Surely implementing carbon capture at an industrial scale is far more efficient than expending energy transporting all that equipment in a space-constrained car.

@buscseik

2 ай бұрын

If we are talking about large scale carbon capture, the problem is, this technology does note exists. There were 8 attempts in US, all 8 failed eventually. 7 out of them only existed on paper.

@SuicideNeil

2 ай бұрын

It's not a viable technology at any currently possible scale- Thunderf00t did a great video on it last year, worth looking up to understand why this is just green-washing nonsense.

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

Yes. This video is an embarrassment. Even the industrial scale stuff is of marginal utility.

@MrAdopado

2 ай бұрын

Unfortunately (despite many attempts) successful carbon capture at an industrial scale has yet to be demonstrated! If/when this happens then I may agree with you.

@Obvsaninternetexpert

2 ай бұрын

@@SuicideNeil regardless of how well it works.... having it drive around rather then just be in a building is the height of stupid

Given the tiny amount of carbon that they capture, surely it would better to have them static (& maybe mounted near sources of CO2 like factory chimneys), rather than adding unnecessary mass to a moving EV?

@krugerdave

2 ай бұрын

Indeed, my thoughts exactly. Neat concept, but I can't see any reason to put the carbon capture system on a vehicle since the Carbon dioxide will come to any static system for free.

@briankuhl9314

2 ай бұрын

IMHO carbon capture is mostly useless everywhere. But a car that's already moving through the air, doesn't need to waste energy on a fan, so it's a passive system passing though some of the most polluted air in the planet. Yes, you can mount it in a chimney and let convection do a similar job, but you need a bigger chimney, and when you crunch the numbers, any alternative energy is better bang for the buck, than trying to capture 'some' carbon after you burn stuff. So as they say here "stop burning stuff"

@Cyrribrae

2 ай бұрын

Static CCS with point of capture is indeed the best version of CCS - simply because the concentration is highest where you're sucking. It still isn't good though. Now direct air capture does what this car does, but then ALSO has to run giant fans. And THAT'S what the fossil fuel industry thinks is going to keep them in the game for the long haul. It's not. Stop burning stuff.

@chrisking7603

2 ай бұрын

You're totally right, but at least the purchaser is empowered rather than requiring some action on their behalf.

@phillycheesetake

2 ай бұрын

@@Cyrribrae "best version of CCS" is an award which deserves the same prestige as tallest dwarf.

A tree captures 20 to 25kgs of C02 a year, I think you would be better off planting a tree and then turning it into Charcoal when the car is scrapped an burying it in your garden. Remember you have to lug the weight of the carbon capture device around with you when you drive and that will have it's own associated emissions. All the other stuff is good though and I hope they all get decent jobs working for car makers who take thier ideas onboard.

@colinwiseman

2 ай бұрын

"A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.2 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year." With 1.4bn cars on the road, we're going to need quite a few extra trees.

@colinwiseman

2 ай бұрын

@@OskarHersch we absolutely need more trees. Scotland has been planting like crazy and it's great. The whole of the UK needs to replant as many trees as we can to help stop the flooding that is getting worse each year 😔

@pauldenney7908

2 ай бұрын

@@colinwiseman Or a lot less ICE cars, probably both.

@colinwiseman

2 ай бұрын

@@pauldenney7908 zero ice ars will be a good start too 😀

@drunkenhobo8020

2 ай бұрын

@@colinwiseman Yeah, planting trees or _any_ form of carbon capture is just widdling in the ocean. You're not going to have any impact at all.

The panel gap gang will go bonkers over this car ;)

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

They'll be furious. It's clearly the only thing that matters, once you've decided if you're physically attracted to the car's shape of course, that's even more important to them. :D

The direction that Eindhoven University is directing its students in is exemplary. The Netherlands are certainly punching well above their weight in driving sustainability in urban environments, active transport & engineering

@glazedbeachbro3926

18 күн бұрын

What does any of that even mean? You work at this university?

I’d like to see this compared to an Aptera with all things considered, which of the two is more sustainable.

@jerrymolnar8010

2 ай бұрын

Me too

@drunkenhobo8020

2 ай бұрын

The Aptera of course - vapour is infinitely sustainable!

