In the US, .855 lbs of CO2 are produced per kWh (in 2021). If that moves the car 5 miles (same as a Model 3), the car gets 26.3 miles per 4.5 lbs CO2. Since the car absorbs 4.5 lbs per 20k miles, it absorbs .132% as much CO2 as was produced by driving it.
If the filters increase the weight (and drag) of the car by .132%, then the extra consumption will cancel out the absorbed CO2. What's .132% of, say, 3500 lbs?
4.6 lbs. If the filters weigh more than 2.3 lbs, the weight of the captured CO2 will cause more CO2 to be emitted than is captured.
Using the US fleet average (26.4 mpg), an average car produces 4.5 lbs CO2 every 6 miles. These filters can absorb .03% of the CO2 emissions of a combustion car.
I think it's closer to 0.15 pound / mile, or 0.85 pound / 6 miles if you like.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...
Greenwashing is going to end up doing more harm in the long run. Instead of coming up with real solutions, we’re burning even more fuel to pretend to reclaim a fraction of a percent of the production costs.
Otherwise I fully agree, CO2 scrubbing makes the most sense at the point of large scale emissions. Government taxes on emissions are also required so people start doing this before they all find a way to make economic use of the carbon.
TLDR; We need 2,318 ZEM cars to remove same amount of CO2 as one diesel car produces per year.
- Average diesel car makes 144g CO2 per 1 kilometer (0.62 miles).
- Zem car removes 2,000g of CO2 per 32,200 kilometers or 0.062g of CO2 per kilometer.
- Zem car needs to drive 2,318 km to remove 144g of CO2 that Diesel car produce on 1 kilometer.
- Average person drives around 21,726km per year and produce around 3,128,564g of CO2 (if Diesel).
- If Zem car would theoretically drive the same 21,726km per year, it would remove 1,349g / year.
- That means that we need 2,318 ZEM cars to remove same amount of CO2 as one diesel car produces.
- Makes sense to produce it, right?
Also, if we want to reverse global warming carbon sequestration is non-negotiable. We can’t just stop digging up coal and oil cold turkey, and the earth has already warmed enough (and will continue to warm to about 2C) that we will need to go carbon negative, not just neutral.
To really move the needle in terms of carbon capture, it needs to be at scale, with a plan to do something with the carbon. It needs to be positive return on investment.
Something like scrubbing the CO2 from a steel plant and reusing the carbon in the furnace. (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/15/...). The reason this could succeed is that it makes steel cheaper to make because you don’t need to buy coal anymore. The environment benefits because fewer fossil fuels are burned but that’s not the driving factor for potential widespread adoption. Economics is.