fit 6 of these rectangles on the roof of a car, so 18kg for 600W. 600W would generate 3kWh/sunny day.
So we've increased the weight by 1%, and get about 5% extra range per sunny day.
Seems like a decent trade off? You could probably even offset the weight by reducing battery size a little, as you need to carry less charge if you can top up power as you go?
Self charging from solar allays the fear that if you can't charge your car you won't be completely stranded. Fitting solar charging stations everywhere is a different use case really.
SirLauncelot t1_jbkajot wrote
Your about right. Take a look at https://aptera.us/.
Frubanoid t1_jbk8dey wrote
Solar(+battery) at home and charge there. That's where things are going for charging completely green in the near future as grids get greener every day.
On the road, batteries at the site of the charger that refill passively when not in use, supplemented by grid power when needed.
jseah t1_jbnpam5 wrote
Have two batteries, one at home being trickle charged by solar panels and one in the car being used. Make battery swapping easy to do and just swap them every night.
[deleted] t1_jbke20o wrote
[deleted]
AwesomeDragon97 t1_jbo7ipa wrote
That wouldn’t be viable for the same reason that animals don’t have chloroplasts. It would take more energy to carry them around than they could possibly produce, which is why plants are sedentary.
MarmonRzohr t1_jbjtoy2 wrote
>"cars are part of the solution"
I mean zero carbon emitting cars are at least a part of the solution. Personal vehicles are far too efficient for many applications to ever be fully replaced. On top of that the world isn't going to perform 50 years-worth of public transport infrastructure construction in the next 10 years.
So yeah, electric cars / trucks are one part of the sustainable future we want to target (of course the smaller part of it they are the easier some things like city management, waste management etc. become).
It's just that this gimmick solution in the article makes no sense.
Roscoe_p t1_jbjvljo wrote
I don't think it's meant to be a sellable product, the undergrads built something for a resume. It got attention and some big company will hire them now.
MarmonRzohr t1_jbkrnxr wrote
Yes, "marketing" was a poor word implying this will be for sale. It is however, as you stated, promotion of the university and the team.
While the project as a whole, the materials design and the car as a whole is absolutely fantastic, the carbon filtration part is a deliberate promotional gimmick that has no other academic or pratical purpose.
The statement by the team lead from the article: "We are cleaning the air while driving" and the fact that they put the filters in the car, most likely knowing they are just making it less efficient points to the idea that it was something done to catch attention (and was obviously successful to some degree). That is, of course, both an understandable and often necessary thing to do to promote the university etc.
I just wanted to remark on how pointless of an addition to the project car it is.
Gamebird8 t1_jbki6vw wrote
It's not a bad idea for short distance driving. Even if it takes 2-3 Years to remove a Tree's worth of carbon, it is a valid technology to look at.
It is not the solution, not the magic bandaid. But it's a tool and to scoff at it doesn't help the problem when we're supposedly already past a point of no return.
ne31097 t1_jbjxszv wrote
It was made by undergrads. Calm down.
xclame t1_jbke6p3 wrote
Yup. Makes me think of a ad that comes on the radio. Boils down to "our hybrid car uses 40% less gas", well yeah of course it does because 40% of it's power comes from the electric motor, so your car isn't technically better. Know what reduces gas usage by an even bigger amount? Not having the car in the first place.
PFavier t1_jbkiwni wrote
Its not an marketing gimmick,.it was a study project by undergratuates. It does not need to be a viable product.
pattydo t1_jbjtdmi wrote
It isn't a "marketing gimmick", it was done by students. Like, they built it with parts that they could use in other projects once they tore it down...
MarmonRzohr t1_jbjuxlk wrote
Perhaps "marketing" was the wrong word and "promotion gimmick" would be correct.
The point is that it's a pointless, dead-end feature that was only implemented to generate superficial interest.
I don't really judge. Reasearchers / universities / etc. also constantly have to make use of hype to get grants / funding etc. But this is really pointless bait.
Uneedadirtnap t1_jbk3z67 wrote
If they learn from it and can transfer it to other uses it is a step forward. Cracks me up how many people dont understand research and learning. They are not building a production car they are trying new and different things to find out what works and what doesn't. In new idea developement you try things tthat are not the norm so you can push technology forward.
Jesweez t1_jbl3eyc wrote
People on reddit are incessantly critical of everything they see.
