Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Oh, Environment, how can we save you?

Jan 11, 2008 1:04AM PST

I've been doing some reading, and there's always a nay-sayer on everything.


This is what I have read as reasons for not implimenting technology.

Hybrids - Electricity mostly comes from power plants that run on coal.
Batteries have to be disposed of. They are expensive.

Biodiesel - Not practical

Ethanol - Not practical for many reasons. Affects price of everything else. Not enough land.

Electric - Same as hybrid. Small range, people would rather buy a car that puts out tons(literally) of carbon emissions, so once every four years or so, they can drive across the country.

The list and complaints go on and on. But I wonder what we can actually do about it, if there is anything.

I mean this question literally. If anybody knows about this, please post. Has any company considered Filtering our output? Our catyllitic converters don't catch everything and they don't last forever. Our coal plants and gas plants put out massive amounts of carbon emmisions 24/7. But since carbon molecules are larger than oxygen and nitrogen, shouldn't we be able to literally filter these? That seems simple enough and I'm wondering why it's never been brought up.

Also, while I do have my opinions and bias, I don't think there is any one solution to any of this. Just for those who actually belive that Global Warming/Climate Change exists, and that we can do something about it, what might you say to this conundrum?

It seems like there are many simple answers that should be implimented, but that the hard part would be getting people to comply. Even with gas prices at $3.30/gal, people still refuse to drive less than 80mph on the freeway, reducing that terrible 18mpg SUV to an even worse 10mpg. What is so hard about leaving wherever 10 minutes earlier and not being in such a hurry? Why can't people just accept that not one person thinks you're cool or better for having a 5ton vehicle? How is it that people are so incredibly lazy that they can't look over and check to see if a car is next to you before changing lanes? And God forbid someone actually moves their stupid little finger 2inches to use a turn signal....


All those things combined, I'd really like to know what people think and what the problem actually is. I'm just interested in your thoughts.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
...
Jan 15, 2008 4:24AM PST

I waited a bit before responding since I both don't believe in man-made global warming, nor do I support man trying to change the climate. However I was curious to see if any of the staunch socialist would be able to answer, and they have not.

No. No company has come up with a filter for CO2 because it would be far to impractical. Not only would a filter have to remove CO2 created from burnt fuel, but also the natural CO2 in the air to begin with, because how would you distinguish the two?

A filter would have to be able to handle the trace gases and unburnt fuel that escape the Catalytic Converter (CC) and be able to handle the extreme temperatures of exhaust gas, plus water condensation from the relative cool exhaust pipes, have a filter large enough to not bog down the engine by restricting air flow, while being small enough in size to prevent CO2 from escaping, and not get clogged in the process.

If one did get passed that, we would still have to figure out what to do with the CO2 collected. Do we store it, and how? A pressurized tank? The weight of the tank will kill gas mileage, while the energy used to pump the tank would sap energy from the engine, requiring more fuel. We could perhaps liquefy it, but who has money for a nitrogen cooling system?

Even if all these huge impractical issues are overcome, where would you empty your tank of CO2? Who would collect the CO2? What would they do with it? Chances that a common car engine would produce pure enough CO2 for industrial use is unlikely, and even if it did, there is a surplus of that in the industry as is. Oil companies use CO2 from their own refineries to pump more oil out of wells.

Last of all, even if all that were taken car of, a far more practical, cheaper, more efficient solution would be to skip the car filter altogether, and just make government funded air purification plants using they same technology the space station uses to make oxygen from CO2. None will do anything at all for the environment, but it's the thought that counts.

Yeah, if only we could make them drive the cars we want, the speed we want, where we want and when we want, the world would be a better place. They don't need those huge cars. They should comply with the collective. I came up with a little motto "To each according to their need, from each according to their ability". If only we can ditch that dumb document a bunch of old dumb guys wrote called the Constitution, we'd be able to make this into the paradise Cuba is. The only people unhappy in Cuba are the ones willing to die swimming to the US for freedom. Liberty... what a joke.

- Collapse -
You know better...
Jan 15, 2008 10:58PM PST

I was thinking the same thing about car exhaust, but there are bigger-picture things too.

All American submarines are operated by nuclear reactors. Those nuclear reactors have very small amounts of liquid that gets out in a controlled way. But for Quality Assurance reasons, that water can't be put back in to the reactor, mainly for chemistry concerns. So when some of these tanks get vented, so the air bubbles don't make noise in the water, we vent them inboard.
But the problem with this is that the water and steam in the tank could contain radioactive particles, since the water was cooling the reactor and, therefore, came in direct contact with the core.
So what we do is vent the air through a physical filter to remove the particulate.
Since we do this with fairly low-tech means, I am pretty sure the particulate and fuel emissions can be managed with similar means.

Also, we have to sample the air to test for concentrations of different gases like frion and CO2. We actually use a very low-tech and efficient machine to get rid of CO2 and a different one for CO.
A liquid compound referred to as "amine" soaks up CO2 when cold and releases it when hot. It can be heated similarly to the way an A/C unit on your car heats and cools frion, except on the cool stage, it is simply sprayed through the air that you want to 'scrub'.

I know it doesn't sound very practical but it really is. The machine that handles the entire submarine's closed atmosphere is about 4ftx3ftx3ft and it doesn't consume much power.
I more or less just wanted to know if any car or energy companies had considered using something of the like to filter/scrub their output.

But for the gripe about cars.
I'm not saying that we should take them away. But under the pretense that we created global warming, and that we can do something about it, we should consider an alternate means to reduce the output or filter it.
Also, there are a few reasons I mention SUVs and yuppie mentality.
Nobody actually admires somebody for having a Hummer or Escalade. I admire the BMW, Benz, etc. But I don't actually admire the person.
Most importantly, just because somebody is driving a car that is 2x the weight and 3x the price of everybody else, doesn't mean that they have the right of way or that they aren't subject to the same laws the rest of us have to obey.

I didn't say anything about the constitution and I definitely didn't contradict or challenge it. But the gov't clearly has the right to regulate fuel, emissions and weight requirements.

I still think that there should be a separate driving liscence and fees for different classes of cars. Truckers have to pay bigger fees and have a special liscence because they have a bigger responsibility and it takes skill to drive those rigs.
It's well-known and proven that the bigger the vehicle, the more the blind spots. The bigger, the heavier too. So there should be a different penalty for traffic voilations for motorcycles,cars,trucks,tractor-trailors, and SUVs.

Nobody NEEDS those cars, but it is their privelage. It's not a right and that privelage can be removed if those people show they can't handle it. And that quote generally refers to taxation and distribution of aid, not somebody's privelage of driving a 5ton vehicle that they don't know how to safely operate.

But if we're in such a perdicament about fuel, why aren't we using our own oil or rationing the volume that each person can have. Rationing should be based geographically, of course. I think that the problem with that is people have the misconception that gas is their right and that they are too lazy to just walk or ride a bike. When those "dumb old guys" wrote the constitution, the traveled up and down the coast without cars. Do we all think that we're better than them? It's not like a horse and buggy was any more affordable back then. It's probably cheaper to make one now.

As it stands, to each his own. And the main gripe I was actually stating was about driver's not obeying traffic laws and generally being discourtious and dangerous. I wasn't challenging the privelage of buying what you want, that would be rediculous. I just think it's rediculous that people think it's a right and never give it a second thought.
By all means, if someone can afford to pay $4.00/gal at 12mpg, let them do it. I am on the fence about the Global Warming issue anyway, so why should I care about how much somebody uses. The thing I care about is how much it costs me to get around to where I need to go.

- Collapse -
addition
Jan 16, 2008 3:22AM PST

At the end, I meant to say that I was more interested in what people had to say and what technological possibilities are out there.

Andy77e, you know as well as or better than anybody else that the Global Warming issue is a tired old song. It seems that people are either on the fence or securely decided about that issue, and that there's no middle.
But we've exhausted that topic anyway, so I'd rather not repeat that topic.

Thanks again, good stuff

- Collapse -
Once again! We completely disagree.
Jan 18, 2008 4:00AM PST

Not surprised at all! Grin

No I do not know of any filtering system ever considered for automobile use other than what already is in use. And I'm ok with this since it would be a waste, it wouldn't help or harm the environment, and it would jack the price of cars up, harming the lower class.

"nobody actually admires somebody for having a Hummer or Escalade"
Not true. Although I'm not a big fan, there are thousands that are, and do admire somebody for having one.

"So there should be a different penalty for traffic violations for motorcycles,cars,trucks,tractor-trailors, and SUVs."
Talk about an elitist view. Funny I've heard you talk about all people being equal, yet here you think that you shouldn't pay as much as another person who breaks the exact same law, simply because you drive a different car than them? Elitism! There is no other way to describe that idea.

"Nobody NEEDS those cars, but it is their privelage."
No, actually it's not. The freedom to legally purchase a legal product falls under the right to liberty and property. Back to 'need' eh? Alright, nobody NEEDS $100K a year income either.

"But if we're in such a predicament about fuel, why aren't we using our own oil or rationing"
Um... we are not in such a predicament. Last I checked I can go to any gas station and legally purchase as much fuel as I so desire provided I have enough rightfully earned money to do so. Rationing violates my right to property and freedom to legally purchase a legal product.

Oh neat... I made all the points I wanted, finished, and without writing about 5 pages... wow... need to mark this on the calendar.

- Collapse -
neat-o
Jan 21, 2008 8:44PM PST

short pages are hard for us aren't they?

elitism... No, Elitism would be paying a different income tax for something like having a nicer car. Paying a fine that is appropriate to the responsibility you have shown you don't deserve is a penalty.
Requiring an appropriate liscence according to the skill required for the vehicle can only ensure the safety of others. It wouldn't have to cost more, maybe just a separate written test or having to take a driving test in that class of vehicle.

Needs- That's right, nobody NEEDS any of those things, but it is a privelage that can be taken away. If you're a felon, you can't vote or have a gun. If you're a sex offender, in some states, you aren't allowed to possess certain types of porn.
Same thing with cars. If you had your driving privelages removed, sure you could own them as property, if you could get somebody to sell you one w/out a liscence, but you couoldn't drive a car.

Fuel perdicament - I was simply referring to our "dependancy crisis"
If we're in such a crisis that we have no choice but to support terrorism at >$3/gal, then why don't we do something about it?

Hey, it's great that we can let subjects go and boil things down to just the things we disagree on. That is what makes these heated debates a good, learning experience. Heated or not, they are a rare pleasure.

- Collapse -
Really?
Jan 25, 2008 5:22AM PST

You mean elitism is like a tax credit for buying an expensive hybrid while other people like me who can only afford an 82 Buick have to pay full tax?
Case and point?

If I run over and kill 3 people, and you run over and kill 3 people, I do not see why you should have less a penalty simply because you drive a tiny midget mobile. All crimes should be judged according to the action taken, not what was used in the action. I disagree with gun crime laws too. If you stab someone to death, and I shoot someone to death, why should you get a reduced sentence since you didn't use a gun? And lamest of all 'hate' crimes. Murder A gets a 'lesser' sentence than Murder B because B 'hated' the guy he killed?

Justice is not a puzzle game. Well if your car has 13' wheels and a cigarette lighter, then you might have lost control from the weight shift during your use of the cigarette lighter and so our penalty is more than the other guy whose car didn't have.... No... If you speed, the penalty is X. If you crash, the penalty is Y. If you kill someone, the penalty is Z. It doesn't matter what you drive, that is it.

Ok, but just like you have the 'right' to earn a 100K income, provided you obey the law, I too have the right to a Suburban provided I obey the law.

If we are going by needs, neither of us needs those. So if you can take away my right... or privilege to own a suburban, maybe we should remove the right, or privilege to a 100K income. There are so many poor hurting families out there that need that money so much more than you, and you wouldn't want to be greedy now would you?

We're not. Very little of our oil comes from terrorist supporting states. That is myth by anti-oil nutz to support their crazy theories. Most of our oil comes from south America, Canada, and to a growing extent Africa. But like I said, the answer to imported oil is simple, explore and drill for our own oil. We have tons, we just don't get it. Stop electing idiots like Al Bore.

The only real issue is Saudi Arabia. Only 12% of our imported oil comes from there. Do the Saudi's support terrorism? As a state it's questionable. There is evidence both ways. The Saudi's are allies of the US. Whenever we have asked them to, they have cut off ties with groups that we find 'shady'. Yes some of the 9/11 people were Saudis. Does that reflect on the entire nation and specifically the government? Does that mean we should cut all relations and boycott them? I honestly do not know. I'll let you wrestle with that.

- Collapse -
confusion?
Jan 27, 2008 9:00PM PST

I think you're skewing the elitist issue.
Running over people is usually vehicular manslaughter. But speeding or an improper lane change is totally different. But you can bet money that if a trucker runs over somebody they'll get more time or a bigger penalty than if you or I did it. If you speed, the penalty isn't X, not anywhere. If you break the law, the penalty varies.

Crimes are judged by offense, intent, seriousness, conspiracy, and responsibility. If a Trucker speeds, they have to pay a fine of $500-$1000(more in some states. I agree with this because they are hauling 80,000lb vehicles when loaded. If he was doing it excessively, say 25mph> the speed limit, it's bigger.
They have to pay a bigger fine because of the extra responsibility. That's how it works. It should be the same for our classes of vehicles.
let's say a soccer mom has a '90something subaru. Her husband gets a better job and they want a new car. She has a class A liscence. That means she can only drive cars and trucks, no motorcycles or Big Rigs. I just think that if she wants to go from a subaru or honda or whatever to a vehicle that weighs 3x and has a lot more blind spots, she should know how.
How does the gov't ensure that kind of training and, therefore, ensure a higher level of safety?
They require certification. For that soccer mom to get into that Excursion, she should know how to drive it. They're more deadly because they are harder to drive, you can't see as well and they weigh more. They really are in a different class. The dealer shouldn't let her drive away without showing her class 'B' liscence.


All I am saying is that there should be a seperate liscence and penalty system for a bigger vehicle that requires more responsibility.
It would be elitist if a person got a % tax break for some status, but a penalty is a separate issue.
The tax credit is an incentive for everybody, it just seems like an empirical and elitist idea to you because you won't spend $20k on a hybrid. I don't blame you, I won't either. The difference is you feel excluded.
Elitist would be giving my boss a tax break for driving a BMW when I don't get it because I drive a Nissan, even though they are both sedans.

- Collapse -
Found something.
Jan 20, 2008 3:39AM PST

I did just read an article that was interesting. I think it was in Motor Trends.

A group is trying to start a company to provide H2/Oil powered car. This is a misnomer because the primary fuel is diesel.

Nevertheless, the system breaks down fuel into H2 in real time. The H2 is then run directly into a fuel cell which powers the vehicle, again in real time.

The benefit would be that no new network of H2 distribution. No leaking heavy high pressure tanks of H2.

The universal issue of cost would still be a factor. A primary component of this H2 system is the metal Palladium, (if I got the name right, I don't have the article in front of me) that is highly expensive. This metal would be required on top of the metals used in the fuel cell itself, which also are expensive.

Two possible issues with the system come to mind. First, where did the carbon go? Is it vented? Is it stored, and if so what then? Second, the unit supposedly only produced 5 kW of power. This is far too small for the average car. This would be enough for a scouter.

What this system will not do is end our dependence on oil, or reduce it or anything. It also will not reduce CO2 since the carbon must go somewhere. Granted, I'm not worried about either, but most liberal eco-geeks have those as their main purpose. This doesn't do either.

- Collapse -
Tanks
Jan 21, 2008 8:50PM PST

That's a very common misconception.
Tanks on a 30yr old air compressor are heavy, sure. But on the other hand, there are a bunch of stronger, lightweight metal compounds today that are lightweight. It really doesn't take much to hold back 5000psi.

But that engine, while an interesting concept, sounds like it would be worthless since it still uses oil. But you can't blame them for trying.

About a year ago VW had developed a 2cyl engine that used deisel's compression-ignition concept with gasoline as a fuel. This greatly increases the efficiency of the fuel and was estimated that in a commuter car/sedan it would get >100mpg, in an SUV it would get ~60-70mpg.

That would be worth looking into. No big,expensive batteries or new networks for H2, etc...

- Collapse -
I saw that coming.
Jan 25, 2008 5:32AM PST

It's useless if it uses oil. lol

Well I'm still a fan, assuming that it holds true to the promises. It would greatly simplify the engine, increase mileage, and reduce maintenance costs. Again, assuming it lives up to expectations, which the track record for new tech is pretty bad. But I have no problem in using oil.

Once again, your big government politicians have eliminated that possibility. In case you have not heard, 2-cycle engines are virtually banned by thick red tape, courtesy of your federal government who knows better than you how to run your life and what products you can and can not have.

Funny how people support government subsidized research, when it is government itself that stifles research to begin with, eh?

- Collapse -
2 cycle
Jan 27, 2008 9:08PM PST

I'm pretty good with cars, but I'm didn't know that 2cycle engines were taped up... that's depressing.

The engine wasn't 2cycle. It was a 4cycle, 2 cylinder lab engine. That was just to test the technology. I really don't know why they haven't pushed it out yet. It's hard enough to find a deisel that's worth a crap, but that would be neat.

It seems like a good idea to me. A compression-ignition(CI) gasoline engine getting 100+mpg.

The issue the article stated was that they were having trouble getting it to switch from CI to spark within 1 revolution. They wanted this feature so you could slam on the pedal and get your RPMs up and get more power when you needed it.

It seems to me that using compression-ignition with gasoline should give you plenty of power, more than deisel anyway.

- Collapse -
correction
Jan 27, 2008 10:28PM PST

"Well I'm still a fan, assuming that it holds true to the promises. It would greatly simplify the engine, increase mileage, and reduce maintenance costs. Again, assuming it lives up to expectations, which the track record for new tech is pretty bad. But I have no problem in using oil."

I agree with that. But using oil to make H2 to burn to create thrust, I doubt that adding steps in the powertrain could make it more efficient. I'm by no means a chemist, so if they become available and hold true to that, I wouldn't be opposed.

That's also a very ironic statement about research. It's funny because it's true.

I really don't see any other way though. If you can't get private funding, then the gov't seems to be the only other option.

- Collapse -
Here we go again.
Jan 28, 2008 5:28AM PST

ELITE
Ford Excursion is 7,000 lbs. A semi is 80,000 lbs. They handle completely different. I've been in both. The Excursion is the same as any other passenger vehicle. Even my car is 4,000 lbs. Point being neither is anywhere close to that of a semi. They handle the same. So I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. You should not be penalized any less for an illegal lane change or speeding, than any other passenger consumer car. That's just elitism in my view.

TECH
You missed something...
"Nevertheless, the system breaks down fuel into H2 in real time. The H2 is then run directly into a fuel cell which powers the vehicle, again in real time."

"...run directly into a fuel cell..." It doesn't burn the H2, it runs a fuel cell to make electricity.

FUNDING
What you seem to not understand is that you can get private funding, it's the government that prevents you from doing so. For example pharmaceuticals. Drug companies use profit from existing sales to fund research for new drugs. In the mid-90s Clinton passed a large tax on drug companies (greedy big wigs don't need those profits), and what happened? Funding for research went down. Now government sets itself up as the solution (Medical research grants!) to a problem they created.

This is how all federal government works. They cause a problem, and present themselves as a solution to the problem they caused.

- Collapse -
I think we can avoid the mess on this one.
Jan 28, 2008 8:27PM PST

Elite-
Yes the excursion handles differently than the Tractor-trailors. But on the other hand, it takes a lot more skill to drive a 1400lb Kia Rio than a 7,000lb excursion. The bigger vehicles are heavier, more top-heavy, have less visibility, etc. I guess that's just a difference in opinion. I think that it requires more skill and is a bigger responsibility. I personally think that a motorcycle is easier to get around on, but I still have to have a separate liscence certificate for that. That is because it's a totally different class of vehicle.

Tech-
Thanks, I didn't read that the same the first time. My question for the specs is, Would it be more efficient using fuel to convert to H2 and use than it is just to burn the fuel?

Funding-
I did not know that about the tax and regulation. It seems it would have to do with all the new drugs that were being created. Such as diet pills that ended up killing people. But that's good info and I wouldn't begin to find that process as acceptable unless it's proven necessary.

- Collapse -
self-correction
Jan 28, 2008 11:33PM PST

" But on the other hand, it takes a lot more skill to drive a 1400lb Kia Rio than a 7,000lb excursion. "

I meant the other way around. I also was using the KIA RIO as an example... substitute any sedan or any SUV or any LARGE pickup if it suits you.

OFF-TOPIC
In one of your posts, you recommended reading the Federalist Papers. While they are much longer than I originally guessed, they are proving to be an interesting read. The more I read, the more I find that our gov't, dem or rep, has been grossly violating the intention of the Founding Fathers for quite some time.
Thanks for the recommendation. I probably would not have read them until I took an in-depth history course.