Please find below the
Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Transportation contest, and for the time you spent in creating and revising your entry.
The Judges have strongly considered your proposal in this second round of evaluation, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.
We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change.
We encourage you to keep developing your work. Transfer it to the Proposal Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”.
We hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists and vote for which proposal you would like to be nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.
If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at email@example.com
Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
-The technical and economic feasibility is not clear. The link of the key reference  that could have helped answering some of the critical questions is broken.
-This is a significant improvement on the previous version of the proposal. I appreciate the efforts taken to get the proposal to this point. However, it could still do with improved writing and more clarity. Some questions posed by the reviewers also appear not to have been answered (or at least not clearly), such as how often the units would need replacing, how much the unit weighs etc. Even if the fuel burn penalty is low, it needs to be described. I like to concept of selling the carbon as fertilizer - this is a good point. However, I am still not convinced the concept would take-off without regulatory help. It also still appears that a static application of the technology would make more sense in these early stages of development than on a vehicle.
SUBJECT: Your proposal has been selected as a Semi-Finalist!
Your proposal, New Filter and Adsorbent System Capture CO2 from Emission in the Transportation contest, has been selected to advance to the Semi-Finalists round.
You will be able to revise your proposal and add new collaborators if you wish, from July 1st until July 14, 2015 at 23:59pm Eastern Time.
Judges' feedback are posted under the "Evaluation" tab of your proposal. Please incorporate this feedback in your revisions, or your proposal may not be advanced to the Finalists round. We ask you to also summarize the changes that you made in the comment section of the Evaluation tab.
At the revision deadline listed below, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will undergo another round of evaluation to ensure that Semi-Finalist proposals have addressed the feedback given, and select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award.
Thank you for your great work and again, congratulations!
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
This is an interesting idea, but the proposal is very difficult to follow and needs to be written in a way that is more understandable. We are lacking a proof of concept; only one link to potential peer-reviewed research paper .
The proposal should also look at the lifecycle of the filter itself. Scale is also an issue with more than one billion four-wheeled motor vehicles on the road.
It is not entirely clear what exactly is being proposed. For example, how do the static applications (wind farms, canyons filters etc.) tie in with the rest of the proposal? Much of the description of pollution and chemistry could also be reduced somewhat.
We also have a number of specific questions on the technology. What percentage of CO2 is being removed? This is important to put the numbers you present in context. How often would the units need replacing, and how much do they weigh, both new and when "full"? This is important as it impacts vehicle fuel consumption. This impact also needs to be estimated. The business model needs to be thought about very carefully. Would the market to buy carbon from vehicle owners saturate? If so, how soon? How many buyers are there, realistically? Would regulation be an alternative, possibly leading to faster uptake of the technology, once it is mature?
There are no calculations presented with regard to the theoretical or practically demonstrated ability of the filters to sequester CO2 from mobile sources. What is the weight of the filter? What is the added fuel consumption because of it? How often should it be replaced/replenished? What are the lifecycle emissions of building and disposing of the filters? To be meaningful such an intervention would probably increase the weight of the vehicle to the point of compensating for any capture by increased fuel consumption.
We could potentially see merit in investigating CC for stationary sources but not for mobile sources, we don't think it is even remotely feasible and this proposal does not show us any factual info to change our mind. Now you do describe some stationary options but unfortunately the presentation of the idea is not clear enough for us to understand what exactly you propose in terms of stationary CC (from ambient air we assume?).
Mar 6, 2015
Dear Murray: Thank you again for submitting a proposal to the UHI contest. There are some really great ideas hidden in this proposal! While you do have some innovative proposals here, we have decided not to move this proposal to the finals. Thank you again for submitting a proposal. Sincerely, Jen
Kenneth D. Murray
Jul 8, 2015
Thank You dear Jen.. for your kind comments. I do appreciate the consistent and supporting notes. All the Best to you! Murray Dear 2015 Climate CoLab Judges, Thank you for your excellent suggestions and my critically needed corrections. I really appreciate the commentary about the reasonable changes needed which I continue to work-on to comply with, and will keep-on with that for as long as I can. The most valuable insight you provided me, is about the required fundamentals.. simplify and clarify to a central theme I previously failed to present.. And after nearly a complete re-write, I finally get that. What did emerged from verbiage may now be considered by comparison, as a better attempt toward a proposal on a topic overly focused-on by me for perhaps too long. I hope the reading of it now is a bit more compelling and a lot less cringe-worthy. Thanks to you again. Best regards, Murray