

CO2ube – Carbon Dioxide Filtration System - ngoel36
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/105742033/co2ube-the-worlds-first-carbon-dioxide-filtration

======
WiseWeasel
I couldn't find any information on the expected performance of the device,
including the absolute and relative quantities of CO2 removed from the exhaust
stream in various climates (even if they're resistant to high exhaust
temperatures, I'd expect a good freeze to kill off any algae). How much of an
impact is this product expected to have, and what are its limitations? What
assumptions are made on mileage driven to give it a two-month lifespan?

------
incorporated
Good luck mate :)

------
rjohnk
Hasn't everyone at one time thought of attaching a small tree or bush to their
exhaust pipe (of course, we know it wouldn't do much)? This is the exact same
thing, although with much more thought put into it.

------
ams6110
Needs some help on the design side. The thing looks like it was made out of
plumbing connectors sourced at the Home Depot.

So basically it's using algae to convert CO2 to sugar. Great. What happens to
the sugar when it's disposed of in the environment? It breaks down, releasing
the CO2...

~~~
Someone
I don't think that is a valid argument. In theory, you could burn it to power
your car and have this thing convert it again, ad infinitum.

I don't see how this thing would work, though. Whatever you do, if you burn a
kilogram of gas, a kilogram of stuff comes out. What comes out of this thing,
and where does it store it? From the reactions, I see that over half of it
must be either sodium carbonate or sugar (rounding down significantly; the
sugar from the reaction already has thre times the oxygen of the oxygen coming
out, and the sodium carbonate has 50% more oxygen than the water), if this
handles all exhaust gases.

Also, you will need two sodium atoms to capture one carbon atom. How much
sodium would that be over 6-8 weeks? Where is it stored?

Finally, I notice that the FAQ does not answer the question how much this
process decreases your CO2 emissions. The cynic/realist in me would guess it's
too tiny to measure because most exhaust gases pass through the thing
unhindered.

------
mikeyouse
This whole thing is very confusing.

    
    
        There is over 17 gallons of carbon dioxide for every gallon of fuel burnt. 
    

Volume is a strange choice of measurement for a gas... The EIA[1] shows that
about 8kg of CO2 are created for every gallon of gas that a car burns. We use
a baseline stoichiometric consumption of about 1.8kg of CO2 per 1 kg of algal
biomass.

They say these CO2ubes are good for 8-10 weeks, which if you average 200 miles
per week, and 25mpg, you'd burn over 70 gallons of gas. This gas would've
produced about 560kg of CO2. I can't imagine more than 1kg of biomass
accumulating in this tip (especially since it's cantilevered at the furthest
point from the exhaust clip) so you'd have used maybe 2kg of the CO2, reducing
your consumption by 0.3%.

    
    
        We are using the process of photosynthesis and applying it
        to where carbon dioxide is being released. Since the process of
        algae photosynthesis is not fast enough to accomodate for the
        free flowing exhaust emissions, we have implemented a secondary
        reactant into the device. 
    

There's problem #2. Not only is photosynthesis not fast enough, it NEEDS
SUNLIGHT. It doesn't use the "sun's energy" as is shown in that chart, it
literally needs photons to excite the reaction centres.[2]

So they're not using photosynthesis at all. Apparently the tip arrives with a
supply of NaOH inside, which reacts with CO2 in the exhaust stream and then is
emitted out the tailpipe as carbonic acid. So why use algae at all?

    
    
        Pending approval, users of the CO2ube will be able to drive in the
        H.O.V. lane without meeting the occupancy minimum requirement [...]
        Also pending approval, users of the CO2ube will receive an
        additional tax credit from the EPA! [...] We have applied to give
        our customers a tax credit (similar to the electric vehicle tax credit)
        for using our technologies. Once that is approved, we plan to push
        for regulation approval.
    

I'm shocked that they'd make these claims. There is virtually no chance
they'll get HOV access. The 1st generation Chevy Volt, which made something
like 65mpg equivalent didn't qualify for HOV access, why would this tech? They
also expect that they're going to get Federal tax credits? Come on..

Also worth mentioning is that restricting the exhaust flow will also make the
engine burn less efficiently, which will use more gasoline and create more
CO2...

[1]
[http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=10)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_reaction_centre)

~~~
avree
Agreed, the scientific claims are simply baffling.

Science aside, the post comes across as a thinly-veiled attempt to brag about
the founder.

Press logos up top, followed by 'green buzzwords'. Then, a photo of the
founders from the socialite party photo website "Guest of a Guest". Constant
reference to a single accolade: their appearance on the Forbes 30 under 30
list, a list with no scientific review (or need for a demonstrable proof of
concept) and an open nomination process.

So strange why someone would do a campaign like this. It seems like the
majority of the attention it's receiving is through Vanderbilt University's PR
arm: [http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-
jaggi/](http://news.vanderbilt.edu/tag/param-jaggi/)

(In fact, this story was submitted by a senior at Vanderbilt University!
Surprise, suprise!)