@evolv.e

2 ай бұрын

@@drunkenhobo8020 you can see them for yourself, sit inside them, or go for a ride in them. I have. Or do you not believe they exist?

@evolv.e

2 ай бұрын

@@drunkenhobo8020 they certainly exist far more than this “world’s most sustainable car” concept.

@John.0z

2 ай бұрын

Aptera, particularly when owned in a sunny location.

TU/e does it again! I continue to be so proud of the students in my adopted home city.

Good to raise technologies for debate but everything I read about carbon capture makes me suspect it’s another attempt to continue burning stuff.

@ferkeap

2 ай бұрын

We will always have burning or chemical processes which will need capture. Yet we also want to capture carbon that already contributing. Yes also with more trees. There is not a simple single way.

@johnn17golf

2 ай бұрын

You are absolutely right. Carbon Capture is nothing but a tool for polluters to do nothing and claim they are green. It is totally useless in industrial mix.

I think cars lasting longer is the true secret to sustainability the fact that most new cars are made with a built in redundancy so after 5 years they start to break and cannot be repaired by the owner is a true problem. As a family we have an EV but I also have classic cars that are 40 and 50 years old which I think in some ways are more sustainable.

What is the energy cost of the process? Air drag at least? Does it really have a net positive effect?

Although hydrogen fuel cell cars are not well suited to personal vehicles, they also clean the air as they drive because the intake air for the fuel cell has to be extremely clean. Much cleaner than would be sufficient for an ICE vehicle, for example. So they typically have HEPA filters that filter out pollutants as they drive (though probably not much carbon). But as I said, HFC cars are not the answer for most people.

Intresting work, cant wait to see new developments :)

I hope that everyone here remembers that this technology is in an initial stage currently. I think that with greater development and research, carbon capture and the function of this vehicle will become more efficient.

Something similar is being done by one of the startups i personally know, they made a gel which can absorb carbon which later is broken down to create solid carbon ( this is dumb down version) they have already deployed their products in multiple factories and facilities to reduce their carbon emissions.

Where does this CO2 emission estimation come from? 376g/km is even bad for an ice car. Ice cars do around 250g/km. If I take 20kwh avg consumption on 100km, and calculate 260g/kwh (avg EU co2 emission/ kwh) 20*260/100= 52g/kwh. (and EVs being charged usually overnight, when electricity network is cleanest during the day, so even this is overestimation)

@nixx5490

2 ай бұрын

Their emissions are probably wrong or at least aren't meaningful, but of course we can't just include emissions of the grid, battery production is a huge part

@WyndStryke

2 ай бұрын

Also don't forget that the CO2 figures for an ICE vehicle don't take into account the well-to-wheel cost, only the post-refinement cost.

@drunkenhobo8020

2 ай бұрын

I just checked and one of the most wasteful new cars available - the twin turbo V8 626 bhp Range Rover Sport SV gets 282 g/km. I have no idea how they worked out a Tesla getting significantly worse.

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

Maybe the figure was producing the car, driving the car, providing the energy in the first place combined? Your total emissions is the real way to measure the car's impact, not your driving emissions. Just like the EV being more expensive doesn't matter at all, if the total cost of ownership is lower (except not being able to buy one in the first place, but few people buy new ICE cars for the same reason). Bear in mind, Fully Charged focused on the carbon capture, but the entire car was about reducing it's environmental impact through using different technology. It wasn't a carbon capture project.

Could the system be used to remove co2 from gas fueled vehicles?

@burtis8925

2 ай бұрын

Probably yes but at what cost to retro fit it? Also what weight is the system as that could increase your fuel consumption, tyre and parts wear making it redundant

Don't forget to mention that in addition to the impact of EVs in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they also clean up the air we breath in our cities and suburbs. With as many people dying each year, as a direct result of ICE vehicle emissions as from road accidents, this EV benefit should not be overlooked or underestimated. Keep up the good work!

@MrAdopado

2 ай бұрын

@@nudgetravel You can do your own research on this for your own country. At least if you do that you won't doubt the veracity of the claim. At least for the UK the deaths from vehicle emissions (not from CO2 specifically) are several times greater than deaths from road accidents.

@fatbobe1986

2 ай бұрын

CO2 from cars does not kill people. Other gases might cause harm, but CO2 does not.

@MrAdopado

2 ай бұрын

@@fatbobe1986 It doesn't kill people directly unless in very high concentrations ... in fact the point of having a catalytic converter is to increase the CO2 emissions by reducing the carbon monoxide which is more immediately poisonous. But excess CO2 in the atmosphere means that people die from the consequences of climate change ... crop failures=starvation, floods, fires et etc

@MrAdopado

2 ай бұрын

@@nudgetravel I always need to do research and am struggling to find evidence to support your point of view.

@fatbobe1986

2 ай бұрын

@@MrAdopado but as a result of industrialisation, less people die now than at any other point in history from famine, extreme weather etc. So more people are not dying as a result of CO2 emissions

More videos with Imogen, thanks.

cool project!

I had an idea. Is it possible for someone to develop system of super houses. My house has a 200 square metre roof. If that was completely covered in panels it would generate enough to power 5 homes for 20 years. How logistically possible is that for the grid to accept that. Does wiring need to be upgraded etc. Factories have much larger roof tops and would be ideal as well.

@t1n4444

2 ай бұрын

Why not Google commercial/industrial buildings literally slathered in PV panels ... nor just glass panels but shingles, pantiles etc, etc . And the cladding materials sheathing high rise. It's all old stuff mate. Plus of course high rise buildings constructed of timber. Start Googling Japan and Canada. Again, all old stuff cobbled up years ago. Probably saved a lot of concrete. There again you might consider Googling concrete chemistry ... concrete sequesters CO2, for years.

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

Passivehaus Plus is a standard which includes a target of generating a certain amount of power more than your house uses. Meaning each one built, supplies power to their neighbours (the grid, it doesn't mean literally). So yeah, that's a thing and yes, you need a lot of solar, possibly batteries (which you want anyway) and a grid connection that is appropriate and yes all buildings can do it. The real development is the products that are cladding and roof tiles that aim to reach cost parity with normal cladding or tiles which means there's no reason for an architect not to use them. All new builds should certainly use such options, retrofitting older buildings is more expensive but potentially pays off fairly quickly.

@markumbers5362

2 ай бұрын

@@jonevansauthor I am in Sydney Australia it would cost about $40,000 ( $28,000 US) to do a 40kw array with optimisers . It would generate about 125 kw per day on average. Unfortunately though the grid will not allow more than a 6 kw inverter. I would love to do it though.

Looked like a great job

Even if this technology only made the car 0.5% more expensive, given the miniscule carbon savings I don't think it would be worth it. Focussing on making EVs as cheap as possible and displacing ICEVs as quickly as possible seems far mor important to me...

Goed gedaan gasten.

Hmm, research project I know, but need to aim a bit higher than those numbers.

some dodgy use of statistics here. we started with a range of CO2 emissions for a tesla. then total CO2 emissions that could be captured after ?30Km for the carbon capture device. then how many vehicles globally. then the annual emissions of the UK. if this is how you present the numbers, it's because the numbers aren't that good.

it can't beat Aptera in efficiency, but the Aptera probably couldn't capture the same amount of carbon because of the space constraints. ultimately this is something to fix on the production side, 0.5% reduction is worth it, but if we can build cars that are 20% more efficient in the first place, the reduction in emissions production already beats it out. and even better, is to only produce the powertrain, and use the already existant cars. i'm not hopeful it will ever happen if profit is our only motive, but it is the best for the environment.

please can someone explain this to me because at the moment it seems like this whole carbon capture on the car thing is so stupid and probably would produce more Co2 than is captures based on the fact it would reduce the range of the car, it would require transport to somewhere using energy to then be put in an oven which would require energy to then release the carbon to then be used in greenhouses? not to mention the energy required to build the carbon capture devices in the first place?

@davepermen

2 ай бұрын

As they talk about it, they're aware of it, and for sure had that all in their calculations. In the end, once a grid is 100% green, emission free transportation will not add any co2 anyways.

