Researchers at EPFL have patented capturing CO2 directly from a trucks’ exhaust system and liquefying it in a box on the vehicle’s roof. The liquid CO2 is then delivered to a service station, where it is turned into conventional fuel using renewable energy. This could cut trucks’ CO2 emissions by almost 90%.
They plan to combine several technologies developed at EPFL to capture CO2 and convert it from a gas to a liquid in a process that recovers most of energy available onboard, such as heat from the engine.
* The vehicle’s flue gases in the exhaust pipe are cooled down and the water is separated from the gases.
* CO2 is isolated from the other gases (nitrogen and oxygen) with a temperature swing adsorption system, using metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) adsorbent, which are specially designed to absorb CO2. Those materials are being developed by the Energypolis team at EPFL Valais Wallis, led by Wendy Queen.
* Once the material is saturated with CO2, it is heated so that pure CO2 can be extracted from it.
* High-speed turbocompressors developed by Jürg Schiffmann’s laboratory at EPFL’s Neuchâtel campus use heat from the vehicle’s engine to compress the extracted CO2 and turn it into a liquid.
*That liquid is stored in a tank and can then be converted back into conventional fuel at the service stations using renewable electricity.
* The truck simply deposits the liquid when filling up with fuel,” says Maréchal.
The whole process takes place within a capsule measuring 2 meter x 0.9 meter x 1.2 meter, placed above the driver’s cabin. “The weight of the capsule and the tank is only 7% of the vehicle’s payload,” adds Maréchal. “The process itself uses little energy, because all of its stages have been optimized.”
The researchers’ calculations show that a truck using 1 kg of conventional fuel could produce 3kg of liquid CO2, and that the conversion does not involve any energy penalty.
Only 10% of the CO2 emissions cannot be recycled, and the researchers propose to offset that using biomass.
The system could theoretically work with all trucks, buses and even boats, and with any type of fuel. The advantage of this system is that, unlike electric or hydrogen-based ones, it can be retrofitted to existing trucks in order to neutralize their impact in terms of carbon emissions.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
100 thoughts on “90% of Truck CO2 Emissions Could be Captured and Liquified into Fuel”
I personally think this system will eventually only be interesting for large shipping vessels. Perhaps they could have enough space not only for the co2 capture system, but also the sytem to turn it directly into fuel, provided it has the necessary power to do so (with the aid of wind and/or solar perhaps?). In so doing it could become almost twice as fuel efficient than a regular ship. With regards to using this system on trucks; i personally believe, that if the hyperloop were to become successful, it could superseed most (if not all) transport systems with a range of at least 1500 and upto 2500 kilometers. With that i mean transport of freight and/or people with long range trains, trucks, busses, short range airlines, inland shipping by river and so on. Electric trucks and vans would eventually be enough for the last few hundred and/or dozens of miles or so ? And of course, in time they could also become fully autonomous as well. And if this were to happen, there would be no more need for fossil fuel trucks any way. So from my point of view, using this system on trucks is too little, too late.
last line in paragraph II: “convert it from a gas to a liquid in a process that recovers most of energy available onboard, such as heat from the engine”…
There are plenty of existing methods available out there to extract energy from the 75 or so percent of waste heat exiting the engine via the exhaust and radiator. A few that come to mind are Steam, Stirling Cycle, Thermionics (directly converts heat to electricity), Absorbtion Refridgeration (for condensing gases).
Electric power aside, A perfect system would use an internal combustion engine (ICE) and most or all of these “heat to useful energy technologies” in an arrangement that can use the waste heat to power accessories such as power steering; air conditioning; alternator; blowers; etc… and that also runs the compressor used to liquefy the flue gases to (mostly ) water and which later uses regenerative braking and other surplus energies to split the water and add hydrogen to the fuel mixture.
I would add that capturing CO2 should be a by-product of any system and not a direct object as the cost of a system that exclusively captures CO2 would be outrageous and we know that states like california will require their registered truck fleets to have them installed. I agree with Doc Pat that best to apply this to the big diesel burning ships and add that we focus on replacing the domestic diesel burners with EVs.
After some further reading, I think I owe you a few corrections:
First, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#Thermal and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeldovich_mechanism claim that atomic nitrogen is briefly formed during nitrogen oxidation, via reaction with atomic oxygen:
N2 + O –> NO + N (slow)
N + O2 –> NO + O (fast)
So you were somewhat correct.
I guess the choice between this path and the N2O path that I suggested would depend on whether the collision is energetic enough to knock out the 2nd nitrogen atom. Basically a choice between elastic vs inelastic collisions. I suppose that at higher temperatures, elastic may indeed be more common.
But the atomic nitrogen wouldn’t necessarily be N(-3), but could be a radical, N***. The electrons move a lot faster than the nuclei, so they have time to rearrange. I imagine that partially charged radicals may also form, depending on the various forces involved and maybe statistics. N(-1)**, N(-2)*.
Second, further down the 1st link, they mention that atomic carbon and other simple radicals such as CH, CH2, NH, and CN can also form during combustion. But the further they are from stable molecules, the more short-lived and uncommon they should be.
They also note that various nitrogen radicals can also come from the fuel, depending on its nitrogen content.
And finally, I remembered that during hydrocarbon combustion, the carbon radicals can also form carbon-nitrogen intermediates, which can also contribute to NOx formation.
I’ve recently read a headline that some banks (in Europe, I think) are starting to refuse to fund new oil&gas ventures.
You can add a No 1.5: keep using good ol’ fossil fuels, but add CO2 sequestration.
The Allam cycle, which is currently being tested, produces a supercritical CO2 byproduct stream natively, by design. That can either be pumped deep underground directly (in suitable locations), or sold by pipeline to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations, where it gets gradually sequestered as part of the oil recovery process. In the latter case, it ends up replacing the natural oil and gas formations.
With more traditional fossil fuel plants, if they switch to oxy-combustion (i.e. using nearly pure oxygen), then their exhaust would be mostly CO2 and water. After the usual scrubbing of particulates and other nasties, the remainder can be dehydrated (by condensing out most of the water), compressed, and sequestered in the same way.
