Calif. mandating all cars sold by 2035 are zero-emission

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
There are a LOT of Gasoline Engine Advancements that make them a LOT more efficient, but they don't get the headlines.

There are also many Gasoline Technologies that are waiting to be ramped up into mainstream new Gasoline vehicles.

My Civic Si's EPA rating is 28 MPG City, 38 MPG Highway.
I usually get over 40 MPG average on the highway on a full tank of gas.

I have also recently gotten 51 MPG average in the first 135 miles driven after filling up.
See: https://www.civicx.com/forum/threads/civic-si-51-mpg-average-on-highway.55574.

It is also known that Liquid Fuels like Gasoline & Diesel have a LOT more energy density than other types of fuel sources for EVs.

They have just started to use Gasoline/Diesel more efficiently & take advantage of the higher energy density.
Yep... I’m familiar with many of the technologies... and mentioned gasoline has a great deal of energy density. I still think we’ll see gasoline engines decline in use during the second half of the century. Part of what will need to happen is that our electrical infrastructure will need to evolve... and that’s one piece California has failed in accomplishing while maintaining reliability of the grid. If we punt gasoline engines for electric cars charged largely by coal and natural gas... we, in the end, did essentially nothing on the environmental front.
Sponsored

 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Gasoline cars have become so clean, states like WA no longer require emission test.
These new Gasoline Technologies ARE helping the Environment a LOT.

Despite a Huge increase in population & more people driving Gasoline vehicles in WA state, "Air quality in Washington is much cleaner now than when the program began in 1982.", 38 Years Ago.

https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Vehicle-emissions/Emissions-check-ends
Agreed. You don’t need to sell me on how much better gasoline cars have gotten over the last few decades. I agree. ?
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Washington state (I lived there a few years) does seem like they’re also kind of strict on some things... also California-like.

https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Air-quality/Vehicle-emissions/Clean-cars

Regardless of emissions that are discussed.. and how good modern gasoline may be with reducing sulfur content and the reduction of Nox and such from catalytic reactions... you’re always going to release CO2. You can’t use gasoline w/o producing it. I’ve seen things about pulling CO2 back out to try to make fuel. It’s intriguing but the energy required to do this... then reburn it in a combustion engine seems a bit wasteful. You could use the electricity to concert to chemical energy in a battery to then use a very efficient electric engine vice taking electrical energy to convert to chemical energy (gasoline) then transporting back to be used in a less efficient ICE.

Gasoline use is always going to put more CO2 in the atmosphere... and we don’t need to turn Earth into Venus. We have much of what we have today from the industrial revolution to now based on the ICE and oil. Given the existing electrical energy infrastructure, expansion of non-CO2 emitting production methods and improving technologies... I just see gasoline as a present and still-future useful tool... but one that will be in decline by the time I’m an old man. I think it’ll be a necessity. Oil is also a wonderfully useful resource... and one that, while we can give it up to push a car down the road... there are other items... such as the plastics cars are made with... or the tires they ride on... that rely on that oil being plentiful and available. We’re never going to stop using oil in my lifetime... but it’s be good to not burn the bulk of it up merely to push cars.

Had we not taken a turn from the 1970s to now... there not telling how things would be. The timeframe I’m expecting things to change... or should... is still over the course of a generation or two. There are nearly as many cars in the US as there are every man, woman and child. That represents a great amount of investment in resources to produce and money for those people to buy. I hate the idea of throwing anything away while it’s still good enough... but I also don’t see the need to continue to buy the same old thing if something new/better is available. It’s up to car makers investing in technologies to make ICE obsolete by making EVs better if that is their fate... and not to force people to buy a still maturing piece of tech they may not want.

We’ll have to log back in around 2050 and see where we’re at. I may well be wrong about a lot of things... but I don’t see CO2 production ever being uncoupled from using fossil fuel driven autos.

Whatever the outcome, I still think this is the best time in history to be alive for a multitude of reasons... and there is very little that hasn’t been improved upon by the use of fossil fuels in some way to get us here.
 

frontlinegeek

Senior Member
First Name
Jason
Joined
Feb 25, 2018
Threads
6
Messages
765
Reaction score
313
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
Vehicle(s)
2020 CRV Touring, 2017 Civic EX Sedan Honda Sensing
Country flag
So, one of the major reasons, that never gets proper coverage or explanation with regards to historical issues of air quality in the LA region, is the fact that that whole region is prone to stagnant air circulation patterns. Add in all the truly gross crap that cars used to belch and you have a real issue. This problem can happen anywhere that high densities of vehicles and less than ideal wind comes into help circulate.

Now that being said, the upside of this issue is that it pointed out just how nasty ICE used to be. With that, major leaps in air quality were now a real possibility and would ultimately benefit everyone. The end result is that we have engines with tiny displacement, massive power and fewer emissions than ever imagined possible 50 years ago.

Textbook pollution is a problem that still exists everywhere. Beit from ICE or from people littering non-biodegradable items. One of the worst at play is diesel engines. If this order included ALL commercial vehicles, then things would be far more interesting and compelling. Eliminating all the NOx and particulates from diesel has become a major goal in Europe after it became clear that mass adoption of diesel was a major mistake.

As for what California is doing, it is, unfortunately tied directly to everything else foolish and moronic that they have done and for many decades now. From all the PG&E shenanigans to the seeming impossibility of reigning in housing costs and implementing better public transportation, Successive Californian governments have meddled so much that decisions are now starting to become conflicting problems. The most mocked right now is that this declaration is knee-slappingly comical where California has serious power issues. Add to that the comedy (And this is in a LOT of US jurisdictions) that most heat is from natural gas and you realize that there is indeed just not enough electricity out there.

Let me drop an interesting example on you all...

I have an all electric house. It uses a geothermal heat pump for heat and AC. I use a de-superheater on that GHP to supplement my hot water but the rest of that is from an electric tank. I have nothing but LED lighting. I have all my powersave features on in devices where this is possible. Our house is built to R2000 standards. All of that still takes almost 23,000 kWh a year to operate. When flipped to BTU equivalent, my house is FAR more efficient than the average house and even moreso when broken down to power per sq foot used.

But where does all that power come from? And in the circumstance that everyone was forced to build the same features and retrofit older houses where possible, what happens to the load shifted to electricity and off of gas, propane, wood, pellets, etc... It has to come from somewhere and in quite large quantities.

This same question comes up when pie in the sky people start wanting all the world to drive electric battery cars. The province where I live, NB, has a max power production ability of about 4500 MW. Most of that is hydroelectric and nuclear. Flipping back to cars, if we look at the Tesla efficiencies, you are looking at about an extra kWh of power for every half liter of gas that is used. If not for the human malware running rampant, we all know that our driving would be a lot higher and some of us have far less efficient vehicles. And even if replaced with electric equivalents, they would not be a whole lot more efficient (Thinking trucks and other not so aerodynamic vehicles.) So even for our Honda household of 4 bangers, we are talking an extra 6000 kWh or more of power needed from the grid. This becomes non-trivial when car sales are forced to be all electric and the average annual sales in California is in the 2 million range. Now you are looking at adding 6 million megawatts of generation if everyone averages only 24,000 km a year.

So that is not at all a trivial amount of electricity. And it is only for one state that accounts for only about 10% of the population. People are too detached from what really hides behind the wall plates of their houses. They don't understand the scale of the machine and how hard it is to add to it as this is not just a case of adding generation capacity but also increasing transmission capacity. And as we all know, PG&E are none to good at keeping their infrastructure working all that well.

(For those wondering, a Tesla Model 3 standard, gets about 7.3 KM per kWh and that is what I did most of my rough figuring on)

I believe that electrics are the future. I also believe that solar is FAR superior to wind. What I don't believe is that battery cars are the actual answer and that solar is still FAR too expensive and diminishes in output capacity far too fast. Nuclear and hydroelectric are the only things that can fill these kinds of insane demand increases.
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Gasoline can be made from pulling CO2 out of the air to create Infinitely Renewable Fossil-Free Gasoline.
The entire full-cycle is Carbon Neutral as it is using the exact same hydrocarbons that come out of the tailpipe (which is really low nowadys) & re-uses them.

Even the Agricultural sector is agruing this point, which is backed-up by a lot of scientists:

"When biogenic feedstocks are processed at stationary sources, carbon dioxide emitted from the feedstocks are offset completely by the carbon dioxide that the feedstocks absorbed during photosynthesis … There is a broad scientific consensus that, because of photosynthesis, emissions from processing agricultural crops are carbon neutral or de minimis"​

https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/bi...iles-formal-petition-for-rulemaking-with-epa/

We need to diversify our energy sources instead of relying on just one.
Also, Liquid Fuels like Gasoline & Diesel have more energy-density than other sources, including ALL electric sources.
Gasoline can be made from pulling CO2 out of the air to create Infinitely Renewable Fossil-Free Gasoline.
The entire full-cycle is Carbon Neutral as it is using the exact same hydrocarbons that come out of the tailpipe (which is really low nowadys) & re-uses them.

Even the Agricultural sector is agruing this point, which is backed-up by a lot of scientists:

"When biogenic feedstocks are processed at stationary sources, carbon dioxide emitted from the feedstocks are offset completely by the carbon dioxide that the feedstocks absorbed during photosynthesis … There is a broad scientific consensus that, because of photosynthesis, emissions from processing agricultural crops are carbon neutral or de minimis"​

https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/bi...iles-formal-petition-for-rulemaking-with-epa/

We need to diversify our energy sources instead of relying on just one.
Also, Liquid Fuels like Gasoline & Diesel have more energy-density than other sources, including ALL electric sources.
It’s an interesting idea. When we grow feedstocks to trap CO2 as rapidly than we put CO2 emissions the atmosphere... then I suppose we’ll be at an equilibrium. I wonder what scale it would take to accomplish this. We’ve been supplementing ethanol from corn to gasoline for several years now. We’ve got to work both the energy generation side beyond vehicles too... and there are additional industrial sources.
Honda Civic 10th gen Calif. mandating all cars sold by 2035 are zero-emission B34B4F8F-5390-42E6-81CE-19F60DA9B212

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

It’s an interesting idea and is elegant in its simplicity but I’m not confidence in its wide scale implementation. Anything done also has to be global eventually. Wide scale implementation of even all of the US only covers 3 or 4% of the population.
Nuclear and hydroelectric are the only things that can fill these kinds of insane demand increases.
I’ve been doing nuclear power in the Navy for near 18 years and was excited to see the NuScale SMRs get approved. We did a project discussing modern reactor designs that can deplete existing spent fuel inventories with no additional need for mining and making electricity for centuries and depleting everything down to relatively short-lives fission products to rebury. It’d be neat to see it implemented in my lifetime. Solar farms are cool for adding peak capacity... since in the areas w/a lot of solar radiation, they are making the most energy in the hottest part of the day when air conditioning usage would also peak. It’s hard to beat nuclear... except in initial costs and time to break even from initial construction. Nuclear is *so* expensive to build and break even. Maybe the SMRs will break this.
 


charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
The increase up to 2019 doesn't surprise me.
Ships all over the world shipping goods from one country to another have been running on excessively High Sulphur Fuel.

As of January 1, 2020, ALL Ships Worldwide are required to use Ultra-Low Sulphur Fuel.

This alone will drastically reduce overall emissions worldwide.

For capturing CO2 & turning it into Gasoline, Diesel, or Jet-A fuel, CarbonEngineering has been capturing CO2 since 2015 & making fuel out of it since 2017.

In January of 2019, they easily got the funding they needed to start building Industrial Sized Plants.

One of the earlier investors in this private firm is Bill Gates.

There are other technologies, like Microwave Ignition, that have found out that igniting fuel at a lower temperature drastically reduces CO2.

Others are using "pre-chamber" technology (similar to Jet Engines) in Gasoline engines.

All of these & countless others have proven, working versions of their technology & are currently working on fine-tuning them specifically for Gasoline engines in passenger cars.
Low sulfur fuels should help reduce NOx and particulates but would not affect CO2 production by my understanding of combustion. If you consume fossil fuel, CO2 is an inevitable byproduct. There’s no getting around it.

