[fahadkhan]

Genuine question, is it a good start? When does become not a gimmick? At 0.5g/km, 5g/km or 100g/km?

[HPsquared]

We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar". This cost includes capital cost, and energy cost.

Because location doesn't matter, putting lots of small battery-powered mobile units is always going to lose to a large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply. Probably orders of magnitude worse on both CAPEX and OPEX.

[fahadkhan]

Who is going to be paying for "large fixed industrial unit with an industrial-scale energy supply"?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

If few will pay for it, then even fewer will pay for more expensive and less efficient mobile units.

[stephen_g]

Who is going to pay for a lot of extra power and reduced driving range for the idea in the article, the power costing far in excess per year than planting two trees (which would do more for the environment)?

[HPsquared]

Anyone can, that's actually another benefit. It can be funded by anyone who wants to.

[fahadkhan]

Then we're at the tragedy of the commons and no one will.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Well ... yes?

I's clear that with many environmental matters, and specifically atmospheric CO2, we are at the tragedy of the commons, and have been for a long while, and strategies should be around getting us out of there.

[lm28469]

> We need to optimize for "tonnes of CO2 scrubbed per dollar"

No, we need to look at externalities and real world long term side effects.

The "per dollar" part is why we're in the current situation in the first place

[nsxwolf]

Solutions have to come from reality, and in reality nothing happens without money. Even socialism requires money.

[vkou]

> Genuine question, is it a good start?

No, because it doesn't scale, and its dramatically worse than a lot of other approaches, which range from 'also don't scale' to 'somewhat scale'.