Of course, there are no free lunches. It does reduce the overall power plant efficiency. But it is actually being considered in the engineering literature.
just phase out diesel fuel….It stinks and not far off crude oil…
“№ 1 — accept that AGW is real, but nowhere-near as bad as feared.” It is looking like it is the other way. The warming there is appears to be causing the release of methane in the tundra at higher levels than anticipated. While I am not suggesting runaway and incineration or anything but 10 to 15 degrees C is not out of the realm of possibility, and that simply would be a major extinction event. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/
“№ 2 — fertilize the all-but-Fe rich, ironically sterile ocean … with Fe.” That is just fine. However, we must be certain that the carbon is taken out of the carbon cycle, or the effects are limited to the mass produced regardless of how many times it is done. I think it is very likely we will have to char the phytoplanction to keep the carbon out of the carbon cycle. Cost is still low…but still burning coal would make this corporate welfare and couldn’t possibly keep up anyway.
“№ 3 — reflect sunlight in the deserts, or oceans.”
I have considered this as well. One thing you have to consider is how that might accelerate winds or change wind patterns. I am not saying it can’t work, we just need a whale of a lot of convincing computer modeling, to tell us where we can do it. You also don’t want to obstruct the sunlight that plants may be using. This would also require a huge number of countries to go along even if warming helps their economies.
How about … some REAL world solutions?
№ 1 — accept that AGW is real, but nowhere-near as bad as feared.
… so, ‘mitigation’ requires WAY less mass-sequestering, in general.
№ 2 — fertilize the all-but-Fe rich, ironically sterile ocean … with Fe.
… cheap, easy, next-to-zero technology development. Just scatter FeSO₄ out there, maybe from blimps in the wind from 25,000 ft. Cheap, easy, isn’t bothered by being slow. Could be done without pilots, probably. Solar cells on blimps allow for in-situ helium tank pumping (to reduce lift, when load is dropped).
№ 3 — reflect sunlight in the deserts, or oceans.
… Its really easy to make specular corner-reflectors, and pave thousands of square km with them. Or float ’em out at sea, reflecting incoming sunlight at high efficiency. Increasing Earth’s albedo, reducing fraction ‘kept here’ to warm the globe.
№ 4 — nuke oil & coal fields.
… The big guns of last resort, taking out the largest CO₂ contributor, IF THE ABOVE don’t mitigate “the reduced problem” entirely.
Or, finding this ethically questionable, then a worldwide moratorium on new-oil ventures. Pushing “peak oil” past its apex.
DITTO for coal.
Natural gas seems fairly innocuous.
Anyway, a bit ‘crazy’, but not really … except for № 4, all the rest can be done, starting today. Famously, it has been said, “give me an oil tanker full of iron, and we can create an Ice Age”. Gives pause, doesn’t it?
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
People drown every day!
Yes, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, ships have a number of advantages for this approach:
— Lots of room for adding more machinery, at least compared to any road vehicle.
— Lots of capacity for carrying more mass, such as the huge pressure vessels filled with liquid CO2 that will result.
— Access to a semi-infinite heat sink of water for cooling down all that compressed CO2
— Access to a semi-infinite heat sink of water to use as the cold side of your rankine cycle that you are using to get more energy out of the hot engine.
— Ships refuel at much more limited locations, especially for ships on a standard route. Meaning you only need a couple of locations that have the CO2 recycling/sequestering equipment.
Nit-picking pedantry here, but I am fairly sure that just about all truck engines are using heavy old iron block engines, not aluminium.
But generally speaking, yes, it looks like the heavier the vehicle, the more it takes to go electric. Trucks are still a work in progress. Cars are visible on the streets today. Bikes are to the point where they have LONGER range than the standard “engine” for most people.
I don’t think we could grow enough trees. And I think you have to char the wood (and the roots) or submerge it in a deep lake to really take the carbon out of the system. If you just grow them, and let them rot, you probably increase global warming as termites and other decomposers often make methane which is even worse. I think massive algae farms make more sense. Char it, separate out valuable elements like iodine, and deep 6 the rest. And there is a lot of ocean out there.
Coral can’t just grow anywhere the temperature is right. They live on the bottom. Which means you have to have shallow seas at the right temperature.
Actually, it looks like they are about 4 feet way. And most semis just have box trailers or containers. The sparks should not fly as far as the sparks from trains, as it would be powering something requiring far less power. Maybe 5 inches max?
Just about everything is flammable, it is a mater of degree.
Hay bales 2 inches from the wire might not be a great idea, but just a modicum of common sense should be sufficient to avoid fires. Your regular semi has several hot surfaces that present just as much risk.
175 million tonnes of ammonia produced per year, versus about 4.5 billion tonnes of oil products. 4% by mass. Energy content of diesel is about three times higher, so call it one percent. Any major spill will close down a city block. Plus excess nitrogen is already a huge problem, causing eutrophication of lakes and dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
If I’m reading this right, replacing the existing tanks by an equivalent-total-energy battery pack ends up as 10% of the GVW on size 1, and gradually increases with size up to ~25% for size 6.
Replacing the ICE + related mechanicals with an electric motor system might save some weight (or might not, considering copper windings vs aluminum engine block), but the batteries are heavy. Wiki says 100 times less MJ/kg for Li-ion vs diesel. So 100 times heavier for same energy.
So bottom line, it works better for lighter trucks. At least with current battery tech.
That notation is specific to radical chemistry. Maybe you just haven’t encountered it.
I think N2O is technically not a radical. The nitrogen shares its non-bonding pair, becoming charged +1, and making the oxygen charged -1. The two unpaired electrons of the oxygen become a non-bonding pair. Making it a coordination compound zwitterion: N2+O-
(NO2 is a radical, as is NO. Their unpaired electron is typically written on the N: *NO2, *NO. But it’s actually delocalized.)
The IUPAC names are a PITA IMHO. For the simple compounds, the common names like ethylene and acetylene are interchangeable with the systematic “ethene” and “ethyne”. Just like you’d write “methanol” (or even MeOH) instead of “hydroxymethane”.
According to Wikipedia, “acetylene” is actually the preferred IUPAC name, even though “ethyne” is the systematic name.
I wonder if this might work better for ships.
N₂ + O⋅⋅ → N₂O⋅? say…
We didn’t have that notation, back when dinosaurs were walking the streets of Berkeley. But we did have computers, LOL!
However, and maybe things have changed a bit, but strong encouragement was given to using the ‘new SI terms’. Ethene, not ethylene. Ethyne, over acetylene. 2-butene for unsaturation in middle. 1-butene for end-unsaturated form. Over ‘n-butene’ and ‘ortho-butylene’ or similar nomenclature. Some even liked vinylene. I thought that was opaquely stupid. Amylene, well … that’d be an improvement.
Thanks for the discussion.
Not many chem-geeks hang out here.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
The big difference with hydrocarbon combustion is that the only stable carbon oxides in the gas phase are CO and CO2, AFAIK, and there’s no stable C2 molecule (with nothing else on the carbons).
C2Hx does form via radical pathways even if you start from only CH4. That’s one of the major industrial methods for making acetylene (C2H2). Ethane and ethylene (C2H6 and C2H4) can also be produced.
The carbon radicals can build up even heavier compounds, especially if there’s not enough oxygen. That’s how you get soot.
There’s still plenty of oxygen radicals involved: O**, HO*, HOO* (as with all oxygen-based combustion processes, I think). Replace the * with a mid-line dot, i.e. an unpaired electron. I skipped these in the other post for easier typing and readability. All the charges are zero.
The radicals are key to forming NOx. Probably the simplest path is something like this:
N2 + O –> N2O
N2O + O –> N2O2 –> 2 NO
N2O + NO –> N2 + NO2
(Radical chemistry, all charges are 0.)
NO can also oxidize by other paths, as noted in the ammonia combustion post.
With the OH and OOH radicals, it should be similar, but producing other radical byproducts:
N2 + OH –> N2O + H
N2 + OOH –> N2O + OH
… (similar to above from N2O)
(and e.g. H + OH –> H2O radical recombination)
I don’t know. Replacing the IC engine with a similar-power electric engine and slapping on a battery pack doesn’t sound too difficult. But I’m probably missing a bunch of details….
Yes, I think it is ‘that easy’. If (and it remains a big OPEN if) one’s approach to greening-up a diesel truck is to toss extra-mass concerns to the curb, because “big trucks already weigh a lot, so what’s a bit more?” thinking, then sure. If a Tesla Model 100’s battery, at almost 600 kg, is about the motive energy equivalent of a 20 gallon tank of gasoline in a large-and-heavy sedan (which it is), then at least by Goat’s Furst Rule of Approximation,
600 kg ÷ 20 gal = 30 kg/gallon Specific Motive Energy, battery vehicles.
30 kg × 2.2 lb/kg = 66 lb/gallon Sp. motive energy, in better (LOL) units.
Local and Long Haul freight trucks come in about 6 ‘sizes’:
№ 1 – 16–26 ft., 24,000 lb. GVWmax
№ 2 – 24–30 ft., 30,000 lb.
№ 3 – 32–36 ft., 40,000 lb.
№ 4 – 32–50 ft., 72,000 lb. ‘regional’
№ 5 – 32–55 ft., 80,000 lb., ‘long haul’
№ 6 – 70+ ft, 100,000 lb.+, ‘cross country long haul’
1 – 40 gal, 2,600 lb.
2 – 50 gal, 3,300 lb.
3 – dual 40 gal, 5,280 lb.
4 – 100 gal, 6,600 lb.
5 – 275–350 gal, 18,000–23,000 lb.
6 – 400+ gal. 26,000 lb.
At the upper end, the mass-of-the-batteries is definitely a load-capacity and road-rules killer. 10% of the GVW is ok. 25% is getting usurious.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
OOH is also a radical, basically what you get if you abstract a hydrogen from H2O2. In fact, there are reaction paths during combustion that form H2O2, and then break it up into various other stuff.
See my edit in the other follow-up reply. As I note there, these are all radical reactions. Charges are zero, but unpaired electrons almost everywhere.
Maybe OOH is OOH⁺¹? Yep. Better balance.
I think all those superscripts are somewhat wishful thinking on my part. Oh well.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
Yes, I followed your Chem above/herein. The Gibbs free-energy of the nominal reaction is decidedly pushed to the neutral N₂ thermodynamically. And there is a lot of hydrogen about.
Thing is, one could say the same about (CH₂)ₓ + O₂ combustion. No part of that incorporates N₂, yet … from a completely different pathway, depending heavily on actual combustion temperature AND quenching rate, (NOₓ)y compounds are weakly co-produced.
The exhaust from an ICE might be something like
C₈H₁₇ + 12¼ O₂ → 8 CO₂ + 8½ H₂O (3 octene)
Didn’t scale fractions, but we’ve both got big chem-goat pants on. I too am a crazy Chem BS guy, from Berkeley no less. Amazing degree, computational orbital mechanics at the undergrad level! AND … I had to be repeatedly upbraided by the TA for not washing my glassware ‘properly’.
Anyway, back to exhaust.
N₂ + O₂ + ΔH → N₂O₂ … or N₂O₄ or even N₂O
so. I still expect a lot with the marked increase in NOₓ⁻¹ or ⁻² or ⁻³ species transiently about. And bits of Oxygen in its ”radicalized” form.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
These are all radical reactions in the gas phase. All the charges are 0. OH radical, NH2 radical, etc.
For example, NH3 + OH –> NH2 + H2O is hydrogen abstraction from ammonia by an OH radical. Same for NH3 + O –> NH2 + OH. O radical becomes OH radical.
NH2 + OH –> NH2OH and 2 NH2 –> N2H4 are radical recombinations. NH2 radical with OH radical (forms hydroxylamine) or two NH2 radicals with each other (forms hydrazine).
NO and NO2 are also a radical btw, since the have unpaired electrons.
Re N2O3, it’s less common at high temperature, but it is possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_trioxide
NH₃⁰ + O₂⁰ → NH₂⁻¹ + OOH⁻¹ (both radicals)
OOH⁻¹ → O₂⁰ + H₂O⁰ + OH⁻¹ + O⁻² (via various reactions, not balanced)
NH₃⁰ + O⁻² → NH₂ + OH⁻¹
NH₃⁰ + OH⁻¹ → NH₄OH⁰ + NH₄⁺¹ + OH⁻¹
2 NH₂⁰ → N₂H₄⁰
N₂H₄⁰ + 2 OH⁻¹ → N₂H₂⁻² + 2 H₂O⁰ (and similar with other radicals)
2 N₂H₂⁰ → N₂⁰ + N₂H₄⁰ (rapid decomposition)
Also possibly N₂H₄⁰ → N₂⁰ + H₂⁰ + NH₃⁰ (unbalanced), but this usually requires a catalyst.
And (b), the NOₓ path:
NH₂⁻¹ + OH⁻¹ → NH₂OH⁻²
NH₂OH⁻² + OH⁻¹ → NO⁻² + H₂⁰ + H₂O⁰ (via an unstable NHOH⁻² or NH₂O⁻³ intermediate)
Maybe also NH₂⁻¹ + O⁻² → NO⁰ + H₂⁰ (via unstable NH₂O⁻³).
NO⁰ + O⁻² → NO₂⁰ Lewis conjugation, unbalanced
NO⁰ + OH⁻¹ → HNO₂
HNO₂⁻¹ + OH⁻¹ → NO₂⁰ + H₂O⁰
2 HNO₂⁻¹ → NO₂⁰ + NO⁻³ + H₂O⁰
Under equilibrium conditions, NO and NO₂ form N₂Oₓ compounds, which can further break down to N₂, which is thermodynamically favorable:
2 NO⁰ ↔ N₂O₂⁰
NO⁰ + NO₂⁰ ↔ N₂O₃⁰ … really?
2 NO₂⁰ ↔ N₂O₄⁰ yes.
N₂O₄⁰ + NO → N₂O₃⁺¹ + NO₂⁰ (and similar with other radicals)
N₂O₃⁰ + NO → N₂O₂⁰ + NO₂⁰
N₂O₂⁰ + NO → N₂O⁻¹ + NO₂⁰
N₂O⁰ + NO → N₂⁰ + NO₂⁰
OK. Got it.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
Since I like chemistry about as much as you like math…
I think the reactions are something like this:
NH3 + O2 –> NH2 + OOH (both radicals)
OOH –> O2 + H2O + OH + O (via various reactions, not balanced)
NH3 + O –> NH2 + OH
NH3 + OH –> NH2 + H2O
From there, (a) N2 path:
2 NH2 –> N2H4
N2H4 + 2 OH –> N2H2 + 2 H2O (and similar with other radicals)
2 N2H2 –> N2 + N2H4 (rapid decomposition)
Also possibly N2H4 –> N2 + H2 + NH3 (unbalanced), but this usually requires a catalyst.
And (b), the NOx path:
NH2 + OH –> NH2OH
NH2OH + OH –> NO + H2 + H2O (via an unstable NHOH or NH2O intermediate)
Maybe also NH2 + O –> NO + H2 (via unstable NH2O).
NO + O –> NO2
NO + OH –> HNO2
HNO2 + OH –> NO2 + H2O
2 HNO2 –> NO2 + NO + H2O
Under equilibrium conditions, NO and NO2 form N2Ox compounds, which can further break down to N2, which is thermodynamically favorable:
2 NO <–> N2O2
NO + NO2 <–> N2O3
2 NO2 <–> N2O4
N2O4 + NO –> N2O3 + NO2 (and similar with other radicals)
N2O3 + NO –> N2O2 + NO2
N2O2 + NO –> N2O + NO2
N2O + NO –> N2 + NO2
> the N⁻³ radical is directly ‘made’ when burning ammonia with oxygen.
It’s not quite that simple. Just as burning CH4 doesn’t tend to produce naked C(-4) radicals, burning ammonia likely doesn’t produce N(-3). Rather, you get all sorts of NHx intermediates, which would tend to bond together to N2Hy (and occasionally break back up to NHx).
At the same time, there may be some NHxOy and N2Hx’Oy’ species. But depending on temperature and pressure, the N2Hy path may dominate, leading to very few nitrogen oxides as more hydrogens are removed.
NH3 –> N2 + H2 is endothermic (reverse of Haber). See my reply to GoatGuy.
Converting NH3 to N2 and H2 would actually consume 46 kJ/mol (std enthalpy of formation in reverse). Burning the 3 hydrogens to 1.5 H2O then produces ~363 kJ/mol, almost 8 times more.
The triple bond in N2 is very strong, but only about twice as strong as the N-H and O-H bonds in ammonia and water, and there are 3 such bonds in ammonia (and also 3 in 1.5 H2O).
Oxygen is more electronegative than nitrogen, so the O-H bond is just a little stronger than an N-H bond. Probably just enough to account for the above energy difference. Otherwise I don’t know how to explain it.
Btw, to convert NH3 to N2 and H2, you’d basically need to run the Haber process in reverse. Probably not easy on a vehicle scale. But it might be possible to split the ammonia oxidation into two steps where at first it’s converted to a catalyst hydride and N2, and then the catalyst hydride is separately oxidized to the original catalyst and water.
(edit: There are some ways to liberate hydrogen from ammonia, such as via sodium amide: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja5042836 , but it looks like you’d still need to separate the gases afterwards. On the other hand, by adjusting the burn conditions, it may be possible to avoid most NOx production even with direct combustion of ammonia.)
There’s a reason they don’t allow smoking in gas stations and around certain areas in factories that work will flammable stuff.
Granted, there are different levels flammability, and things should be packed away better during transport, but no system is perfect and fault-free.
For electrified rail, some of it doesn’t use pantographs. With the ones that do, there are no pantographs near any flammable container cars, are there? The pantographs would be on the locomotives, many meters away. With trucks, the pantograph would be right next to the container.
The rate of change matters too. If the current rate is too fast, both coral and land plants may have trouble migrating or adapting fast enough. In that case, they end up dying.
As for geoengineering the oceans, while I agree in principle, in practice there’s too much opposition, and maybe still too many unknowns.
I forgot the free copy the original can byes from Nature.
Some science that show that the carbon dioxide threat is scientific rejected.
Her an example on human activity that get higher global average temperature.
Her that gave the opposite.
Her the only science repport that clam they hav observe higher greenhouse effect as function of higher level CO2 but did the opposite (just change period or region and water vapor get down when CO2 get up, for the same period is Colorado ok some what near the test in Alaska and Oklahoma.
Global the level water vapor get down 1940-1970 and 1988-1992.
If carbon dioxide could get higher greenhouse effect as funktion of higher level over 150 ppm it would be easy to detect.
Only CO2 act as greenhouse gas on 15µm wavelength.
Why cant a signal in that wavelength be detected over the most extrem releases of CO2 som km upp in the atmosphere?
1C per dubble level is if the atmosphere was as thin as the lab test typical 3 m.
I will be very easy for Trump to show that climate threat is a hoax if he want.
Could you react it as a monopropellant then?
Listen to this and understand why the Great Barrier reef is in good health and that ocean was 1m higher early in this interclacial when earth had 2 C higher average temperature and Svalbard had 6C higher.
The intergalacial before had 2,5 C higher global temperature and 8 C higher for 6000 years on Greenland.
Climate activists are hard core science denier.
Several times saltwater aquariums have been tested with 4000 ppm ore higher leve CO2 over and always the result is that lime-fixing organisms form more lime.
You can, of course, look for a test that shows what you have been tricked into believing, or perform one yourself, that is quite simple.
That is one heck of a lot of geoengineering. Kinda silly to not address the CO2 that is making it acidic.
Bleached coral is dead coral. It is analogous to their bones.
Coral helps sequester mercury which we are pouring into the oceans when we burn coal. Mercury levels have risen 50% since they started measuring it. This is why they are nervous about pregnant women eating some kinds of fish. It is not naturally this way, it is being caused by coal combustion.
And there are some mollusks whose shells are very very thin in Antarctica. They will probably be the first casualty. But there will likely be more.
Yes, fancy campers, buses like Greyhound, garbage trucks, concrete mixers, and more could use the system, as I have said a few times.
Not really that different than a chain smoker or the occasional sparks I see coming out of the exhaust. I think these are very low odds. They would certainly be violating a bunch of regulations if they had flammable fumes or flammable dust. And it is possible to have a shield of some sort. There have been electrified freight trains in Europe and Russia for well over 100 years. If there was a problem, wouldn’t we have seen it?
The last or first mile can be done with electric trucks with a 75 mile range. Or more range if required. We can also add more lines and sidings.
Of course, we are assuming that climate change is being addressed in transport. However, I believe that the most effective course is to offer not only something that is more environmentally friendly but cheaper as well. That is why I am looking at these 3 options. Making artificial fuels would almost certainly be more expensive. Adding these compressor options would definitely add cost…even if this worked, which is dubious. Fuel cell is more expensive. Though, there probably would be less maintenance, so it has a wisp of a chance. Moving everything by electric aerial drone? That just won’t work for anything heavy. And if all the heavy stuff goes by truck, then you get all the same road damage. Turbine-electric combined with artificial fuel, has advantages, in maintenance, but upfront cost would be high. I think the sound could be addressed though.
If you think we are not ruled by laws, you are living a delusion. I believe in giving people choices. If they want to do any of these other options…whatever. But I think the government should help make these 3 viable. If you don’t have a network of wires up there you can’t to pantograph thing. If you don’t have the wires for the trains…same thing. And we need the financial help back for the electric cars/trucks. If anything the tax credit should increase as more are made as a way to encourage higher production.
You react it with Mg, it’s actually exothermic. LOL Costs be damned. Heck, could even be cheaper than what they propose. Dump the C into a landfill or make briquettes, and reprocess the MgO. Wow, could even qualify for the ‘carbon credit’ scam….
Go ahead, send a check.
Too toxic for mass use.
‘ the worst warming is likely to do is shift vegetation patterns 50-100 miles North.’
You think ? The middle of the last ice age had ice sheets down as far as New York, which is 1,500 miles south of Greenland, where they are now. That was with about 5 C difference in global temperature. That is within the range possible in the next century or so, especially if greenhouse gases keep accelerating up at current rates. I’ve seen predictions for the belt where wheat can grow reaching as far up as Fairbanks, Alaska, by 2100. No estimates for yield or cost on the soils up there, or what would be happeing at the southern end of the belt. The 100 degree West meridian used to mark the boundary for intensive rain-fed farming down the middle of the US. It’s already moved 2 degrees east, and is expected to move another 2 or 3 by century’s end.https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/dividing-line-past-present-and-future-100th-meridian
‘ some distances that they travel are so great that fossil fuels are still very attractive compared to battery power.’
That’s a massive understatement. Batteries are being chosen for a few Norwegian ferries – distances are short, and they’ve got so much oil money they can afford to look green. The harbour board here has ordered a battery tugboat. Anyone crossing an ocean would be crazy to rely on a battery – too bulky, too expensive, too gutless.
Except that there’s a lot of binding energy in N… most of the potential energy, I believe, in NH₃.
Energetically, to create (NO)ₓ requires overcoming the N≡N triple bond binding energy, when a hydrocarbon is burned with oxygen in air. Not much of that happens. Enough… to create the brownish smog from hundreds-of-thousands-to-millions of cars in the LA basin.
By comparison, the N⁻³ radical is directly ‘made’ when burning ammonia with oxygen. The loose N radicals LOVE to bind with available oxygen, creating copious amounts of (NO)ₓ.
And yes, let’s band hydrogen hydroxide. Its a killer.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
The manufacturing, distribution, and storage infrastructure are already in place in a big way. NH3 production also is a convenient place to use/store excess electricity by liberating H2, the most energy intensive input. I’d think industrial electrolysis equipment would be relatively cheap, compared to battery storage.
Dihydrogen oxidel is not yet regulated, even though it is the most relevant greenhouse gas. Don’t tell any democrats, or it will be made illegal to own water.
More than half of air is N2, so you’re going to have NOx with any high compression engine. Catalytic afterburners are being used for NOx every second of the day. Maybe NOx could be extracted, and compressed for a valuable revenue stream. Nitrogen fertilizers, and weapons of war are in high demand all over the world!
Doesn’t sound like you mean to permit a choice about it, though. You mean the ruler can impose more than one option?
Yep. ⊕1 old bunion.
As DoctorPat sez… “preprocessing” in a more-powerful text editor does the trick. And thanks.
… perhaps the question is WHY do I do all the fancy fonts?
Well, because they’re concise, informative and part of the “language of mathematics” that makes science-discussions “better”.
The thing is, research has already been done demonstrating that coral adapts to changes in ph and temperature. (Some better than others.) The worst we’re likely to see long term is a change in which corals live where. Similar to the situation on land, where the worst warming is likely to do is shift vegetation patterns 50-100 miles North.
This should be unsurprising in that we know that both coral and shell forming organisms did quite well during periods when the CO2 level in the atmosphere was considerably higher than under any plausible scenario.