The CO2 capture is an interesting technology. They’d need tens of thousands, million pound per-year plants to come close to close to hitting equilibrium and look like they’re still working to build their first for the company you mentioned. Apparently were in the 10s of billions of tons of production per year realm (32.5 is a number I saw pop up). I’m not sure if the CO2 is resold or actually stored back underground... and there’s definitely a market for CO2 itself. Exxon claims to capture upwards of 7 million tons/year. I’m not sure what the funding for all of it is... as the most successful technologies generally get that way based on successful marking. It personally think preventing the emissions in the first place would be better than trying to build a network of CO2 capture plants. They may have their uses though in areas of high local CO2 production (i.e. next to a fossil fuel power plant) which is what I bet Exxon was doing.

The prechamber idea is interesting. It’s odd that some articles I saw made it out that you could replace plugs with the device and (barring not having a desirable higher compression ratio due to no other engine changes) you could improve fuel economy. An article I saw was nearly a decade old and I wonder if it went into a “too good to be true” bin... or if there’s an issue with dual fuel setups... or low load scenarios. I don’t know. You’d figure each any every major automaker is running mule engines using different technologies to try to see if they can market it with more power or efficiency than their competitors... so long the equipment is reliable to warranty and not lose their reputations with. Honda apparently has been experimenting with it for almost 50 years and dabbled with it in cars but it got dropped for current techniques... as it was utilized for lowered emissions and not trying to improve economy. Neat stuff though. Maybe it’ll make a comeback. I just figure if something is so great it’s use would give one automaker a huge advantage over another, they’d of done it by now.
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I copied these statements from an article I saw back in June 2020:
  • "In the northern hemisphere, atmospheric NO2 typically decreases by up to 50% between January and May because of the Sun’s angle."
    • -- Henk Eskes, an atmospheric scientist

(On the Worldwide Shutdown of Driving Gasoline cars due to COVID-19):
  • “I haven’t seen any statistically significant changes in air pollution in most US cities, which is contrary to the claims in some media articles”
    • -- Dan Goldberg, an atmosphere researcher

  • "Observations of pollutants at surface level don’t seem to be showing a huge change in the United States either"
    • -- Dan Westervelt, a climate and air-pollution researcher

This article is a little over a year old (August 6, 2019):

Joining the jet set: Jet ignition technology could boost efficiency and lower emissions of combustion engines

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rel...nd-lower-emissions-of-combustion-engines.html

A couple of the parts I found interesting are:
"Qiao said the technology her team is working with already has been used in large bore natural gas engines and in some F1 racing cars because of its superior performance, but it is new to gasoline engines."​

"Several automotive engine companies have started exploring pre-chamber technology for passage cars."​

"Qiao is currently collaborating with industry on design and optimization of passive and active pre-chambers for gasoline engines."​

"Qiao and the team are working with the Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization to patent their technology."​
  1. It's already been successfully used in F1 Cars due to their superior performance.
  2. A year ago, many auto manufactures are looking to integrate this technology into their cars.
  3. They are already looking to optimize this technology, meaning they already have a working version(s).
  4. Purdue is Patenting their technology.

And, this is just one of the current Gasoline technologies being worked on.
Honda used it nearly 50 years ago and dropped it in the 80s. :dunno: We’ll see if it gets picked back up. It’s actually pretty old technology... Honda didn’t just develop working versions... they sold them to the public. They licensed and shared it with other automakers. It’s old shelved tech. I do think it’s interesting that it’s being looked at again... but I still find it hard to believe something known about by all the major automakers would be dismissed for my whole lifetime if it had any chance of letting one automaker get the upper hand on their competition. That’s just the realist in me I guess.

https://global.honda/heritage/episodes/1972introducingthecvcc.html

Not sure what point you’re trying to make about your earlier bits... but your sporadic use of bold letters and differing font size is captivating. :thumbsup:
 

saiko21

Senior Member
First Name
Sai
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Threads
54
Messages
1,116
Reaction score
485
Location
Sacramento
Vehicle(s)
2019 Civic Si Sedan (Sold) , 2005 Toyota Corolla (Sold)
Country flag
Auxillary combustion chamber already exist in Diesel engines from way long back but for Gasoline engines it's little harder to control combustion. Now every manufacturer is trying to come back with it.

Whenever I see these kind of news and electric powered vehicles I always recollect the Motorcycle scene from I- Robot movie. That thing is dangerous it explodes....
 

Gruber

Senior Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
1,521
Location
TN
Vehicle(s)
2018 Honda Civic Sport Touring; 2009 Honda CR-V EX-L
Country flag
There is nothing wrong with burning fuel and sending CO2 in the air. CO2 is not a pollutant.

We already have a great CO2 capture technology. It's called photosynthesis and it doesn't require building gigantic industrial plants, but just plants. It's more efficient at removing CO2 than any other ridiculous CO2 capture (and storage underground :doh: :rofl:) schemes.

I capture CO2 around my house by growing grass and wild weeds, bushes, and trees. It's just amazing how rapidly some crazy weeds grow and expand. The dry part of all the biomass I hack constantly each summer is mostly carbon. All carbon in this biomass comes from the air.

Solar energy has no future on Earth. Covering the increasingly scarce and expensive surface with expensive to build and maintain solar panels with ridiculously low efficiency? To block the surface of this planet needed for plants? What a nonsense. Solar panels make sense on Mars, on a space station, for decorative house lighting and in a calculator or a watch. And that's pretty much it. A major amount of energy will never come from solar. Neither the PV kind solar nor light concentration thermal. Even less so from the ridiculous windmills. But people are attached to their delusions and most suffer from numbers phobia combined with the reality check aversion syndrome.

Delusions are defined as fixed, false beliefs that conflict with reality. Despite contrary evidence, a person in a delusional state can't let go of their convictions. 1 Delusions are often reinforced by the misinterpretation of events. Many delusions also involve some level of paranoia.
https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-delusion-4580458
 
Last edited:

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
There is nothing wrong with burning fuel and sending CO2 in the air. CO2 is not a pollutant.

We already have a great CO2 capture technology. It's called photosynthesis and it doesn't require building gigantic industrial plants, but just plants. It's more efficient at removing CO2 than any other ridiculous CO2 capture (and storage underground :doh: :rofl:) schemes.

I capture CO2 around my house by growing grass and wild weeds, bushes, and trees. It's just amazing how rapidly some crazy weeds grow and expand. The dry part of all the biomass I hack constantly each summer is mostly carbon. All carbon in this biomass comes from the air.

Solar energy has no future on Earth. Covering the increasingly scarce and expensive surface with expensive to build and maintain solar panels with ridiculously low efficiency? To block the surface of this planet needed for plants? What a nonsense. Solar panels make sense on Mars, on a space station, for decorative house lighting and in a calculator or a watch. And that's pretty much it. A major amount of energy will never come from solar. Neither the PV kind solar nor light concentration thermal. Even less so from the ridiculous windmills. But peple are attached to their delusions and most suffer from numbers phobia combined with the reality check aversion syndrome.



https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-delusion-4580458
Well... I must be delusional because I think I disagree with just about everything you said. :thumbsup:
 


charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
...except maybe expending energy to pump CO2 underground while still producing it droves. Better to limit it’s production I the first place. CO2 isn’t an issue in large quantities? I present you:
Honda Civic 10th gen Calif. mandating all cars sold by 2035 are zero-emission 3CCD45D7-66DF-40B9-B706-7655C823A4D7
 

Gruber

Senior Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Threads
2
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
1,521
Location
TN
Vehicle(s)
2018 Honda Civic Sport Touring; 2009 Honda CR-V EX-L
Country flag
...except maybe expending energy to pump CO2 underground while still producing it droves. Better to limit it’s production I the first place. CO2 isn’t an issue in large quantities? I present you:
3CCD45D7-66DF-40B9-B706-7655C823A4D7.jpeg
I also like popular science myths, but there is no connection whatever between Venus and Earth and no path that would lead for Earth to become Venus.
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I also like popular science myths, but there is no connection whatever between Venus and Earth and no path that would lead for Earth to become Venus.
You’re right. Not enough carbon and too far away from the sun. We’d just have to settle for higher temps, droughts, worse weather and rising sea levels. I’d just prefer better for my kids and theirs. The 400 ppm will be 600 by century’s end at the rate we’re going.

