CO2ube : The World's First Carbon Dioxide Filtration System

by Ecoviate

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Steve Baker on

      OK - so no more algae. At least that simplifies the discussion.

      (I hope you're going to remove all of the now-false statements about EPA support - because according to the available information about their interest in your science-fair device - that was a pure Algae solution. Now that you're not doing it that way - all of their support is irrelevant to this new device.)

      The Acid/Base approach means that you'd need 18kg of NaOH base to completely remove the CO2 from one gallon of gasoline - that's basic chemistry from the equation you conveniently provided us with.

      To have a device that removes (let's say) just 1% of the CO2 produced from a burning 10 gallons of gas means that it needs to consume almost 2kg of sodium hydroxide...and once it's gone, it's gone and will have to be replaced.

      2kg would be a lot of extra weight to hang on a tailpipe...but even at a fairly pathetic 1% absorption rate - you'd still have to replace the chemicals with every 10 gallons of gas.

      This new idea still cannot possibly work.

    2. Steve Baker on

      (You really do need to change the entire KS page - it still says "The device uses photosynthesis".)

      I just noticed that you claim to "decimate" CO2 emissions. Do you know what that word means? From "deci" - it means "remove one tenth part of"...so this is an implict claim to remove 10% of the CO2. The chemistry makes it clear that you can't possibly be removing more than one part in a thousand using a device that lasts longer than a few weeks.

    3. Spencer Gore on

      Gentlemen,

      I again reiterate my suggestion to consider suspending the campaign until some of the more fundamental physics questions are resolved.

      While the idea of using sodium carbonate to sequester carbon is well-intended, I ask that you investigate further the Chloralkali process used to manufacture it; in essence, the tens of gigatons of CO2 we release into the atmosphere would be need to be replaced with emissions of tens of gigatons of toxic chlorine gas.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process

      Carrying enough sodium hydroxide to react with vehicle CO2 emissions would mean carrying around thousands of extra pounds (cutting fuel economy by approximately 60%), and there is no way given the laws of thermodynamics to have a chemical loop that recycles the sodium hydroxide.

      I again urge you, as a supporter and a colleague, to take down the Kickstarter until these questions are answered. I'm always willing to help with the science.

    4. Spencer Gore on

      (Clarification: the Chloroalki process refers to the manufacture of sodium hydroxide, not sodium carbonate)

    5. Steve Baker on

      @Spencer: I agree. But worse...it doesn't actually matter what production process you use to create the NaOH. The fact is that the reaction that converts CO2(aq)+2NaOH into sodium carbonate and water requires energy. That energy is stored in the NaOH molecule. Since NaOH isn't a naturally occurring substance (you have to make it in a factory) - the energy consumption required to create a kilogram of the stuff by far exceeds the amount of energy created by producing the half-kilo of CO2 that it can sequester.

      The laws of thermodynamics are a harsh mistress...and they doom the CO2ube to being both ineffective *AND* horribly, horribly bad for the environment!

    6. Blake Lemmons
      Superbacker
      on

      Guys, I backed you because I have hope that every little idea, no matter who it comes from, would become something and that one day a product would be available in some form to reduce or eliminate co2 emissions. Your kickstarter campaign led to believe most of this was figured out already. But this latest message really appears that this is still just an idea that hasn't been fully tested and your product just really isn't a product yet, or even close to it. I'm not shooting you guys down, I really do like the idea, but the other comment here about maybe needing to rethink this campaign might be accurate. The last thing you want is to finally bring this great idea to product, at some point, but everyone associates it with a bad kickstarter PR campaign. Just my thoughts.

    7. Steve Baker on

      @Blake - check out my last thought in the comment section.

    8. Andy Lundell
      Superbacker
      on

      I didn't suggest you were hiding your data out of "pride", I suggested either ignorance or outright fraud.

      You say you're waiting for "third party validation“ before you'll tell us if your product works. What if the "third party" gives you bad news? Will you immediately cancel the kickstarter? Or will that bad news unfortunately not come soon enough to stop our money from falling into your pocket?

      The idea of putting a chemical filter on the tailpipe is not new. It would be worth billions to Ford or GM. You honestly think they hadn't thought of it? Tell us how you beat them.

      You can't expect us to take on faith that you've beaten scientists the world over but want our money before you'll prove it.

      Heck, never mind proving anything, you want our money before you'll even make a clear statement about what your device does!

      ====================

      STOP AVOIDING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

      1) How much carbon is removed?
      2) How are you removing a useful amount of carbon with so little NaHO? (Not by the formula on your project page, that's for sure!)
      3) NaHO (aka 'lye') is not realy safe, what have you done to MAKE it safe?

      If you don't ALREADY have answers prepared for these simple, obvious questions then you shouldn't be asking for money.

    9. Andy Lundell
      Superbacker
      on

      I'll be surprised if this non-answer to serious questions and admission that the product isn't done yet doesn't cause people to back out of their pledges.

      This project started as a neat science fair demonstration. Sadly, Ecoviate hasn't given us any reason to believe that it's progressed past that point.

    10. Steve Baker on

      @Andy: I know from past Kickstarter experience that some people didn't know that they could increase, reduce or reverse their pledges. (The only thing you can't do is to pledge twice to the same project with the same user account).

      FYI: At the top right corner of every project page, where it tells you how much the project raised - there is a button labeled "Manage Your Pledge". Right there, you can change the reward you want and the amount you wish to pledge (either up or down) - or you can go to the bottom of that page and select "Cancel pledge". The only catch is that you can only do this before the project completes because Amazon takes the money from your credit card within minutes of the project completion.

      A common thing to do (and what I've done here) is to reduce your pledge to $1 and select "No Reward" in order that you may continue to get project updates and to contribute to the discussion. If at any time, you feel you are again satisfied with the way the project is running, you can increase your pledge and get a reward.)

    11. Missing avatar

      DoubleE on

      Thanks for the update. I have faith in your vision. If the schedule slips during this startup phase just to get the product right, I'm happy to wait for a product that works. Even if all I get is that the development of this product made you re-think some things, take a different approach, and yet create a product in the future that helps the environment in some way, I'm very happy to back this project. I don't need the chemistry or other technical information as long as you stick with your vision to create something that reduces CO2 emissions. Keep at it! I'm with you!