In any event, ocean acidification could be remedied with geoengineering, it it got to be a problem. An effort which would likely pay for itself in fish.
Wait a minute,
is there an e-CAT involved?
Not directly. They want to offload it to a processing station and convert it to synfuel (basically back to diesel, or at least methane) using hydrogen from renewable energy sources.
If the pantographs make sparks, they’re out for any flammable materials transport, especially one that give off flammable fumes or dust.
Rail still needs trucks for last mile. Some big factories and warehouses may have dedicated rail connections, but most medium ans smalls ones won’t. And then there’s retail.
Considering what it takes to turn CO2 back into fuel, that’s not likely.
I’ve thought for years that pantographs are a good solution for evs.
— Lets you recharge as you drive. Just have a section of highway strung with overhead wires. A wireless system IDs you and charges your account as you recharge. For added excellence have it going up a steep hill where you would otherwise be draining your battery the most, and where you would be going slower.
— You can combine electric vehicles, even electric light rail like vehicles, with IC vehicles on the same infrastructure.
Water gas shift starts from CO + water, not CO2:
CO + H2O <–> CO2 + H2
The reverse needs hydrogen, not water, and is the first step of Sabatier. (Sabatier adds more hydrogen to further hydrogenate the CO all the way to methane.)
The Sabatier reaction is actually exothermic (for the less technical readers, exothermic = gives off energy, as heat) on account of making water, but first you need to invest energy to make the hydrogen.
In an ideal world, the energy you get from making water in Sabatier would exactly equal the energy you have to invest to split water to hydrogen. But the real world has losses and inefficiencies. And further, some of that energy goes into turning the CO (or CO2) into methane.
The most efficient method to split water that I’ve seen so far is an electro-thermal process (using both electricity and mild heat, potentially waste heat) called E-TAC (not to be confused with Rossi’s eCat!), by a startup called H2Pro. They claim over 98% energy efficiency, but I’m guessing that doesn’t include the inefficiency of producing that energy in the first place.
Just want to point out that CO2 does have an actual liquid phase at elevated pressure. Specifically, it’s well-defined between the triple point and critical point (~5-73 atm). Above the critical point, it’s a more blurred transition, depending on temperature.
AFAIK, coral bleaching indicates the coral is unhealthy. If it lasts too long, the coral dies. That disrupts the coral ecosystem, and since it’s home to a lot of different species, that may have effects elsewhere.
The land analogy is something like rain forest deforestation.
Best to have a pre-reactor to go
2 NH3 -> N2 plus 3 H2 before you feed it into either a combustion engine or fuel cell.
Goat has mentioned this fairly often, the last time only a couple of days ago.
He write it out in a word processor. This lets him do the ᵮᾀῂḉỴ ᵮὅῂṯṧ etc.
Then you cut-and-paste.
I only bother resorting to this when the system is super flakey and prone to crashing and losing my posts just before I post them.
Plus lots of coolant at hand…
So what is the worst consequence of ocean acidifaction at the level of -0.1 pH? So far, I’ve only seen corral bleaching mentioned, which, let’s face it, seems to be an aestetic issue for scuba divers..
How do you get all this nice formatting? The nice delta, the nice bold type sets?
And yes, you are correct about the factual statements as well…
OK, that no energy penalty claim is so inherently ridiculous that I could not accept that any actual engineer would actually say such a thing.
So I went to the original article in
As suspected, there were a few points left out of the summary we see here. Notably:
So they capture about 10% of the total energy (that would normally be lost as waste heat) and use that to separate and compress the CO2. Or they could use that energy to propel the truck and save fuel that way, but this isn’t done because it’s (currently) too expensive.
Maybe if the truck runs on liquified methane, the cold fuel could be used to help in a final cooling stage to liquify compressed CO2. Also, waste heat of the engine might then be used to expand the methane and drive a turbine to compress the CO2…
You dont have all that pressure if you just use a pressure releief valve.. duh! Geez I thought you brainiacs would be all over this. /s
With the Christmas cheer and a new year beckoning, I’ll be optimistic for once. What if they could “close cycle” this so even though the vehicle loses efficiency storing the energy they get fuel back at a reduced cost. E.g. instead of getting 30mpg they only get 25mpg BUT they are able to buy fuel at 75% of the going rate.
Well, there’s that.
I — for one — have long felt that “the problem” with the modern generation is that they’ve had FAR too much indoctrination into the idea that “if you have seen it, or you can imagine it, then it MUST be possible.”
Which of course is utter bullsnotsky.
Everyone likes to cite The Wright Brothers for “watching how hawks and herons flew, and realizing that the wings of the aircraft would have to be curved”, or some such. Thing is, they “got away” with flying by virtue of having a 15 horsepower motor that didn’t weigh as much as a baby elephant.
They could have strapped the thing to a kite made of silk and catgut, and it would’ve flown; it might have carried a hapless cat, for that.
Or the endless caudrons of tripe that belch “the eminent scientist that said people couldn’t POSSIBLY travel faster than a horse can run”.
All that anyone (and I mean “anyone”) need do is watch hawks.
Goose-hawks over 190 miles per hour.
Science itself is blessedly free from this kind of opprobrium.
Science has very immutable rules.
You HAVE to state a premise.
Then you HAVE to try like the dickens to disprove it.
Then failing that … you timidly publish it.
And await the Scientific Comunity laughing at it.
And … testing it.
And very possibly finding it so.
No harm in that.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
All the principles of Thermodynamics aside, if something simply sounds too good to be true then it likely is too good to be true.
Really nasty oxides … if combusted. Lots of them. Hard to get rid of, too.
There’s something reassuring about that graphic. Namely, if one digs through either College Chemistry memories (me), or some Wikipedia articles on the subject, it becomes clear that pH is a measure of H … hydrogen and OH hydroxide balance in water. That it spans a possible 14 orders of magnitude, which is why pH varies from 0 to 14; (yes, yes, there are some ‘super-acids’ that are so oxidative that they have negative pH, but they are really something special.)
Why the reassurance?
Because if you squint your eyes, you can kind of see that MOST of the oceans of the world vary from a pH change from –0.06 to –0.10. Not reassuring yet. Next is that if a (Δ = 1) in pH, it corresponds to 10¹ or 10× more, or ¹⁄₁₀ as much (less). Stuff. pH stuff. Ions. hydrogen and hydroxide. The reassuring comes from connecting the dots.