@lawrencehowes7447

2 ай бұрын

@@davepermen even still the carbon capture on the front of a car seems to be just semi greenwashing excersise when it will reduce efficiency and could just be static somewhere else , also the storage of the captured carbon would be am issue and the amount caoturdd over all would be so miniscule on a global scale that it just seems pointless, i appreciate your responce though :)

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

I would love to hear actual detail about the carbon capture technology. One assumes it's either light and cheap, and doesn't affect energy consumption much, replaces a system that needs to exist anyway, or is a waste of time. For instance, if there's a filter that prevents hayfever sufferers being utterly miserable, but can capture carbon as the air blows through it anyway, great. Maybe that can be done at cost weigh parity. If the capture is done with a 50Kg unit that drops the range by 100 miles, and costs £5,000 it probably won't help. But yeah, why is it better than nothing? Why is pineapple leather a good thing? Why not no leather at all? The best part is no part, after all so the most sustainable car is one with as little weight as possible, and no frippery on it. Does it need a dash people want to fondle because they love pineapple leather and the way it feels, and makes them feel? No, and stop starting car reviews with dashboard fondling while we're at it, KZread, it's disturbing ;)

Carbon Capture is not viable on any currently possible scale- it's the worst kind of greenwashing nonsense imaginable.

@FranciscoNogueira

2 ай бұрын

It's painful to watch this on this channel. They lost their minds...

@SuicideNeil

2 ай бұрын

@@FranciscoNogueira Yep. The title is clickbait, the framing is dishonest- this could have been an interesting video about about blue-sky thinking but instead it's presented in a very intellectually dishonest fashion and promotes ideas that are non-starters.

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

@@SuicideNeil Indeed. I was very disappointed in this one too. I don't know who writes these scripts but they need to get a grip. The vehicle itself is interesting, but that was such a fatuous take it's quite hard to believe.

@noitalfed

2 ай бұрын

@@xxwookeyI will assume you are correct until proven otherwise.

@hkad6252

2 ай бұрын

But dont we need CCS in the end as one of many more solutions? Even if we get carbon neutral tomorrow, where should the CO2 of the last 150 years of emission go? Trees emit their carbon when they die.

the carbon capture would make a bigger difference attached to something stationary that burns fossil fuels like a power station. Moving it is just unnecessarily increasing the g/km of the vehicle, and lowering the efficacy of the carbon capture because the concentration of CO2 is lower in the air as the car drives than at a stationary location that it is burned.

On the basis of my tailpipe emissions nobody invites me anywhere so I drive less.

Neat idea. It's a start...

Thanks

The best carbon capturing system in the planet a trees and then look a lot better than any vehicle

Determination and humility shine in every video. Keep thriving.

@stephen300o6

2 ай бұрын

I presume this is an AI response.

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

@@OskarHersch It is a bit bizarre. Imogen is an engineer, so either she really didn't think much about what was in this script or they are embarrassingly underestimating their audience. I was cringing pretty hard in that first section about reducing CO2/km by 0.07g. What foolishness!

This is just a cosmetic accessory for advertising the card

It doesn't clean the air though, CO2 is a natural component of air. If it absorbed particulates or other chemicals responsible for smog then that would be useful and sensible incorporating into vehicles. Carbon capture is a separate issue and better dealt with in other ways, for example forests.

@darthsirrius

2 ай бұрын

Yes, it's normal to have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact it would be incredibly BAD if there was ZERO CO2 in the atmosphere. But there's currently an excess, meaning more than what is considered normal, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And since we're adding more and more to the atmosphere, more than the natural processes of nature can remove in a normal carbon cycle, it would be considered a pollutant. So removing it in, addition to reducing the amount we are adding, would help balance that equilibrium back to a point that will keep the Earth habitable for most species without mass migrations, suffering, or extinctions. It would be really rad if carbon capture worked about 10,000% better than it currently does heh.

I like it 👍

I mean, new technologies and innovations needs to start at some point. Even if it isnt that effective, its still a nice thing to try out.

What % of CO² per km is removed by the filter

I think all the mathematics used to calculate how many kilograms of carbon are used in production is not really that possible and any figure will be wrong. When you look at the metal used, currently the mining industry are slowly moving over electric digging machine, and with the power supply for the mine as the price of green energy has dropped it's going to be more common for that to be solar or wind. Transporting the raw materials will become greener and greener, smelting the metal will involve more hydrogen smelting works. And then most electric car factories use green power. So the figures just can't be calculated and whatever the figures are they will change.