Even important advances that might be major parts of our ability to fight climate change, the comments will be entirely negative and suggesting that it was a complete waste.
Just the culture of the website I guess.
pattydo t1_jbjwxf7 wrote
It's not that either. It's just a class project. They made a car that captures more carbon than it emits.
It's incredibly cynical to think that this project was used to get money instead of teach students and build their skills. Sure, nothing here is all that useful and practical. But maybe one of these students will go on to create something that is.
And like, they accomplished it as freaking undergrads from scratch. It's not like this can't ever be improved upon.
MarmonRzohr t1_jbkwuf2 wrote
>It's incredibly cynical to think that this project was used to get money instead of teach students and build their skills.
It's not cynical at all. It's quite standard and not something bad.
It's always both with projects like these - they are both learning opportunities for students and a way to promote both your students and the skills and prestige of the university.
It's the same with all manner of student competotions and projects from the Putnam competition, the various DARPA challenges etc. The more a university promotes itself the more grant money and industry cooperation it's likely to get. It's actually good for both the students and the university as a whole.
pattydo t1_jbkydkn wrote
>It's the same with all manner of student competotions and projects from the Putnam competition, the various DARPA challenges etc. The more a university promotes itself the more grant money and industry cooperation it's likely to get. It's actually good for both the students and the university as a whole.
This is very different than what OP is saying.
>The point is that it's a pointless, dead-end feature that was only implemented to generate superficial interest.
This is what's cynical.
MarmonRzohr t1_jbl2bay wrote
>This is what's cynical.
Really ?
If the carbon filtration as a feature of the car is not a dead-end what possible research or practial purpose does it serve then ?
If it does not have a research or pratical purpose - why add it ?
The student team and their mentors would obviously know this as well. The only conclusion I can see is to add a feature to the project car that would make it more interesting in a superficial way (i.e. with no deeper technical purpose). In other words they added "something cool" - carbon removal to a carbon neutral car.
The fact that the feature is used to make the project car seem more interesting is literally in the article in the description of the team lead.
It's also a central feature they spotlight on the project page: https://www.tuecomotive.nl/our-family/zem/
>This is very different than what OP is saying.
I don't think it is. This is a decently big project with quite a few sponsors and the university team has been building cars like this since 2013. Having the knowledge and resources to maintain such a team and a string of somewhat big projects which result in vehicles that are showcases of knowledge - that's a big thing for a university. It's a great pipeline for students to industry, attracts students, offers great learning opportunities and generally generates both press and a dose of prestige, just like the other examples I used.
pattydo t1_jbo40zp wrote
I know that some education systems in the world are trash, but sometimes good ones have you do things to teach you skills, not just learn how to repeat a process.
>If it does not have a research or pratical purpose - why add it ?
They were tasked with creating a carbon neutral car. That's one of the things they did to get there.
tomistruth t1_jbjobjt wrote
At this point carbon capture is more a gimmick than a feature. But the recycled materials are very nice, until you take a look how long those materials will last. Dunno if they can outlive aluminium and plastic.
xclame t1_jbkewci wrote
Carbon capture itself is just bad, because it allows people to think that we don't need to reduce the carbon that is being released because it can just be captured anyways.
The only way that carbon capture makes sense is if we first stop putting carbon in the air to begin with, then we can focus on capturing the carbon that remains and isn't increasing.
Focusing on carbon capture just allows other people to pollute more.
Jesweez t1_jbl3tep wrote
Meanwhile according to the IPCC the only way we reach any of our climate goals is by using carbon capture.
Hmm, who to trust, the IPCC or reddit know it alls?
[deleted] t1_jbjxoqz wrote
[deleted]
ahecht t1_jbjqqiv wrote
I also doubt producing and constantly replacing the CaOH2 or LiOH filters is carbon neutral.
redditequalizer t1_jbjw5gi wrote
They are trying to make cars energy efficient but it won't happen. That's not how physics works. We need public transportation, THATS the solution. And we don't need to attach a carbon vacuum in the front of it either.
nIBLIB t1_jbmh6ei wrote
Isn’t that only a problem if your energy source produces carbon? Like if I charge it off a coal power plant then try to re-capture it, then it’s net more CO2 than just removing it. But if it’s charged from wind power then it captures carbon and costs wind. Still a net benefit for CO2 levels, no?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments