>There are complex mammals that effectively don't get cancer

You got a source for that ?

That's not true at all according everything I know, but maybe what I know is outdated.

AFAIK there are only mammals that seem to develop cancer much less than they should - namely large mamals like whales. Other than that every animal above and including Cnidaria deveop tumors. E.g. even the famously immortal Hydras develop tumors over time.

That's what makes cancer so tricky. There is good chance that far, far back in evolution there was a selection between longevity and rate of change or something else. Therefore may be nothing we can do to prevent cancer and can only hope for suppression / cures when / if it happens.

Again, this may be outdated.

>artificial wombs are basically done or very close

Bruh... put down the hopium pipe. There's a bit more work to be done there - especially if you think "artifical womb" as in from conception to term, not artifical womb as in device intended from prematurely born babies.

The second one was what was demonstrated with the lamb.

>This is what's cynical.

Really ?

If the carbon filtration as a feature of the car is not a dead-end what possible research or practial purpose does it serve then ?

If it does not have a research or pratical purpose - why add it ?

The student team and their mentors would obviously know this as well. The only conclusion I can see is to add a feature to the project car that would make it more interesting in a superficial way (i.e. with no deeper technical purpose). In other words they added "something cool" - carbon removal to a carbon neutral car.

The fact that the feature is used to make the project car seem more interesting is literally in the article in the description of the team lead.

It's also a central feature they spotlight on the project page: https://www.tuecomotive.nl/our-family/zem/

>This is very different than what OP is saying.

I don't think it is. This is a decently big project with quite a few sponsors and the university team has been building cars like this since 2013. Having the knowledge and resources to maintain such a team and a string of somewhat big projects which result in vehicles that are showcases of knowledge - that's a big thing for a university. It's a great pipeline for students to industry, attracts students, offers great learning opportunities and generally generates both press and a dose of prestige, just like the other examples I used.

>It's incredibly cynical to think that this project was used to get money instead of teach students and build their skills.

It's not cynical at all. It's quite standard and not something bad.

It's always both with projects like these - they are both learning opportunities for students and a way to promote both your students and the skills and prestige of the university.

It's the same with all manner of student competotions and projects from the Putnam competition, the various DARPA challenges etc. The more a university promotes itself the more grant money and industry cooperation it's likely to get. It's actually good for both the students and the university as a whole.

Yes, "marketing" was a poor word implying this will be for sale. It is however, as you stated, promotion of the university and the team.

While the project as a whole, the materials design and the car as a whole is absolutely fantastic, the carbon filtration part is a deliberate promotional gimmick that has no other academic or pratical purpose.

The statement by the team lead from the article: "We are cleaning the air while driving" and the fact that they put the filters in the car, most likely knowing they are just making it less efficient points to the idea that it was something done to catch attention (and was obviously successful to some degree). That is, of course, both an understandable and often necessary thing to do to promote the university etc.

I just wanted to remark on how pointless of an addition to the project car it is.

Perhaps "marketing" was the wrong word and "promotion gimmick" would be correct.

The point is that it's a pointless, dead-end feature that was only implemented to generate superficial interest.

I don't really judge. Reasearchers / universities / etc. also constantly have to make use of hype to get grants / funding etc. But this is really pointless bait.

>"cars are part of the solution"

I mean zero carbon emitting cars are at least a part of the solution. Personal vehicles are far too efficient for many applications to ever be fully replaced. On top of that the world isn't going to perform 50 years-worth of public transport infrastructure construction in the next 10 years.

So yeah, electric cars / trucks are one part of the sustainable future we want to target (of course the smaller part of it they are the easier some things like city management, waste management etc. become).

It's just that this gimmick solution in the article makes no sense.

>So they are making an electric car less efficient by putting an energy draining device on the front?

It's an absolutely absurd marketing gimmick.

If we consider that the filters need to be changed, the loss in efficiency and the absurd amount of these cars that it would take to equal a wooded park or small forest it makes no sense.

Example:

Central Park in NY has 18000 trees. Even if we accept that ten of these cars over 20 000 miles equal an average tree - that would mean you'd need 180 000 of these cars driving 20k miles per year to equal just central park.

Saving money on the filter and being more efficient and just planting more trees would be vastly more useful.

Yeah, naturally, battery-powered trucks like these will not replace diesel on long routes.

Renault says on their site that they are intended for shorter, regional routes. For example they say that the largest truck model coming is 2023 will have a 300 km range with a practical range of 500 km with one, one-hour charging stop.

I think that comment is referencing the fact that in the U.S. electric trucks are allowed a higher weight limit to allow for the weight of the battery.

Not sure if that has been implmented in the EU or where.

>charging infrastructure is expensive

That does change the ROI time frames vs. buying just the trucks, but anyone buying electric trucks at this time is going to be buying both anyway. Charging infrastructure also pays out really fast given the upkeep cost is close to zero.

>but it doesn't factor European prices right now

Even with electricity prices which are higher the math works out. Prices in 2022 have been between 20% and 200% higher than the price quoted in the video (except Finland, which has lower prices in the 2022 Eurostat figures), and even with that kind of increase there are still very sizeable savings. And that is without calculating the difference in fuel cost.

For example, right now, in France the cost of diesel is 7.435 $/gallon(US) which is 77% higher than the diesel price used by EE.

There is a pretty good video by Engineering Explained where he does a reality check on the Tesla Semi - the principles apply to any electric truck:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv44W7xa4IU

Essentially the running cost advantage is likely going to be very significant. How large depends on the prices of industrial electricity.

Renault's battery capacities and range estimates are much more conservative than Tesla's claimed specs, but the advantage of electric on the "short" distances Renault is targeting is very clear.