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

It's fair to say it'll change over time, but we don't really need to worry about that too much because the gap is so huge. It'll take a long time to replace all the JCBs with electric ones that are new, or retrofit old ones. The biggest areas we can save in are well known. If we could save 100kgs/year with current ice/ev cars being swapped, it doesn't matter if in five years that's averaging 80kgs or 120 kgs because of changing technology. Just like counting steps. 10,000 steps is a made up marketing gimmick for the inventors of the pedometer to sell them. But while studies may show 6,000 steps is enough for a significant improvement in health, 10,000 is still better, and 15,000 is better still. Although the return is diminishing, the message is still, do more steps to get healthier. I don't think having continually updated, micro-managed figures will help us achieve anything. If anything, politicians will say, 'Why do we need to spend the money on carbon capture, when things are less bad than they were?' Plus, our population is skyrocketing to at least 11 billion from 8 billion. We're going to produce more and more total emissions for a long time as a result, so even if steel production gets greener, we need that to continue.

Surely the energy required to do the carbon capture will ultimately be coming from the car's battery, either directly or indirectly as a result of increased weight or worse aerodynamics. So either way the car will be less efficient, likely cancelling out any tiny benefit. The energy and money saved by NOT employing this onboard technology could be better utilised elsewhere, perhaps removing CO2 where it is being produced.

Thought provoking, if not massively practical.

No such thing as a free lunch with carbon capture. These filters add air resistance and the laws of thermodynamics means that overcoming this will be worse than not having capture at all.

I guess the technology exhibited here will be the genesis for all car companies to take notice of and improve - just like what the leaf and Tesla did for electric cars. Innovation in carbon capture has got to be a good thing - improves the atmosphere to enable me to ride to the gym😊

Not just cars. Everything.

FINALLY! A car that runs on 100% pure greenwashing.

I love this channel, there are many videos where I learn stuff and get good informations from upcoming EVs and tech. But this is bullshit. "Every little bit helps" is a lousy way to bypass the fact that it's not efficient. "If every vehicle had it": it will never be the case, "0.5% of the UK emission" so almost nothing relative to the scale of the world. The part where the ZEM guy said "and we can release the CO2 again [in] a greenhouse or something useful"... not much creative uses for 2.1M tonnes. Here's the logical take: wanna capture CO2 and use it well ? Plant trees. Rebuild the amazon forest. We don't need another mass produced marketed crap to try solving this issue.

So many bot / AI generated comments for this video it’s crazy! Maybe they think nerds like us will fall for the fake user pic.s ……

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

pictures of bottoms (bots). How very peculiar. Why set up a bot making pics of bots to put mediocre bot-comments on videos?

3D printed? Link to the .stl files? 😁

Ahh, the Twin Cities of London & Harrogate!

0:0 rip headphone users lol

The math isn't quite right. If you're going to put one of the carbon capture devices in every car, even the ICE ones, you could put an additional device on the back of the ICE cars to capture CO2 from much more CO2-dense air, making the capture device much more efficient in addition to the device at the front of the car.

Carbon capture is right up there with hydrogen fuel cells in the nonsense technology zone. And presumably we are talking about carbon dioxide capture?

When marketing over hyped a product!?!

BTW... I worked on a CO2 capture device ... and it worked, but used a lot of power. Oh well, better to plant an extra tree in the back yard.

2kg of carbon dioxide per 30,000km

This is crazy. Why not have larger, static filters along roadways and near to factories, instead of reducing the efficiency of an EV by adding extra mass to carry around? Did anyone factor in the other extra cost to the vehicle owner, if a filter is fitted, and the cost of maintaining that filter? Make the factory owners and oil companies pay the up front costs instead of directly adding another burden to the driver. Maybe then the producers will be moved to be less polluting in the first place.

anybody remember the riversimple?

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

We do. Nice technology, way too radical business plan to succeed. Have they gone bust yet?

@LoneWolf-wp9dn

2 ай бұрын

no... they say they will never sell any... they said a pilot batch of 20 cars will go out to locals to test but i think that was over a year ago... it seems they are surviving on grants from the wales government @@xxwookey

Panel gaps look a bit dodgey.

Every EV that runs on clean energy is partially cleaning the air with its AC 😅

Carbon negative cars are genius.. take it to mass production

If every car in the world carried a carbon capture filter, including petrol ones, they would have to expend additional fuel to move their filters' mass on every journey, including by burning additional petrol.

@stefanpredl6849

2 ай бұрын

Actualy they produce more Co² to make the exhaust less toxic for people who would die from all the nox

The cleanest grid in the US is the State of Washington. In which we are 70% hydro-electric and the rest is solar wind and Nuclear fission and soon ( once the cost of the fuel for fusion goes down) actual fusion. So bring that tech here!!

@drunkenhobo8020

2 ай бұрын

You're going to be waiting a while on fusion. Would be surprised if anybody alive today sees it enter commercial use.

A green concept, with low capture values and subsequent returns even if adopted for mass use. Extending car life is not good for sales, service departments and may restrict future design improvements due to prior design. Or lost sales due to new and innovative approaches.

We have got to stay optimistic and focus on research. that's what you and the fully charged team do so fantastically! Thank you!

What percentage of drivers (anywhere) drive 22,000 km per year? ... 1.4 billion vehicles worldwide capturing 0.5% of (just) the UK's carbon emissions -- not the best sales pitch. ... Make cars last as long as possible by encouraging the owners to MAINTAIN their cars. That's it. ALL cars can last forever. It is the owner who doesn't care enough to make it last and lets it rot. And it is the owner who wants something new. So, make new cars prohibitively expensive -- even for wealthy people. Apply a sales tax based on income or net worth. (Yes, I know that sounds crazy, but that's what you're going to need to do to discourage people from replacing their cars.)

Well it isn't capturing much carbon.

Oh yay, this is hunky-dory, but what if we don't push personal transportation at all? We have that enough already. Instead focusing on public transportation. And for carbon capture, there are plants, doing it perfectly.

That intro is quite exaggerated. Love new tech, but with a level head thinking is much better. A modular car sounds fantastic, that does not mean the vehicle “lasts a lifetime”. Thats not how that works. Also i am very curious to see these guys approach on modularity, as up to now, “modular” is just a buzz word. The filter needs further looking into though, as that is a serious claim, but never explained to what and whose cost that would be.

Planting trees, which can capture quite a lot of carbon, would be a much easier and more beneficial way of cleaning the air. We should be planting billions of trees around the world, especially in industrialized areas.

The uk has reduced its carbon output by the most of the g7 countries. The amount we have saved in total in the last 11 years was used by china in 140 days. They have cheap reliable energy and we get shafted by a load by the politicians who belive net zero is a good idea. Whilst NOAA just keep changing the data to fit the agenda.

@drunkenhobo8020

2 ай бұрын

China produces more renewable energy than the rest of the world combined.

This *might* be the 'greenest' EV... but only if you presume there is enough 'green' recycled cooking oil to mass produce it, etc... too many of its materials are technically-green, but not available in volume (and we wouldn't *want* them available in volume, tbh... they're 'waste' products, and it would be better to reduce their supply rather than increase it) That said, this does highlight / emphasise the inefficiency of CO2 removal.... if all the vehicles in the world were using this tech, they'd remove just 0.5% of the *UK* emissions (and we've been cutting our emissions already)... and this is also still as efficient (or more efficient) than 'commercial' CO2 extractors, simply because it's using the movement of the vehicle (which would happen regardless) to 'force' air into the filter... it's not having to use 'extra' energy, unlike the industrial units

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

It's easier to make the recyclable bit with something other than cooking oil, than to do what you suggest - reduce cooking oil waste. That pretty much entails solving the obesity epidemic, food waste in general, and the undeniable fact that fried food tastes better than most other foods. But by all means solve obesity, it'd also have a massive impact on the environment :D As for cooking oil in the UK, we do have literal power stations fuelled with it. There's more being collected than people realise. Recycling it into plastic makes sense, if we need that plastic, and/or it's more efficient than burning it for energy.