Just because something has worked well to get you are doesn’t mean you’ve got to keep doing it moving forward. We got fossil fuels to thank for our modern society... but this is the century we need to be developing and using other tools in our tool box. I’d really hate for that whole CO2 pumping thing to actually need to be a reality. I can’t imagine future generations building piles and expending all that energy to dump CO2 in the ground after we expended all the energy to dig it up and use it in the first place.
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
Never understood the Extremism of Zero-Carbon by 2050.

It's as absurd as an obese person saying they'll never eat again & blame "food" for their problems.

Ditto for people who condemn Cholesterol, Fat, etc. & avoid any food that has these.

It is unhealthy!!

People NEED Cholesterol & Fat, just not in excessive amounts.

There is no such thing as "Bad" Cholesterol. People's bodies NEED both HDL & LDL Cholesterol to function properly.

Problems occur when people go to the extremes on either side......Too Much or Too Little.

People can consume higher calories/fat/cholesterol & stay healthy if they do more Physical Exercise.

The same is true with "Zero-Carbon by 2050" with vehicles. It's the same Extremism Mindset.

We can reduce emissions without going to Zero & have a Healthier Environment than if we went to complete Zero.

We need a more Common-Sense approach to vehicle emissions. It's not a Black or White Scenario. Both extremes are Unhealthy!

One of the options, capturing CO2 & reusing it to make Fossil-Free Gasoline is completely Carbon-Neutral through its entire lifecycle. The same hydrocarbons are being reused every time.

It's like the person who eats higher calories/fat/cholesterol & balances it out with Physical Exercise.

At the end, it's that person who is going to be the healthiest. Same is true for Climate Change.
We certainly won’t be carbon neutral by 2050. I don’t think we’ll be there by 2150. Weaning ourselves down and putting less makes more sense than dirtying up to clean. That one plant you mentioned to capture a million tons... do you really think the best option is to build tens of thousands of those things and power them to take what we took the time to mine/pump out of the earth to pump back? To me, it seems super clunky.
 

charleswrivers

Senior Member
First Name
Charles
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
43
Messages
3,736
Reaction score
4,468
Location
Kingsland, GA
Vehicle(s)
'14 Odyssey, '94 300zx, 2001 F-150
Vehicle Showcase
1
Country flag
I’d like to throw out there... I’m not saying stop all fossil fuel use today. Tomorrow. In our lifetime. it can’t be done. We have invested enormous resources into power generation and infrastructure. I’m not saying be carbon neutral by 2050. It’s not realistic. Hell... 2150 isn’t realistic. I’m saying we should invest future resources and infrastructure in things other than fossil fuels... especially in the power generation side. All these EVs don’t make sense anyways if you’re powering them from an industry that relies on fossil fuels for over half its power.

We built the modern world with fossil fuel for a couple of centuries. I expect it’ll take at least that long to wean ourselves off. But for the folks in this century to dismiss it and stay the course because it worked and got us to this point is going to make stuff a lot harder. I can just imagine in the year 3000 with coastal cities flooded out from higher sea levels, higher temps, etc... them trying to build those CO2 ground packers and thinking we were a bunch of dicks.

There’s a balance between enjoying what we have and being happy those that came before us gotus to this point... but trying to change things so that our descendants get to enjoy a world hopefully as good as ours. Kind of in a “Not inheriting the earth from our ancestors but borrowing it from our descendants” kind of vibe.

Back to Cali... even I think they’re botching it. Pushing too hard. You can’t kill existing fossil infrastructure and make an unreliable grid if you haven’t replaced its capacity with whatever your good source is. And to the cars... I don’t think this 2035 executive order will work. It’ll get cancelled as a campaign promise to elect another guy. People don’t want to be told what to do. You’ve got to make a compelling, better product to provide them to win them as a consumer. I do think it’ll happen... but it has to be there to win them over and it’s not there yet... and even 2035 might be pushing it. We shall see.
Sponsored

 


 


Top