10 raised to (–0.06 to –0.10) powers is 15% to 25% more … or less hydrogen/hydroxide respectively.
Now remembering that the pre-industrial level of CO₂ was about 280 ppm to today’s 410 ppm is +46%. Which is the range-of-time in the above graphic.
So… ΔCO₂ (1780 to 2019) is +46%
And ΔpH is somewhere ‘tween 15% and something north of 25%
Reassuring that the pH sensitivity seems to be about ⅓ to ½ of ΔCO₂ atmospheric build-up.
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
Indeed…more experimentation…less dreamy watercolors.
2.cont. Pantographs will wear (probably graphite contacts). Trucks should be able to go up hills well. Braking energy can to fed back into the line. Probably more efficiently than it can be put back in a battery.
3.Go crazy with electrified trains. Basically ban the use of semis for all but trips where the train will not save any energy. Trains are 6x more efficient than road vehicles. Mostly this is due to low friction, fewer stops, and mild grades. The Fed might have to take over the freight rail to prevent gouging. While there is a lot of freight rail in the US, there still is limited access. Most modern factories don’t have a siding. Gives the road back to cars. This is not just good for traffic. This makes road maintenance much lower. Semis and related vehicles do 90% of the road damage. Electrifying rail does have costs obviously.
The nice thing is that we can choose more than one of these options.
I see 3 electric options:
1) Big battery and charging stations. Pretty good except expensive, adds quite a bit of weight…so your efficiency formula might need a bit of adjustment. Great for more difficult to get to locations (relative to my other two). Not too much cargo transfer required, and if you can’t wait for recharging, you can switch semi tractors and get that trailer back on the road, in a couple minutes. Maintenance should be very low (same for all electric options). Batteries have limited life. That means an expensive overhaul some time. The extra weight of the big batteries will cause more road damage.
2) Overhead electric lines: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/running-delivery-trucks-trolley-wires-isnt-crazy-sounds/
Combined with a battery good for maybe 75 miles, this has fantastic efficiency because of the lower weight. Not need to charge up at a station. The battery can be charging anytime the pantographs are connected. Sparks are unavoidable. This could be distracting. It is unrealistic that these overhead wires will be available anywhere but the highways. There is the cost of putting up all these wires. Doubtless there will be lots of gripers who won’t like how it looks. The batteries onboard should last quite well because you can slow charge them and they will not be used much. Replacement should not break the bank either. Trucks will tend to stay in their assigned lanes because only those lanes will have the wires.
I’m waiting to hear how they are planning to use liquid CO2 as a fuel 😀
Oh, and it just gets worse, and worse.
It takes nearly 1 kWh of energy to compress 1 cubic meter (2 kg) of CO₂ to 600 PSI, as a liquid. 3.7 megajoules. And we have what, 3,083 kg, so 1,500 kWh of compression energy. At 100% efficient compression, which of course is bogus.
PLANT MORE TREES
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
Let alone the very real PRESSURE VESSEL constraints. For obvious reasons, storing cryogenic CO₂ isn’t likely to be an energy winner … because the already outsized CO₂ tanks would have to have even larger cryogenic insulation layers.
So, if reluctantly accepting CO₂-at-ambient temperature, then one has to deal with the 40 atmospheres (4 megapascals MPa) of nominal pressure. The tanks can be made of aluminum.
Then there is its vexing desire to turn from a high pressure liquid (below 30°C or 88°F) to a supercritical fluid with a sudden rise of pressure possibility.
Yep… 300 gallons on a conventional tractor 10 wheeler. 600 gallons of CO₂! Of 1,800 PSI DOT–3 rated tankage. Steel, not aluminum. My 50 lb aluminum CO₂ tank weighs about 65 lb. The 20 lb steel one weighs 45 lb, empty.
300 gal × 3.785ℓ/gal × 0.89 kg/ℓ = 1,000 kg fuel
1,000 kg × 12 ÷ 14 = 856 kg carbon
856 kg × 44 g/mol CO₂ ÷ 12 g/mol C = 3,450 kg CO₂
3,450 × 90% = 3,083 kg captured CO₂
3,083 kg • (1.0 CO2 ⊕ 1.25 tank) = 6,940 kg all in.
Plus how much for compressor/extractor?
And H₂O sep?
And plumbing, sensors, tank-leveling pumps, …?
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
⊕1 good fellow. see my long-winded anti-glib-free-energy screed under Brett’s post
And why, you ask, might the “turn it back into fuel from renewable energy” be mind-numbingly glib?
Because insofar as I can tell from all the articles hinting at this marvel, there remains no energetically compelling mechanism for rendering CO₂ + (water, magic, energy, catalysts, unicorn horn, pixie dust) back into a diesel-equivalent fuel.
Or any other kind.
The most energetically favorable reaction is the water-gas shift reaction, but I’m not sure that CO₂ + H₂O over cobalt-iron oxide catalyst is even tolerably energy inefficient.
Thing is peeps, just read this as it is, and verily will be for many decades to come: posturing by the Green Science Advocacy to assure the world that tho’ everyone is terribly aware and scared of poaching to death in the future, that no, no, European Wish Science is still actively researching all nature of magic, which will come to the rescue and save the day. Here’s another glass of Koolaid, in case you’re still thirsty.
But it is that time of year.
Warp drives, tachyon communications and magnetic free-energy machines. That really work!
From … A tired old
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
My bûllsnot meter pegged, and there’s smoke coming out from its armature. With such a remarkably glib lack of testing the thermodynamically dubious claim of there being NO energy penalty… we’re in a world of Dominique Quixotes pumping free energy devices, I guess.
The obvious, which no author on the ‘blockhead-chain’, chose to cite…
ANY process that taps-to-utilize the thermal energy of a heat engine (AKA “diesel engine!”) does so by impeding the flow of heat thru a capture mechanism. This inevitably lowers the output power of the heat engine for a given production of heat energy e.g. burning diesel with air to produce heat, CO₂ and H₂O vapors.