Remove the carbon from the fuel before burning. Do not mix carbon with oxygen.

A business that can not grow past the startup stage after 5 years is deemed a failure. This is all fun but if it cannot make it into the general market, what good is it?

And how much carbon is needed to produce the capture device and operating the oven needed to release the co2 later on?

Hang on - 0.07g of 256g. Just put 3,600 of them on the car?

Whilst there is no debate amongst the intelligent, there is still plenty of false “balance” peddled as debate and believed by many :(

Has anyone every counted the carbon footprint of all the Legacy ICE Automaker's PARTS SUPPLIERS?? VW HAS 40,000 seperate parts suppliers and many of them from China .. Parts that have barcodes , plastic bags, boxes and warehouses etc.. .. ICE has way more parts in them than in EVs.. If we are to compare these vehicles to fossil fuel burners we should make sure we have as much DATA as possible!

I love the fully charged show, and EVs, but the numbers here dont make sense. Surely just carrying around the system would add weight to the vehicle and reduce the already tiny co2 capture. You will spend slightly more electric which unless your running solar only, will add co2. The whole carbon capture thing is just horse shit anyway, and also so is "zero carbon" evs. Almost nothing is zero carbon. We should just be honest and say, low carbon, and cleaner for the local environment. The truth is that we have already done to much damage to the world in many ways. It is going to take a very long time to fix things unfortunately. And right now we are still making things worse overall. Sorry to be negative. I want to see changes going forward and i think we all need to do what we can to better ourselves, plus im a nerd and love all the ev tech. I just want to seal more realistic outlooks and this car concept is not that. I know its just a concept for ideas going forward so i guess in that way its fine, it just feels very greenwashy to me.

Thank you for sharing this incredible story! In the very beginning of the video you state that by switching from an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICE) to and electric vehicle (EV) can reduce your emissions even on the dirtiest of electric grids in as little as a year! ( Now I agree with you.) Would you please be so kind as to share links to the study or studies that have helped you draw that conclusion and support your agreement? So, I can learn more. Thanks again.

Why put additional weight on a vehicle when this carbon capture technology could be stationary and do the same job, actually, using the same technology with a larger stationary machine would probably be more efficient and cheaper at capturing CO2, and not carrying that machine around means the car will drive more efficiently. Frankly though, we should ban privately owned cars entirely in cities and towns and build a solid transit network.

If every car on the planet had this tech, it would reduce pollution by 0.5% of the UK's annua emissions ? How much pollution would be created manufacturing/transporting these filters ? Pathetic 😂😂😂😂😂

Come to the Po Valley to drive 😂 so at least you can clean up the air!! But don't expect the Italian government to pay you because they don't have the money.

@t1n4444

2 ай бұрын

Then the Italian government must raise taxes straight away. And keep the poor off the roads altogether ... their cars will almost certainly be defective, no insurance and no driving licence. In exactly the same way as we see in UK. Just as well HMG are social engineering the poor off the roads ... and onto public transport ... and saving them hundreds in fine for defective vehicles, no MOT, no road tax, no insurance, duff tyres, DUI, driving nicked vehicles etc, etc, etc. Just the facts of life.

Nice thought but rather gimmicky.

Why move the carbon capture around? That is expensive. Make it. Take it outside. Repeat indefinitely.

Incredible research for an incredible future!

What is being done to reverse the tyre dust pollution that all vehicles produce all that currently ends up in the sea and ultimately the food chain.

@xxwookey

2 ай бұрын

Building cycle lanes, and making better public transport (trains, trams, buses) , especially in car-dependent places like the US. Someone did invent a tyre-hoover to go on cars next to the tyre, but I don't suppose that's going to work very well in the real world.

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

Good topic for a video. I'm sure Michelin are right on that, when they're not out eating at fancy restaurants.

I love it when the engineers get involved in the comments and nitpick a video to death. They raise interesting points and keep presenters honest. To me, the best thing in the video was the "forever car" idea - basically building a vehicle platform where every part lasts as long as economically possible, and engineered to allow for new parts to be installed easily. How many different EV chassis platforms do we really need? Why not standardize them, build them to last 500 years, and then build an ecosystem around them?

