Artificial Trees - A New Hope

[Giant Blue Anteater]

Forget COP15, we might have these in the future:

http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/07/why_cant_we_just_suck.shtml

Despite the possible expenses of this new technology, we can only cross our fingers and hope for a secure future, for as long as the planet permits.

 

[Aught3]

These would be a great help if/when they come online. Hopefully people won't start thinking that these will provide the whole solution but they are certainly an integral part.

One thing from the article I found rather amusing:

Fossil fuels are not running out anytime soon, and if we were to turn all of them into carbon dioxide, we'll have a climate catastrophe.

Well it's certainly true that there would be a climate catastrophe if all fossil fuels were turned into CO2, *we* wouldn't be here to worry about on account of the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere.

 

[Netheralian]

Why redesign something that already works perfectly well.

Although I guess putting them in locations like deserts as shown in the pic might be useful. I just hope no-one then uses it as an excuse to cut down more trees.

 

[MRaverz]

But how much CO2 is created in the production of these 'trees'?

 

[Giant Blue Anteater]

But how much CO2 is created in the production of these 'trees'?

Well, how much CO2 is created researching "green" technology anyway? But according to this article (here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/artificial-trees-are-they-better-than-real.php):

Each tree costs about as much to produce as a new car, but gives off only 200 kg of carbon dioxide for every 1000 kg it catches, and the stored carbon dioxide can be liquefied for use as fuel. And while a forest of these wouldn't have quite the same fairy-tale feel as a traditional grove, the benefits could go a long way toward offsetting our carbon footprints.

Why redesign something that already works perfectly well.

Although I guess putting them in locations like deserts as shown in the pic might be useful. I just hope no-one then uses it as an excuse to cut down more trees.

Refer to the above quotation of the article I linked to. But I agree with you on the last sentence, I sure hope people won't be destroying more rainforests and replacing them with these artificial 'trees', even if they supposedly do a better job then the former. We need all the help we can get from Earth's progenies as well.

These would be a great help if/when they come online. Hopefully people won't start thinking that these will provide the whole solution but they are certainly an integral part.

Surely, the best they could do is delay the inevitable while we continue to find alternatives to petroleum and other carbon fuels. Which brings another concern; I hope this technology won't encourage people to pollute more and more until the effects of these 'trees' are nullified.

 

[Niocan]

Haha, yeah lets create artificially impotent trees that only catch the CO2 and not convert it to breathable oxygen.. Where the hell do people plan on storing that captured CO2 and why do they think this is so much better then actually raising up the lands value by bringing life to it.

This sounds like a monstrosity waiting to happen..

 

[scalyblue]

Haha, yeah lets create artificially impotent trees that only catch the CO2 and not convert it to breathable oxygen.. Where the hell do people plan on storing that captured CO2 and why do they think this is so much better then actually raising up the lands value by bringing life to it.

This sounds like a monstrosity waiting to happen..

Go plant a few trees in the mojave desert and tell me how that works out

 

[Niocan]

Go plant a few trees in the mojave desert and tell me how that works out

Because I'm sooo worried about the CO2 production of a desert. Go grow your own garden; Baby steps my friend

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Because I'm sooo worried about the CO2 production of a desert. Go grow your own garden; Baby steps my friend

Besides CO2 travels, most of the oxigen you are breathing right now comes from Amazon. And i'm not sure about the details of the project, but it is possible to create oxygen replenishing infrastructures, this is actually a good idea and I hope it gets developed.

 

[scalyblue]

Go plant a few trees in the mojave desert and tell me how that works out

Because I'm sooo worried about the CO2 production of a desert. Go grow your own garden; Baby steps my friend

Actually the CO2 fixed by small garden plants is negligible, if not negative--when you take into account their rotting. Same goes for most types of trees. Kinda funny, actually.

 

[Niocan]

Is that the same 1991 oil fires that only raised the 1991 count of CO2 by .4ppm?

And to scalyblue, have you considered the reduced dependence of external food sources? Think about it.

 

[scalyblue]

Have you considered that when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing CO2 that was fixed millions of years ago?

 

[Niocan]

Have you considered the mitigation factors that the Earth has to combat this "rapidly accelerating" release?

 

[scalyblue]

Have you considered the mitigation factors that the Earth has to combat this "rapidly accelerating" release?

Considering that fossil fuels are just that--fossils, and humans have been the direct cause of the release of the collective carbon footprint of several million years of plant life in the span of just under two centuries, I'd love to see the mitigation factors that the earth has to combat this unprecedented release.

 

[Niocan]

Considering that fossil fuels are just that--fossils, and humans have been the direct cause of the release of the collective carbon footprint of several million years of plant life in the span of just under two centuries, I'd love to see the mitigation factors that the earth has to combat this unprecedented release.

You sound very confident that the amount you specify is much larger then natural amounts; Tell me, what data set suggests this is so?

 

[scalyblue]

Considering that fossil fuels are just that--fossils, and humans have been the direct cause of the release of the collective carbon footprint of several million years of plant life in the span of just under two centuries, I'd love to see the mitigation factors that the earth has to combat this unprecedented release.

You sound very confident that the amount you specify is much larger then natural amounts; Tell me, what data set suggests this is so?

Right after you furnish those mitigation factors. Also, please inform what the natural analog to the re-release of all of the carbon of millions of years of plants that has remained fixed for millions of years underground, and don't say volcanoes because the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

 

[Niocan]

Right after you furnish those mitigation factors. Also, please inform what the natural analog to the re-release of all of the carbon of millions of years of plants that has remained fixed for millions of years underground, and don't say volcanoes because the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

Mitigation factor #1: CO2 is a limiting factor in photosynthesis; Increased CO2 levels result in increased growth of 90%+ of the biomass on Earth.
Citation on that 1/150th number? Data collection methods?
Why the emphasis on the time? If anything, taking that much out of the CO2 cycle at one time and adding it back in another would equal out the net amount. I don't agree at all with our glutenous use of fuels, nor the lack of industrial drive for efficiency of said fuels, but worrying about this specific byproduct instead of reworking industrial groundwork is meaningless.... Well, almost as meaningless as these artificial trees >.>

 

[scalyblue]

Right after you furnish those mitigation factors. Also, please inform what the natural analog to the re-release of all of the carbon of millions of years of plants that has remained fixed for millions of years underground, and don't say volcanoes because the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions.

Mitigation factor #1: CO2 is a limiting factor in photosynthesis; Increased CO2 levels result in increased growth of 90%+ of the biomass on Earth.
Citation on that 1/150th number? Data collection methods?
Why the emphasis on the time? If anything, taking that much out of the CO2 cycle at one time and adding it back in another would equal out the net amount. I don't agree at all with our glutenous use of fuels, nor the lack of industrial drive for efficiency of said fuels, but worrying about this specific byproduct instead of reworking industrial groundwork is meaningless.... Well, almost as meaningless as these artificial trees >.>

Do you not understand the rates at which photosynthesis works? Yes, the rate of photosynthesis is dependent on CO2, but it's more dependent on light, but plants are not carbon sponges. You see, the rate of photosynthesis is logarithmic, not exponential, and the curve levels out after about 2000 foot candles of light exposure because the chemical reaction is working at 100% of its capacity. Since the sun is 10,000 foot candles strong, the atmosphere could be comprised 20% CO2 and all the plants on the earth would be happily respirating at maybe one or two percent higher than the rate they are today until new plants with greater chlorophyll densities evolved, and they would be free to do that because there wouldn't be any animals left. Considering that the atmospheric CO2 level is higher than it's been in over half a million years ( Limited by the amount of time we can measure it, and it took millions of years for plants to fix that carbon, you're being overly optimistic. ) Not only that, you're completely forgetting the third mitigating factor of photosynthesis, which is temperature, a combination of temperature at growth and temperature at reaction.

Think about it this way, if plants grew exponentially better in a CO2 saturated environment, why doesn't anybody do that to grow tobacco, hell if it was that much of an improvement those opium cartels would be all over CO2 oversaturation to get the most out of their plants.

You fail at chemistry if you think that the rate of photosynthesis will change significantly when saturation levels are already being straddled. ( By the way, in case you don't fail at math, the rate of photosynthesis is 63 ,µmol(CO2)m^-2s^-1, achieved at a CO2 saturation of around 800,µmol mol^-1 ) Not only that, in areas without 100% solar impact photosynthesis is negatively impacted by concentrations of CO2 higher than around 800,µmol mol^-1.

Volcanoes release about 200 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ( US Geological Survey, humans on the other hand released 30 billion ( 28 and change on wiki, but what's a billion or two ) tonnes in 2006, so yeah 150 times is about correct.

 

[obsidianavenger]

its a pretty clever idea, assuming the expense issue gets worked out.

 

[Pulsar]

It was recently shown in a documentary about climate change. It's a pretty cool idea, let's wait and see if they can scale it up.