Next up, MOF’s, as magical as they are very often cited to have vanishingly low circle-of-reversible functionality energies of under a kilojoule per mole, often only a few hundred joules. While compared to the process of BURNING, this is low, it still is irreversible energy cost-and-loss. Further, compressing CO₂ to convert it to a close-to-supercritical fluid (not exactly a liquid, but like one), takes a substantial investment of mechanical energy. Ah, the free energy part.
Then there is the mind-numbingly-glib “and the CO₂ can be returned at the filling station, to be turned back into fuel from renewable energy”
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-
absurd. For synfuel use NH3.
“The researchers’ calculations show that a truck using 1 kg of conventional fuel could produce 3kg of liquid CO2”. A semi tractor carries 300 gallons of diesel. That weighs 967 lb. 3x that is 2,900 lb, which is not trivial, but the weight is not the main issue it is the volume and you also do not want that weight above the cab because it could make the truck much more likely to tip over in the wind when the trailer is empty.
Semis don’t have more space for tanks under them. And certainly not 705 gallons or whatever.
And you can’t just switch one side tank to CO2. They have 2 tanks so the weight is evenly distributed for stability and handling.
I am not really against this whole idea, I just don’t see how you are safely going retrofit existing trucks. Making a new one that does all this, I see no issue with…beyond the, does it work and all…issue.
I’ve perused the original article at “Frontiers in energy research” (what a wacky name..), and it seems that this is simulation only. But, hey, why not give them some money so that they can try to build a demonstration system…
“Oceans takes up CO2 from atmosphere and create limestone.” not exactly accurate. There has to be calcium and/or magnesium available and the reaction must be chemically favorable (creating a lower energy state). That actually does not happen. What actually happens is that animals mostly molluscs invest energy to make shells which later turn into limestone. The oceans are becoming more acidic which dissolves limestone, mollusk shells while they are wearing them and trying to build them.
Ocean acidification is not something you can deny and claim any vestige of rationality. This is a well established fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
And the cause also is also clear…CO2. You know those experiments where you put a piece of meat in a soda and it dissolves it? That is because CO2 is acidic.
The main test to see if a rock is limestone is to put a bit of acid on it and see if you get a reaction: https://geology.com/minerals/acid-test.shtml
Even most climate change deniers acknowledge that CO2 levels have increased. And, yes, it goes into the ocean, but at these levels that is not a good thing, and it certainly does not cause limestone to be formed.
Good point. Many ships are driven by coal or oil, and some distances that they travel are so great that fossil fuels are still very attractive compared to battery power. In a ship there should be plenty of volume for a recuperation system. If it is reasonably efficient and cheap, that is….
Agree with most of what you say, but the weight of the CO2 is not that great. Every kg of diesel results in 3 kg of CO2. So, if you have 200 kg diesel in a truck, you would end up with 600 kg after driving. Doesn’t strike me as insurmountable. Note, I am not saying it even works, is practical nor efficient…
Anytime you add weight to a vehicle, you hurt efficiency. Instead of a truck getting lighter as it uses its fuel it gets heavier. If you start with full tanks of fuel, you will need 3x that much additional tanks. You are really going to put all the weight on the roof? That does not sound achievable (as any easy retrofit) or smart.
And unless your truck is very inefficient, I have my doubts about there being enough waste energy to power the system.
I think these claims call for a demonstration rather than a watercolor.
I’m skeptical this is cost competitive with battery electric, it seems like a rather complicated and expensive add on to Hydrogen production from electrolysis which even without all the add on cost isn’t cost effective. However, they ought to try it in the easiest cases like ocean going ships and diesel locomotives where it’s difficult to use batteries and there’s a a lot of capacity to carry the extra machinery and liquid CO2 and the per unit benefit is higher.
Giant optimized commercially available CO2 capture systems for coal plants use about 1/3 of the energy that the plant produces to capture and compress CO2 into gas pipelines.
A tiny system for a diesel engine with a lower CO2 concentration stream, tiny hardware, and compressing the CO2 all the way to liquid? I’d be shocked if they could produce hardware that uses less than all of the power from the engine and takes up less than all of the vehicle payload.
If you want zero emission trucks, the options are:
1) Electric – circa 80% “electron at the pump” to wheel efficiency, based on widely available commercial technology
2) Fuel cells – circa 30% “electron at the electrolyzer” to wheel efficiency
3) Other synfuels – <30% “electron at the electrolyzer” to wheel efficiency
4) Biofuels – it takes 40% of the US corn crop to provide the 10% ethanol blend we use today, so it would only take 400% of our corn to drive on 100% biofuels. And there is still debate whether ethanol is net benefit or net ham.
“and that the conversion does not involve any energy penalty.”
I call BS on that. The description lists multiple steps that consume energy, and nothing obvious that would produce usable energy to make up for them.
Let me say it outright: Somebody is lying about that.
Ha ha ha. beside that the CO2-threat i scientific rejected is this so stupid.
Oceans takes up CO2 from atmosphere and create limestone.
Limestone is crushed and burned during the production of cement, which then releases as much CO2 as the oceans absorbed when the limestone was formed.
Modern nuclear reactors can produce hydrogen from the energy in nuclear waste.
Hydrogen can account for both industrial process heat and synthetic fuel production when combined with carbon dioxide from cement production.
We produce synthetic limestone made of cement that absorbs as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is released during the production.
The advantage of using the method above is that cement production release concentrated carbon dioxide not 410ppm.
Even if liquefying the CO2 was energetically free, converting it to fuel would still take more energy then you’d get out of that fuel. So this is just a fancy and less efficient way to make electric trucks.
I’m too lazy and short on time to do the math – how many kWh and how much range could a truck get from a battery pack that’s “7% of the vehicle’s payload” (or more like 10%, since an electric engine is probably lighter than an IC engine of the same power rating)? And how much kWh of batteries would fit “within a capsule measuring 2 meter x 0.9 meter x 1.2 meter, placed above the driver’s cabin”?
I don’t know. Replacing the IC engine with a similar-power electric engine and slapping on a battery pack doesn’t sound too difficult. But I’m probably missing a bunch of details.
(edit: Could maybe leave the IC engine as backup, and just replace the wheels with in-wheel-motor wheels. Those could double as regenerative breaks. Don’t how the performance compares though.)
All we need now is for every semi gas station to pay for the equipment to remove and store said CO2 liquid without charging anything. Perhaps if they received free electricity, they could convert it back to a fuel. Sure ….
Comments are closed.