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

Completely reasonable. I'm much more interested in the other stuff they did than the carbon capture. I'm pretty sure this is just car design students of some kind, doing a thesis project on what they can now. It's quite a sport number, so is it supposed to be aerodynamic? How cheap can they do the solar now? Did they find a way to put solar in that's cheaper than what Aptera is doing? Solar on cars will be great, once it hits cost parity with another panel option and is just as strong/flexible/whatever properties the panels need. Can we get a lot of it on a car without bending it (difficult) and while keeping the car aerodynamic? Is it better to make the panels bend around every curve to get full coverage, even if that's more expensive? It's a 2 seater so to me, they've solved 2-3 of the biggest problems with most trips - which is the 3-4 seats the driver isn't using and are just dead weight. More 2 seat EVs with no wasted space would be good. Can they strip out more weight by losing any part of the dash that is neither storage, structure, nor part of the user interface?

Aptera's car will be much more effective at removing carbon emissions

I think it's increasingly unethical to call a vehicle "zero emissions" that has tires

How can you remove carbon. Its the most stable atom around!!

Yeah, just get a bicycle instead.

Still better panel gaps than a Tesla.

Skipped right over the details

250g co2/km ? Those number are even higher than most gas cars it’s absurd

@rogerfinch7651

2 ай бұрын

250g is over the lifetime, inc making the car and driving for 12 years. The gas cars figure you see advertised 100g or whatever is just the driving element .. not the making, shipping, petrol shipping, drilling, refining.. honestly, you think EVs are worse? 😵‍💫

@markcayer4859

2 ай бұрын

"A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.2 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO2." According to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

@nixx5490

2 ай бұрын

@@rogerfinch7651 of course I think EVs are better I just think those numbers are wrong And I'm not dumb I think in 2024 everyone understand the concept of a life cycle analysis 12 years doesn't help us a lot, we need a mileage, but I just think it's an error Maybe they are taking a really low mileage, with a dirty grid and put km where they wanted to say milles... That's weird We won't ever know as there is not sources

@buscseik

2 ай бұрын

@@rogerfinch7651they usually count 170k km avg lifetime, and estimate 10tonnes (+6 tonnes for the battery) of CO2 for making the car. So, 16 000 000 / 170 000 = 94 g, so the manufacturing only counts 94g extra on 1 km. That numbers in the video are incorrect. reality is around or under 50g/km without manufacturing. (Manufacturing also slightly tricky. The expected lifetime of a modern ice car is 170k km, but old Nissan Leaf can do 240k km with the very old battery, a modern battery will do 500k in average, so technically as far as I see this also should be factored in, one electric car will replace 3 ice cars in life span.)

@logicalChimp

2 ай бұрын

@@buscseik The video *also* included the CO2 emissions from charging the vehicle from the grid - no discount assumed for home-charging on solar, etc

Reduce the weight of every vehicle on the planet by 100KG and you would achieve a greater reduction of pollution.

This is a fundamentally idiotic idea. You want to do green things? Start with overall efficiency.

Got to say that I'm more than a little disappointed in this breathless nonsense, which is not to your usual high standards. No car ever "pays back" the emissions from manufacture, they simply keep accruing a net emissions burden. This is why people think it's better to keep driving old bangers than swapping to new cars. Direct air capture is a fantasy, whether in micro distributed systems or centralised. The energy requirements are far, far better spent on eliminating a source of emissions than remediation of historic ones.

So they made Atmos...... As long as we have UNIT on speed dial this should be fine

A single fully loaded flight of a Boeing 757 one-way NY to LA dumps 236 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's that.

@jonevansauthor

2 ай бұрын

A problem that has a solution already, which is electric planes. But also isn't important, because planes create almost no pollution compared to cars, and there is zero chance that we are going to massively increase our number of flights. Plus, high speed rail is going to reduce the utility of flying anyway. People flying on planes being bad, is just fossil fuel's personal carbon budget red herring to make us feel guilty, so that we think it's our fault and not their malfeasance. It's like apologising for bumping into the pickpocket, and then being happy that that nasty plastic wallet was stolen and you can get something sustainable instead.