h a l f b a k e r yA dish best served not.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
There should be a Zero-emissions gasoline car.
It would be "Clean Gasoline," and instead of a tailpipe, exhaust would be filtered, absorbed by a medium (maybe MOF-177), and then stored into a large tank in the trunk of the car.
Naturally the tank would get full, (and quickly, too, I'm thinking), so
at every fill-up you would empty your C02 tank at the gas station. A hose would be connected and the CO2 would be transferred to the gas station's truck, all while you filled up on gas. The best part--the gas station would PAY YOU for your CO2 (per pound, and the payment would most likey be deducted from your gas-bill.)
How could THEY PAY YOU? Well, CO2 pumped under oil fields can help extract more oil from the field. This would be very lucreative for the oil company. And with the C02 under the ground, it would never see the light of day, and therefore couldn't pollute the environment.
That way, before we come up with an alternative to oil burning gasoline can be clean.
NOTE: I realize the danger of an over-loaded exhaust tank. If this were to occur, the tank would let out a little exhaust as was needed to releave the pressure, perhaps 10% of the tank's capacity.
Carbon Dioxide + Oil Fields
http://www.abc.net....publish_1153909.htm
A brief article on the merits/problems of carbon dioxide sequestration in oil fields. [jurist, Jan 07 2007]
MOF 177--A good capture medium!
http://www.greencar...etalorganic_fr.html
If you've never heard of MOF 177, you might want to read about it first. It can soak-up 140% of its weight of CO2. And with hybrid and already low emissions vehicals, it could be quite possible to capture a car's emissions. Read up on MOF 177. [Cam1234, Jan 08 2007]
CO2 under oil fields--not too crazy.
http://www.climatea...e.aspx?linkid=41349
Another thing you might want to investigate--CO2 sequestration. This is the idea the President plans to use for clean coal technology. It seems like it could be quite viable. [Cam1234, Jan 08 2007]
[link]
|
| |
You've written this idea to extract CO2, but I think you mean CO, carbon MONoxide. From what I can find on Google, no small-scale process exists to remove CO from an emission stream. It's a good thought, but looks impractical using today's technology. In other words, a perfect halfbakery plan! Bun. |
|
| |
How could you ever possibly fit a tank in a car big enough to store any significant amount of CO2? It's a good concept, however any reasonably sized tank would quickly get filled to capacity. Second, the increase in exhaust backpressure on the engine and the weight of carrying the tank would both translate into increased fuel consumption which means more CO2 emissions anyway. Also, It doesn't matter if you let the CO2 flow out the exhaust pipe or bottle it to be released latter; emissions are still emissions any way you slice it. |
|
| |
I welcome your thinking about this, but
this is not the solution. |
|
| |
As you rightly point out, the CO2 that
your car produces would be far more
than you'd be able to put into a tank.
The only way you could collect it
properly is to compress it to a liquid.
On the plus side, you could use this
cool store as a way of providing air
cooling for your air con ... but the
negative is clear : it'd cost you a lot of
energy to compress it and chill it. |
|
| |
The piece of this idea that I really don't
get is the idea that oil companies would
want this CO2. Shipping this CO2 from
petrol (gas) stations to the oilfields is
hellishly expensive. Why do it when
many have water in close proximity
which can easily be used to extract the
oil? |
|
| |
And finally, what would happen to the
CO2 if you pumped it down there?
Answer, it'd come straight up again and
into the atmosphere adding to the
enivronmental concerns. It wouldn't be
possible to cap it downthere whilst still
wishing to get the oil out. |
|
| |
The answer is to stop using geofuels,
switch to bio. |
|
| |
Should I replace the lawn on my
truck's roof with algae? |
|
| |
Carbon sequestration in oil fields, deep
oceans, peat bogs, or landfills is a
viable technology. Unfortunately for it
to work, a simple way to capture and
transport the CO2 that doesn't produce
even more carbon than is sequestered
is required. This is much more practical
for huge point sources (power plants) or
high volume operations (decaying
vegetable matter on farms). I suspect
cars
would be impractical.
I also do
not believe there would be any practical
use for the CO2, so you would not be
paid for returning it, except possible
through government incentives and fees
(as in bottle deposits found in the
north-east US). |
|
| |
Guys, do not limit your visions to direct gaseous compression alone. Cam mentioned MOFs in his post, yet everybody seemed to ignore them in annotations. (Note that these are not the same as, say, algae. They are not alive, and do not create more carbon that needs to be dealt with.) |
|
| |
Chemical storage can allow gas that would take up the whole volume of your trunk at thousands of PSI to instead occupy on kilo or two of solid chemical, at 1 atmosphere. E.g. metal hydrides for hydrogen. Without the need to reclaim it super quickly, and with the added benefit of having exhaust waste heat to push the reaction in the storage direction for you, it's quite feasible to believe that this can be done with almost no additional energy, and that it can be developed more easily than its hydrogen parallel. |
|
| |
If the right compund could be found, the hardware would be nothing more than a low profile, twisty tailpipe with some little solid crystals or special paint sitting in it, the CO2 to be removed with nothing more than a tiny injection of some catalyst and a 10 minute wait at the gas station. |
|
| |