The Most Detailed Map of Auto Emissions In America (nytimes.com) 153
The New York Times published findings from an analysis of new data released through Boston University's Database of Road Transportation Emissions. The map embedded in the report shows a year's worth of CO2 from passenger and freight traffic on every road in the United States. From the report: The database provides the most detailed estimates available of local on-road CO2 over the past three decades. Even as the United States has reduced carbon dioxide emissions from its electric grid, largely by switching from coal power to less-polluting natural gas, emissions from transportation have remained stubbornly high. The bulk of those emissions, nearly 60 percent, come from the country's 250 million passenger cars, S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Freight trucks contribute an additional 23 percent.
Reducing emissions from driving has been a big challenge, said Conor Gately, who led the project mapping CO2 on America's roads as a postdoctoral researcher at Boston University. Emissions dipped during the recession of the late 2000s, but have been ticking back up since 2013. National fuel economy standards put in place under the Obama administration have helped temper the rise in automotive emissions because the rules require cars and trucks to use less gasoline per mile traveled. But even as vehicles have become more efficient, Americans, buoyed by a strong economy and low gas prices, have been driving more miles and buying more S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, which have lower gas mileage. Freight trucking is also on the rise. Boston University's emissions database, first published in 2015 and updated this week with an additional five years of data, reveals that much of the increase in driving-related CO2 has occurred in and around cities. The report goes on to say that in nearly every metro area, total emissions have increased since 1990. "The New York area, home to 20 million Americans, accounted for the largest share of driving-related CO2," reports The New York Times. "After years of increase, emissions ebbed during the late-2000s recession but rebounded by 2017. In more car-dependent areas, like Dallas-Fort Worth, emissions from driving barely dipped during the recession and have increased rapidly in recent years. But, adjusted for population, these cities flip: Residents in the denser, more transit-friendly New York area contribute far less CO2 from driving on average than their counterparts in Dallas."
As for how the database was created, "Boston University researchers used federal traffic data to calculate the number of miles travelled on local segments of each road in the United States and converted those miles to carbon dioxide emissions by estimating how much fuel is consumed by different types of vehicles using those roads."
Reducing emissions from driving has been a big challenge, said Conor Gately, who led the project mapping CO2 on America's roads as a postdoctoral researcher at Boston University. Emissions dipped during the recession of the late 2000s, but have been ticking back up since 2013. National fuel economy standards put in place under the Obama administration have helped temper the rise in automotive emissions because the rules require cars and trucks to use less gasoline per mile traveled. But even as vehicles have become more efficient, Americans, buoyed by a strong economy and low gas prices, have been driving more miles and buying more S.U.V.s and pickup trucks, which have lower gas mileage. Freight trucking is also on the rise. Boston University's emissions database, first published in 2015 and updated this week with an additional five years of data, reveals that much of the increase in driving-related CO2 has occurred in and around cities. The report goes on to say that in nearly every metro area, total emissions have increased since 1990. "The New York area, home to 20 million Americans, accounted for the largest share of driving-related CO2," reports The New York Times. "After years of increase, emissions ebbed during the late-2000s recession but rebounded by 2017. In more car-dependent areas, like Dallas-Fort Worth, emissions from driving barely dipped during the recession and have increased rapidly in recent years. But, adjusted for population, these cities flip: Residents in the denser, more transit-friendly New York area contribute far less CO2 from driving on average than their counterparts in Dallas."
As for how the database was created, "Boston University researchers used federal traffic data to calculate the number of miles travelled on local segments of each road in the United States and converted those miles to carbon dioxide emissions by estimating how much fuel is consumed by different types of vehicles using those roads."
Ok (Score:2, Interesting)
Now do China and India
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now look after yourselves and fix the rising emissions in your own country. Let India and China do the same.
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Now look after yourselves and fix the rising emissions in your own country. Let India and China do the same.
This is a silly approach. We need new technology, and it is best to develop that cooperatively.
China is a leader in low cost solar and wind. They are making more EVs that the rest of the world combined. They build nukes for half what they cost in the west. They build high speed electric rail for a tenth what they cost in America. We can learn a lot from them.
India is leading the way on research into thorium MSRs.
We all share the same atmosphere, and we should work together to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't wages. Labor only accounts for a tiny portion of the cost of most goods these days. I did the math recently,. and the iPhone would cost 6% more if the workers were paid $40/hr.
Re: (Score:2)
The price of an iPhone has little to do with the cost of making it. It's all about how Apple can maximize profit.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true for virtually every product. The only reason why Android handsets are so cheap is because there's almost no way to maximize profit there with all the Chinese brands selling almost at cost, so they make up the difference in ad sales and services (and possibly more nefarious things for the ultra-cheap brands). Everyone is trying to turn a profit out there.
I haven't seen the numbers for a while, but it wouldn't surprise me if Samsung were still the only other manufacturer making a meaningful profi
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's raw margin on iphones is usually estimated as ranging somewhere between 50 and 65% depending on the model. Research, development, design, sales and distribution does cost something, so they make less than that in reality. It is fairly high for tech.
Most non-tech retail considers 100% markup bare minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I was assuming they would raise the price to make the same amount per unit sold. Otherwise, they could pay the workers $40/hr, reduce the retail price 40% and still make money on every sale.
Re: (Score:2)
The price of an iPhone has little to do with the cost of making it. It's all about how Apple can maximize profit.
Which is the fundamental point being made. Don't for a moment think that the billions of dollars in cost overruns on nuclear projects and expensive transport boondoggles just evaporate. The CEOs of major construction companies don't inherit a new Ferrari from their father every year.
I still remember working on an upgrade project for a reactor safety system. Holy shit did we have the best and most lavish parties that year, that contract was worth a mint.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Apple's costs would be 6% higher, or $40/hour wages would be an increase of 6% of the retail price? At any rate, I don't think the retail price would actually change if the labour cost increased. Apple products are prices as high as the market will bear, so they can't easily increase the price. Increased labour cost would mean Apple would have to accept slightly lower profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean if they hiked up the retail price by 6% they would make the same amount per unit sold as they do now.
Re: Ok (Score:2)
This is a silly approach. We need new technology, and it is best to develop that cooperatively.
Why?
China and India are just buying the technology Europe has already developed. No need to reinvent the wheel as it were.
What the US needs to do is give up on those silly notions that you need a huge car with a ghastly oversized and horribly inefficient engine. American cars seem to have engine capacity just for the sake of having engine capacity. A modern 2L turbo will outperform 4 and sometimes even 6L engines whilst delivering better fuel efficiency and that is before the weight savings.
You don
Re: (Score:2)
China is currently installing Westinhouse and G.E. designed reactors.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Their per person emissions are much much lower than the US.. So what was your point? You feel that Chinese and Indian people dont deserve the quality of life Americans enjoy through their impressively high per person CO2 emissions?
Flamebait? no, not really.. just an observation of your kneejerk reaction to try and move blame to others. but mod away, reality can be SO annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the Chinese government already has, and probably the Indian one too. Smog has become a big issue in those countries and they have been making a lot of effort to reduce it.
Not being a democracy China can shut stuff down very quickly.
Cold, dead hands (Score:2)
You want to take their cars? You'd better be ready for war. Real war.
Re: (Score:2)
A. Nobody has suggesting anybody's cars.
B. "Real war" over cars? Uh huh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. Banning diesel cars is the same as banning leaded gasoline. It has nothing to do with "taking cars".
Buy a Tesla (or other EV) (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a Tesla Model 3 this summer. Hands down the best vehicle I've ever driven. And zero emissions!
If we just bring this carbon neutral fuel technology to market then we can all be equally smug about how our vehicles don't pollute.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
We will still need a carbon neutral source of heat and electricity for this fuel synthesis process, just like we'd need it for any electric car to make that claim. It's a good thing that nuclear fission development is finally getting some help from the federal government.
There's still plenty of work to do but it looks like there's plenty to be
Re: (Score:3)
That's a great scientific analysis you've done there. Did you publish that in a paper, somewhere? There are a few tens of thousands of studies that say otherwise.
Re:Wait in a couple years (Score:5, Informative)
This is the biggest load of BS that I have read for a while on /..
The state with the largest population of EVs happens to be CA, where there is close to zero coal used for electricity generation.
Battery packs will only need to be replaced after 400,000 to 500,000 miles, as long as you don't throw your money away on an EV from another manufacturer. Guess what you call the typical ICE-powered car that has done 300,000 miles? Scrap.
Even with the Leaf, there are likely to be cheap battery replacements soon.
Finally, look at the map and see what BS you are spouting:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-r... [ucsusa.org]
Do you really think those ICE powered vehicles are putting out less CO2 than an EV with an mpg equivalent of over 100mpg?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think emissions from electricity production only come from coal? Around 44% of electricity consumed in CA comes from natural gas. All of the other electricity sources has generated and still continues to generate some emissions, while modest, are not zero Also, since CA imports so much of its electricity, the amount of emissions are increased due to transmission losses.
Of course, this week you would have a hard time trying to charge your EV in parts of CA due to the power outages, so that would re
Re: (Score:2)
Battery packs will only need to be replaced after 400,000 to 500,000 miles, as long as you don't throw your money away on an EV from another manufacturer. Guess what you call the typical ICE-powered car that has done 300,000 miles? Scrap.
Oddly enough, "scrap" is the term I would also use for an EV after 400,000 to 500,000 miles. Just because it's an EV doesn't mean it won't be affected by entropy. Also, I really doubt that the batteries in an EV will ever make it to 400,000 miles. The average EV owner will never drive their car in perfect temperatures at all times. Nor will they always be gentle on the accelerator. Or ever overload their EV with too much weight... etc... All things that will reduce the life of the batteries. Better to
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely! While, some Teslas have made it to that magnitude of miles traveled, more have gone up in flames after a minor accident---let alone the great number of "total loss" vehicles. It would be interesting to see how many Teslas make it to the over 400k milage club when Tesla stops making parts for them because not everyone puts ~70k miles per year on the odometer like the high-mile Teslas have.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh my goodness. All the BS stories are coming out now.
There is no evidence that Teslas catch fire at higher rates than other brands. It's news when a Tesla catches fire, but not worth reporting when an ICE vehicle catches fire.
Re: (Score:2)
I was plugging my car in when some guy wondering over to take a look and asked me "aren't you worried about it catching fire?"
In response I asked him "aren't you worried about that big tank of flammable liquid in your car that's powered by explosions?"
Re: Wait in a couple years (Score:5, Informative)
You really should refrain from calling people idiots. Sure liquid gasoline does not burn. But there is a thing called "vapor" - you should investigate what that is.
The ignition temperature of magnesium is 4000F. The spontaneous ignition temperature of gasoline is 536F. Gasoline's flash point is -50F (NEGATIVE 50F); that means vapor is always present in normal conditions
And yes, each time the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder is lit via spark, *it explodes*; i.e, it rapidly increases in temperature and volume. You've conveniently ignored that ICEs use a fuel/AIR mixture, not liquid gasoline.
"The more air we mix in, the higher the compression and the less fuel it uses" This is also wrong. The stoichiometric ratio at which air/fuel burns most completely/efficiently is 14:1. Pumping in less air causes dirty, incomplete combustion, pumping in more air eventually causes failed combustion. Most vehicles operate at a little less than 14:1, depending on operating conditions to keep the cyl chamber cool, slow the flame front and reduce the chance of detonation. Forced induction doesn't just stuff in more air, it forces *more air/fuel mixture* into the cylinders.
What of the best things you can do when talking about a thing is knowing what the hell you're talking about. You should try it.
Re: (Score:2)
And on top of all that it was a joke, not a serious attempt to explain the operation of a fossil car.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means that the cost of replacement batteries is not relevant to overall operating cost.
The batteries in a a Leaf certainly won't. I don't know about other EV brands, but there is every reason to believe that well cared-for batteries in a Tesla will last 400k miles.
Now you are j
Re: (Score:2)
1. Have some ultra rare vehicle that doesn't have a lot of spare parts for
2. Have an emotional attachment to a vehicle and want to keep it goi
Re: (Score:2)
Battery packs will only need to be replaced after 400,000 to 500,000 miles, as long as you don't throw your money away on an EV from another manufacturer. Guess what you call the typical ICE-powered car that has done 300,000 miles? Scrap.
That's some fancy battery pack. Assuming you get a pack that can do 500 mile (most EV's do a lot less) you're talking about a 1000 full recharge cycles. That's really stretching it and only possible if you never use fast charge and assume zero capacity loss (or a range of about 600 mile to start with).
With today's offerings. more realistic would be a battery pack that can do 300 mile, so in reality it would be much less than that. Cells will go faulty, fast charge be used whenever convenient, you'll never g
Re: (Score:3)
> Assuming you get a pack that can do 500 mile (most EV's do a lot less) you're talking about a 1000 full recharge cycles. That's really stretching it...
It's not, really. The growing popularity of EVs has been driving battery tech development pretty hard, including durability.
Last year there was a story of the first (known) Tesla Model S to reach 400,000 miles [electrek.co]. It operated as a shuttle/taxi - basically the worst case scenario for EV batteries as they could see several full cycles per day every day. This
Re: (Score:2)
The hyperbole aside, 150 thousand miles expected lifespan for a battery is fine. According to Consumer Reports that's the expected lifespan of a conventional car in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? I drove my Toyota 200,000 miles. It was running fine when I sold it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for pointing that out. For anyone that does not believe this figure, the California government web site is the reference I always use for the amount of energy they import. With that being said. How is the energy they import being produced?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why this is here, I'm willing to bet the EV car that travels 400-500k is.... none.
The batteries, might make it that long. I'm not sure we have a good real life test sample size yet, and technology is changing all the time. But the rest of the car, just like an ICE car will fall apart.
Shocks? Brakes? Ball Joints? Bearings? The inside interior? To make a vehicle go that many miles you would need to replace most of the car itself. None of the systems on a car are made work that long and will n
Re: (Score:2)
Try to not let your climate denial get in the way of actually using Google.
https://electrek.co/2018/07/17... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
The new bat
Re: (Score:2)
If he was charging his Tesla via Tesla solar roof panels feeding into a Tesla powerwall, you'd probably claim the coal/gas/diesel required to make the panels & battery and transporting them meant he was not 'zero emissions'. That's true in only the most bizarre of minds.
What most rational people take from his statement is that his Tesla EMITS zero emissions. And that's tr
Yes zero. (Score:2)
When looking at ICE-equipped vehicles, "emissions" only represent what comes of tail-pipe.
Nothing else.
Emission doesn't count what was burned while bringing the gas to the gas stations, or before that while refining the oil into gas, or before that extracting the oil from the ground, and all the multiple rounds of international transport/shipping that went in-between.
Emission doesn't count either what went into assembling the car, or producing the parts, or refining the material those parts are made of, or
Re:Yes zero.( No not zero) (Score:2)
You're ignoring the environmental cost of building the car, solar panels, batteries, power distribution grid.. Solar panel production is notoriously dirty; Chinese panels are cheaper because they have no qualms about dumping heavy metals into the water supply. There's a significant environmental impact to mining the heavy metals that are in those panels, batteries, cars. There's a significant impact from their manufacturing process. And those panels and batteries full of heavy metals have to go somewhere
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uptick (Score:2)
That recent uptick...
Everyone I know is buying SUVs because "gas is cheap." Thank goodness it always will be.
Re: (Score:2)
By how many pennies per gallon?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. 2014 was a low water mark, and he picked it for that reason. How much more expensive is gas now that it was in 2013?
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the southwest, and here the gas has been cheap since the 2009 financial crisis. The price I have been paying for regular was in the neighborhood of 2.00-2.40 dollars even after 2014. And frankly any under 4-dollar price is cheap. And people have been buying ginormous SUVs and CUVs like there is no tomorrow. Things are made worse by the EPA regs that say that a sedan that has been slightly raised and converted into wagon body is now a "light truck" and so it needs to meet much lower fuel economy st
Re: (Score:2)
Reality has a well known liberal retard bias.
Re: (Score:2)
It's partly the fuel economy regulations for cars. The same thing that killed the station wagon, large sedans, and such have trickled down to start killing off mid-sizers and the larger compacts. That's why most vehicles sold today are not "cars" but "light trucks" because they can be built and sold under different rules. If they were really serious about raising fuel economy and cutting emissions, they'd eliminate the "light truck" loophole and force all passenger vehicles sold to compete under the same
Re: (Score:2)
Sloping rooflines, gunslit windows, thick pillars
Yeah, what's up with that? Another thing, it makes all cars look the same, and the sloping, grooved bonnets make them appear smaller than they are. Even the larger Mercedeses and BMWs look like small cars these days (Except the latest 5 series which looks pleasantly like an old fashioned car). You're right about the visibility too... For a long time I've mostly driven older vehicles (most from around 2000 or before), but I recently I picked up a modern Hyundai CUV (an electric one: I wanted to take advan
Re: (Score:2)
Sloping rooflines, gunslit windows, thick pillars
Yeah, what's up with that? Another thing, it makes all cars look the same,
They're mandated features to increase crash safety. Except thick pillars, they don't mandate those, it's just super hard to meet standards without them. You can put a pillar inside a pillar to accomplish it, but that's expensive, so it's only being done rarely (this story would be cooler if I could remember which car is actually doing it, sorry... they're only doing it in the A-pillars anyway, it does nothing to solve the rear visibility problem.)
Re: (Score:2)
The Honda S2000 did that, IIRC. Not sure if any current cars do too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what's up with that? Another thing, it makes all cars look the same, and the sloping, grooved bonnets make them appear smaller than they are.
EPA fuel economy regulations, as well as vehicle and pedestrian safety regulations made every sedan look the same. They're all shaped like a piece of soap with pointy edges. The rear seats are mostly for children or adults with no necks. The safety standards designed to make people inside of a small sedan survive a collision with a ginormous raised SUV or truck m
Re: (Score:2)
Another reason why the number of sedan brands is shrinking is because frankly the American brands never wanted or knew how to compete in this segment. We have already seen the demise of brands like Saturn, Pontiac, Mercury. Ford announced that they get out of car business (sans Mustang) and I think the rest of the Big 2.5 will follow the suit. For the last 30 years or so, nearly every other Ford, Pontiac or Chevy sedan was a dud and headed straight into rental fleets because no one particularly dreamed of d
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because sedans don't do what people want. I have a Forester because it can carry my stuff to places a sedan can't. And currently NO electric vehicle could.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everyone want an SUV? I don't get it.
If you don't get it then I doubt it can be explained to you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are way fewer sedans available than ever before
It is true, but the sedans that are dropping off the market are mostly those that people never wanted to buy anyways. Sedans like Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Infinity G-series Mercedes C or say BMW 3-series have always had their cult following (each for different reasons), but when was the last time you run into someone dreaming of buying a Pontiac or Saturn sedan, or say a Ford Fusion or Taurus? Chevy? American brands are dropping out of this segment bec
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh.
Move along, nothing to see here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The values weren't measured. They are estimates. This isn't science, it's playing with math.
Re: (Score:2)
It IS science. When you can't measure something exactly, you use science to make good estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying their are chemicals in your food - chemicals like H20 and my personal favorite, C6H1206 (Glucose).
I got news for your kid - almost everything you read about is estimates. And that does not mean it isn't science. Math estimates are an essential part of science.
Everything from the age of the universe to the unemployment figures are estimates.
If you want to claim they are BAD estimates based solely on the number of cars registered to the area, then you have something worth saying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly reasonable to look at traffic density, which is measured, and extrapolate from that. Factor in the known make-up of vehicles in each state and their known emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
Well... sort of.
The 'report' uses the Database of Road Transportation Emissions (DARTE) data for 1980 to 2017 (38 years) for 760,000 1km x 1km grid squares in the US.
Traffic data comes from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which are state and county level reports on roads given to the Federal government. These reports include estimates on average daily usage for sections of road. The report uses the daily estimate, multiplied by the number of days
"America" (Score:2)
In the USA!
Montréal (Score:2)
Living in a nation where 99.99% of electrical power come from no-co2 I'm very happy to use my electric car to commute
One thing came to mind (Score:2)
I was recently in old Germany and drove a rental Fiat 500 in traffic there.
With that, one thing came to mind - vehicle weight.
To accelerate a vehicle to traffic speed, it takes a certain amount of energy or fuel depending on weight to put up to speed. Then, at a stop light, the vehicle comes to stop by breaking. The energy put this into speed is taken from burning fuel more or less efficiently. Then, when applying brakes all this kinetic energy is converted to heat.
Looking at the traffic here in the US comp
Re: (Score:3)
I nominate this for the Captain Obvious award of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but people just don't care about anybody else. They're just selfish.
Re: (Score:2)
But generally, people don't care about anonymous strangers. That's just human nature.
They do care about how much they pay for fuel. So tax the fuel in proportion to the amount of harm burning it does to other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of that braking energy can be recaptured and re-used in electric and hybrid vehicles. The equation is the same of course, stop and go is terrible for fuel economy, that's just physics. It can simply be less bad.
Unfortunately if you live in a place with poor to non-existant city planning, or places were local businesses who don't like people whizzing by their brick and mortar stores have strong influence in it *cough* Texas *cough*, that ends of creating a bad scenario. Even gas cars can be much more ef
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a test was done by a radio station on a smaller electric car driving driving close to it's max range and
Silly (Score:2)
They don't seem to account for a hybrid using less fuel than a regular vehicle, or an EV having zero emissions. Just how many cars and trucks.
Second, when people say "auto emissions"
Silly (Score:3)
First, it's not a map of "auto emissions", it's a map of how many vehicles are on the roads. Even the summary says so.
They don't seem to account for a hybrid using less fuel than a regular vehicle, or an EV having zero emissions. Just how many cars and trucks.
Second, when people say "auto emissions", they normally mean pollution, not CO2. In a sense CO2 is pollution (insofar as it contributes to global warming), but it's not the kind that causes haze, smog, dirt, or damages lungs. And tracking CO2 takes no account of some vehicles producing a lot more pollution than others for the same amount of fuel consumed - the worst offenders are diesels and gasoline vehicles in poor tune (belching out a lot of unburnt hydrocarbons).
To be meaningful as a measure of "emissions" you'd have to account for fuel efficiency (hybrids, EVs, etc.) and for fuel type and vehicle maintenance.
I call shenanigans.
Why so much hate for this map (Score:2)
I'm a libertarian/right type, but I like this map. My opinion is partially skewed by the fact that all liberal cities outside California have had higher increases than my own area (San Jose even reduced emissions, good job!), but even so, the biggest source of road transport emissions is the trucking industry. Move that onto trains and we're in good shape (the US railroad industry is best in the world for freight transportation).
Closing coal and oil power plants in favor of nuclear and natural gas (or hyd
Re: Why so much hate for this map (Score:2)
the biggest source of road transport emissions is the trucking industry
Really? You didn't even bother to read the summary?
Re: (Score:2)
environmentalists hate workable solutions, because if the problem is truly solved they're out of a job. So they push wind and solar knowing full well it's impractical,
[citation needed]
Can we discuss solutions? (Score:2)
Again we see another entry to Slashdot discussing the problem of emissions from fossil fuels. Isn't there any news on how people are working to solve this? I thought I'd do a search to see if there was. Here's an interesting article I found.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Based in Canada, Carbon Engineeringâ(TM)s Direct Air Capture system directly removes CO2 from the atmosphere, purifies it, and produces a pipeline-ready compressed CO2 liquid using only energy and water. This CO2 can be combined with non-fossil fuel-generated hydrogen, to produce ultra-low carbon intensity hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and Jet Fuel-A.
Wow! Someone is making carbon neutral fuels, which are one-to-one replacements for the fuels we use now. No need for new engines, or a new fuel distribution system, it just works!
Oh, wait, how much does this cost?
These fuels can presently be produced by Carbon Engineering for less than $4/gallon, making them slightly more expensive than fossil fuels, but similar to biofuels. Low-carbon mandates and fuel standards make them very competitive with any fuel.
And the costs will continue to come down.
Why isn't this a to
Re: (Score:2)
These fuels can presently be produced by Carbon Engineering for less than $4/gallon
That's pretty good, but do they take the cost of hydrogen into account? If you're generating it from excess power it should be nearly free, but the current reality is that hydrogen at the pump is rather expensive, even more expensive than our heavily taxed fossil fuels (in terms of €/km). And electrolised hydrogen is the most expensive variety of all; most hydrogen comes from steam treated natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty good, but do they take the cost of hydrogen into account?
Of course.
If you're generating it from excess power it should be nearly free, but the current reality is that hydrogen at the pump is rather expensive, even more expensive than our heavily taxed fossil fuels (in terms of â/km). And electrolised hydrogen is the most expensive variety of all; most hydrogen comes from steam treated natural gas.
Bottled hydrogen is expensive because hydrogen is difficult to store and transport. With these synthetic fuel processes the hydrogen is produced as needed from electrolysis, there's no expensive bottling of the hydrogen involved.
There's older videos on YouTube showing people working on the US Navy fuel synthesis project that claimed $6/gallon for aviation fuel delivered to the fleet. The higher costs was based on an estimate from the process they had at the time, and using only electricity to ex
Re: (Score:2)
CO is dangerous, CO2 is irrelevant (Score:2)
Shouldn't they be measuring a dangerous gas called carbon monoxide instead of worrying about an inert, harmless gas produced by human exhalation?
Fuck the New York Times (Score:2)
To the editors... (Score:2)
Would it be possible to not use TFAs from sites that require people to log in to even see TFA?
I mean, we object to being tracked everywhere we go on the web, and then reference articles that require that we be tracked. Can we have a bit of consistency?
What is their data source? (Score:2)
They're showing an 11% rise *per person* in my area since 1990. That makes zero sense since cars have become considerably more efficient since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious (Score:2)
Whoopee friggin' do! There's nothing revelationary about this. What it does illustrate is that the urban centers, who generally vote left, are the ones spewing the most hot air, I mean, pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Because those immigrants wouldn't generate the same CO2 in another country...?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really (Score:2)
Sure, they'll generate some. But the vast majority of increase in TRANSPORT emissions will be from the fashion of city and town dwellers driving around in SUVs and pickups they don't need. Insecure little women and men with small penises trying to be tough guys out on the road. Its just pathetic.
Also online deliveries hasn't helped with lots more small and medium sized trucks and vans driving around.