Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, June 28, 2014

Producing carbon dioxide is an unavoidable part of burning fuel in cars. The problem with this of course is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. And the more cars there are on the road, the more sources of this greenhouse gas there are. The concept of carbon dioxide capturing has been theorized for a while now, but researchers at Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil are starting to take it seriously, writes Antony Ingram of GreenCarReports. Using 20 percent carbon dioxide capture on a 20 mpg vehicle could give it CO2 emissions equivalent to an existing 37 mpg vehicle. "When you fill up your car, the CO2 would be extracted as the fuel goes in," Ingram explains. "The trouble then is deciding how to manage such a system -- and potentially, how much that might cut from the cost of the fill-up, since CO2 is a trade-able resource used in beverage processing and industry."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Why capture it? They gonna put it in jail for life?

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-28 06:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"When you fill up your car, the CO2 would be extracted as the fuel goes in," Ingram explains.

Ok Ignatz, why don't they just extract the CO2 when they fill up the gas truck, or at the processing plant?

Why does the consumer have to deal with it with the extra cost added to the car.

rwd

#2 | Posted by rightwingdon at 2014-06-28 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals should connect their Prius tail pipe to a length of garden hose and run it into the window. Two problems fixed! Pollution reduced and organic material increased and stress on the planet reduced. I really should be getting paid for this ideas.

#3 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-28 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals should connect their Prius tail pipe to a length of garden hose and run it into the window. Two problems fixed! Pollution reduced and organic material increased and stress on the planet reduced. I really should be getting paid for this ideas.

#3 | Posted by paneocon

Yeah! Those people who are trying to save the planet are such LOSERS!

Real men drive giant trucks and don't care about the future.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 07:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#4 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I appreciate the invitation to move this conversation in a real and meaningful direction.

Act Locally, Wish Globally
President Barack Obama's plan to issue a presidential fiat requiring that states reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 percent will not affected by the rulings.

Gina McCarthy described the issue in the habitual progressive language of crusade: "We have a moral obligation to act," she said.

The United States is, according to the Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, responsible for about 14 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions, not bad for a country that produces 22 percent of the world's economic output. The generation of electricity, according to the EPA, is the source of just under one-third of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions -- 32 percent, to be precise. Given the trends in the rest of the world, especially in China and India, this reduction, if achieved, would be minuscule by global standards, 30 percent of 32 percent of 14 percent of global emissions, or about 1.3 percent.

It also ignores the fact that fossil fuels are a mobile commodity; cut coal consumption in the United States, with its relatively clean-burning power plants, and you are very likely only subsidizing coal consumption in other parts of the world with dirtier plants. There is no getting around the economic and political realities of the issue.

If we really believe the EPA administrator's rhetoric -- that we have a "moral obligation" to prevent global warming -- then we should be asking ourselves some very difficult questions: How big of a permanent reduction in the U.S. standard of living are we prepared to accept? Mexico levels? Uganda levels? How many poor people in Asia and Africa, rounded to the nearest 10 million, are we willing to see starve to death in this crusade? (Agriculture and the transportation, processing, and refrigeration of food are significant sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.)

What national economic price are we willing to pay for cuts that are negligible from the relevant global point of view, cuts that will have no meaningful effect on anything except the self-satisfaction of those who see global warming as a moral question rather than a scientific and economic question?

www.nationalreview.com

#5 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-28 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I studied Geology at PSU for 4 years, stratigraphy and volcanology to be specific. I have been an outdoors enthusiast since my father first took me camping as a toddler. I grew up on a farm which is the sharp end of the stick on environmentalism. I live an environmental responsible life and own a high fuel economy car and built and live in a geothermal house with super insulation so I'm immune to implications that I'm a Real men driving giant trucks that don't care about the future.
My time around mining has shown me the real cost of pollution and living in PA I understand the acid rain issues of industrialization. I'm also a pragmatist and understand that good environmental policy and industry can cohexist. When I see some good environmental policy, I'll be sure to point it out. When I see a progressive power grab I will also point it out.

#6 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-28 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I see some good environmental policy, I'll be sure to point it out. When I see a progressive power grab I will also point it out.

#6 | Posted by paneocon

The you should point out the grants and loans the government makes to green energy startups. You should point out limiting coal use and promoting renewable sources. You should basically point out the OPPOSITE of the republican party platform, which still is stuck in denialism and drill baby drill. Or now frack baby frack.

And you should explain how trying to preserve the environment in any way is a progressive power grab. Do trees get to vote all of a sudden?

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"When I see some good environmental policy, I'll be sure to point it out"

You want to get rid of all subsidies for all energy sources?

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-28 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You want to get rid of all subsidies for all energy sources?
#9 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Only the stupid ones that try to pick winners. I believe in research grants but I draw the line on direct loans to any business. Isn't that why we bailed out the banks?

#11 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-06-28 10:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Only the stupid ones that try to pick winners. "

That didn't answer the question. Do you want to get rid of all subsidies for all energy sources? Yes or no?

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-06-28 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

When I see some good environmental policy, I'll be sure to point it out. When I see a progressive power grab I will also point it out.

#6 | Posted by paneocon

Good Stuff. Unfortunately, there are some of each when it comes to cars and energy policy.

capturing co2 at the car is not the answer. this is just an inefficient Band-Aid to keep using gasoline burning cars. Since we are not going to stop using fossil fuels in our lifetime, the immediate answer is to use cars that produce no co2, i.e. electric and fuels cells.

this doesn't stop the co2 production per unit of energy used by each car, put it places that co2 production at the power plants. then the economy of scale can be used to capture it at that power plant.

We have the technology to make all this happen right now and it doesn't harm any industry. Car companies can slowly phase in electric cars and phase out gasoline cars. The only thing that needs to change is the culture of people's thinking and the corruption of powerful lobbyists.

We are not going to stop using oil, coal and natural gas until they are no longer viable sources of energy (maybe 100-200 years). It's not too early to start planning for that.

Just because you can't build a house in one day is no reason not to start building it today, for future use.

#15 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-06-29 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

capturing co2 at the car is not the answer.

There is no single answer. There are 1,000 answers. Capturing CO2 in cars is a smart idea to tackle as we transition to cars that don't produce any.

#16 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-29 08:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah! Those people who are trying to save the planet are such LOSERS!

Real men drive giant trucks and don't care about the future.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

You finaly got something right.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-29 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Better yet, capture the Whitehouse Gas CO2 emissions....

#20 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-29 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

"When I see some good environmental policy, I'll be sure to point it out. When I see a progressive power grab I will also point it out."

Great. We'll just sit back and wait for you to decide what is and what is not a good environmental policy, especially considering your ridiculous views on politics and their effect on the rest of your views about just about everything.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

My friend and my self have something that we put on a car or diesel truck that you can breath the exaust pipes and you will not smell any co at all I tell my friends to smell the exaust pipes and they think I am nut but when the put their heads down and actually stuff there noses in close to the pipes when the car or truck when it is running they smell nothing. No more black smoke. A lot of the newer cars we have a problem with the ECM and the 14-1 air ratio. When it is steped up to 25-30. To 1 the o2 sensor shuts the ECM down to a fail safe mode. But we will get it soon!

#22 | Posted by Pawnansell at 2014-06-30 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort