Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Successful Demonstration of CO2 Capture Technology

Posted by samzenpus on from the scrub-that-global-warming-away dept.

An anonymous coward writes "Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT's first step toward a commercially viable air capture device."

41 of 521 comments (clear)

  1. Uh... by w3woody · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't they call things that absorb CO2 from the air Trees...?

    And couldn't we sequester CO2 from the atmosphere by converting trees into an inert substance--such as paper--then burying it into landfills?

    I mean--couldn't we get a 'win/win' here by simply outlawing the recycling of paper?

    1. Re:Uh... by CriminalNerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      You create more carbon dioxide emissions by making paper and burying it to get rid of the minute amount of carbon that the tree(s) obtained from its photosynthesis process.

      Also, by outlawing the recycling of paper, you'll reduce the number of trees that are still alive, and eventually wipe out all the trees in the world, and thus, contribute MORE to global warming than minimizing its effect on the planet.

    2. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually the more people need paper the more trees get planted to supply that demand, trees unlike other forms of carbon is completely renewable.

      Also recycling paper is a load of crap, it adds to polution by needing all sorts of nasty chemicals to bleach the paper so it can be re-used, not to mention all the petrolum needed to cart stuff from peoples homes to recyling centres, here they use multiple trucks, one for waste one for recycling.

      It costs the US$8bill a yr in subsidies to pay for recycling and cleaning up the chemical by-products, it costs much less to plant and cut down trees.

    3. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because trees grow instantaneously, bleach themselves, and require no transportation or other effort to be made into trees.

    4. Re:Uh... by delt0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      You create more carbon dioxide emissions by making paper and burying it to get rid of the minute amount of carbon that the tree(s) obtained from its photosynthesis process. What the hell. Where else does the carbon come from? Trees don't pull it out of the ground. ALL the Carbon in a tree comes from the atmosphere. Its anything but minute.
      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    5. Re:Uh... by TerminaMorte · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was my understanding that lumber companies generally plant more trees than they cut down.

      So by recycling, less trees are cut... and in turn less are planted.

      In fact, we have more trees on earth today than we had in 1970. Hell, even more than we have 70 years ago.
       
        Source

    6. Re:Uh... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Actually the more people need paper the more trees get planted to supply that demand"

      I think you will find most paper pulp comes from native hardwood forests, eg: Indonesia, Malaysia, S.America and even here in Australia. Some wealthy countries replant and/or carefully manage the natural regrowth, most just hack it down leaving large areas of barren hills. In Australia we plant non-native pine trees for timber resulting in vast areas of land covered with a pine tree monoculture that is largely devoid of any other lifeforms (even the bugs refuse to live in those forests).

      Speaking of cost, how much do you think it costs to cut a ton of timber, turn it into chips, ship it from Australia to Japan and then turn it into paper that is shipped all over the planet. I will wager those costs are far more than the cost of an extra garbage run to collect a ton of used paper that is ready for pulping. Having worked at a sawmill many moons ago the waste timber that was chipped on site was collected by a truck and driven ~200miles to a sea port.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Uh... by XNormal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > And couldn't we sequester CO2 from the atmosphere by converting trees into an inert substance--such as paper--then burying it into landfills?

      Yes we can.

      But instead of trees, use fast-growing plants like switchgrass or elephant grass. Instead of making them into paper you can pyrolize them into a gas with high energy content and charcoal. Burn the gas to make electricity. Bury the charcoal.

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    8. Re:Uh... by Bender_ · · Score: 5, Informative


      Yes, but the paper companies only plant single species fast growing trees. Those can not replace the complex ecosystem in the rain forests.

    9. Re:Uh... by FredThompson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but the paper companies only plant single species fast growing trees. Those can not replace the complex ecosystem in the rain forests.

      --

      Modding that post as 5, Informative doesn't make any sense unless it was to illustrate popular misconceptions and propaganda.

      Lumber companies, like any other farmers, would prefer to plant in places where the crops will grow and can be harvested for a profit and new crops grown. Rain forests are particularly POOR places to grow trees. The primary reason the U.S. imports so much lumber is because of Clinton-era restrictions on tree harvesting.

      The myth of clear-cutting as a lumbering practice is also crazy. Think about it, the infrastructure needed to process and move the crop would have to be continually rebuilt. How many farmers do that? They will rotate the harvest areas as a way to let the soil regenerate but they don't strip the surface and continually move on.

      Recycling paper, FWIW, yields a far inferior product in many, many ways. The more paper fibers are handled, the shorter they become. Compare an American corrugated box to one from China or Southern Europe. You'll find the recycled paper does not have the same strength. New fiber must be added or you eventually end up with a useless substance.

      The idea that only one species of tree is planted by lumber companies is pure propaganda and incredibly naive. Like any other plant, different types of trees have different types of fibers. Different types of fibers are used to make different types of papers. It would no more be feasible to plant only one type of tree than it would to plant only one type of any other crop because the soil would become depleted. Paper companies are lumber companies. Are all the boards at a lumber store the same type of wood? Of course not.

      Lumber companies are farmers. Remember that and use it as a way to filter out the propaganda. You might be interested to learn the opinion of one of the founders of Greenpeace: http://www.corrugatedmachines.com/2007-04-09%20BCN %20-%20Trees%20are%20the%20Answer.pdf

      His comment that people should fight the auto and oil industries is more than a little whacked. Imagine what it would be like without plastics and the internal combustion engine. We'd be living the same as people did before the industrial revolution which would be a far shorter lifespan and much, much harder lives...burning coal and wood which genreate far more pollution/energy but that's a whole different topic...

    10. Re:Uh... by ErroneousBee · · Score: 4, Funny

      back of envelope maths:

      From TFA (or we could go to the Stern Report):
      "A device with an opening of one square meter can extract about 10 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year. If a single device were to measure 10 meters by 10 meters it could extract 1,000 tons each year. On this scale, one million devices would be required to remove one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. According to the U.K. Treasury's Stern Review on climate change, the world will need to reduce carbon emissions by 11 billion tons by 2025 in order to maintain a concentration of carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial levels. "

      So we need to absorb 11,000,000,000 tonnes per year.

      Assume a tree planted today will weigh 50tonnes in 20 years time.
      So 1 tree absorbs 50/20 = 2.5tonnes/year.
      So we need 11,000,000,000 / 2.5 = 4,400,000,000 or 4 billion trees.

      1 tree needs say a square of sides 3 meters, or 9 meters square.

      A total land area of 4x9 billion square meters = 36billion square meters = 14,000 square miles, or just over one Belgium in old money.

      Seems doable, we don't need Belgium, and the US can chip in a Wales to make up the shortfall.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    11. Re:Uh... by gerrysteele · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what about genetically modified trees that consume superstancial amounts of CO2?

      Trees that grow high into the sky. Trees that grow so big we can build cities in their overlapping branches.

      Trees my friends that bear bounties fruits and sustenance for all mankind alike?

      Trees so beautiful they would make a grown man weep in awe.

      And these trees I sayeth, they shall become our new friend. Our new master. Our new servant.

      All hail our new genetically modified tree overlords.

    12. Re:Uh... by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actally, Ents have been observed in the wild to strip off their own leaves, bleach themselves and climb into recycling chipping machines in paper mills when depressed.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    13. Re:Uh... by jonadab · · Score: 5, Informative

      > I think you will find most paper pulp comes from native hardwood forests

      Hardwoods for the most part can be sold as lumber and are more valuable in that form than as paper, even in the poorest countries. Making paper out of oak and maple is financially the equivalent to melting down dimes and reforming them in the shape of nickels. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is not the norm. Paper is generally made from fast-growth wood that doesn't make very valuable lumber, typically pine or other conifers.

      What's really interesting is that it requires less total financial outlay, and less energy (discounting solar radiation that would otherwise not be harnessed), to maintain fast-growth pine plantations and make paper from those, versus recycling paper. Of all the things that you can recycle, paper is substantially the least worthwhile, both environmentally and economically. (The most worthwhile is probably glass, but just about any metal is quite worth recycling too. Plastics vary.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    14. Re:Uh... by Curtman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Within the United States, formations in Ohio, Oklahoma and Michigan, among other sites, appear to hold promise for long-term CO2 storage underground.

      So the plan is actually to stick this stuff in barrels and bury it?

      Here in Canada, we've been hearing a lot about how the Conservatives plan to focus on capturing and sequestering carbon instead of actually reducing emissions, and living up to our Kyoto obligations. I think it might be a tiny bit shortsighted to think we can continue pumping this crap into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates, then capture it and stick it underground along with the nuclear waste and other garbage that we bury.
    15. Re:Uh... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Funny

      So the plan is actually to stick this stuff in barrels and bury it? Thus, solving the problem once and for all. Once and for all!
    16. Re:Uh... by JimBimBam · · Score: 3, Informative

      So the plan is actually to stick this stuff in barrels and bury it? Here in Norway there has been a lot of talk about CO2 capturing technologies, especially a process using amines to bind the carbon. This is because we are running out of waterfalls to pipe into turbines, and some people want to build gas turbines to cover the energy deficit. The drawback is of course the CO2 emissions, and there are plans to capture this and use it as pressure support so as to extract more oil and natural gas from the oil fields in the North Sea. They way they want to do this is to pump it back into the aquifers (permeable rock) that the oil resides in. I imagine that the sites in Ohio, Oklahoma and Michigan have some sort of aquifers as well.
    17. Re:Uh... by inviolet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hi. I own a pine tree farm outside of Cleveland, Texas, and I am here to reply to your assertions.

      I think you will find most paper pulp comes from native hardwood forests, eg: Indonesia, Malaysia, S.America and even here in Australia.

      Hardwood is a piss-poor way to generate pulpwood, because hardwood grows so slowly. The softwood pines, and some of the new varieties of grasses, are much more efficient. The majority of American industrial woodpulp comes from American and Canadian softwoods (although this is changing; see below). We are also seeing the slow rise of an industry around the pulpy grasses.

      Some wealthy countries replant and/or carefully manage the natural regrowth, most just hack it down leaving large areas of barren hills.

      Not in America. That means that if there is any brazen hacking going on, or urban sprawl, it is balanced by new plantings elsewhere.

      In Australia we plant non-native pine trees for timber resulting in vast areas of land covered with a pine tree monoculture that is largely devoid of any other lifeforms (even the bugs refuse to live in those forests).

      While the pine-trees are indeed bred to be "supertrees", their resistance is aimed at diseases and at early competition (i.e. they are bred to grow a tall canopy as fast as possible in order to beat out woody competition). The bugs don't care -- in fact I will think of your statement next time I'm in my monoculture forest swatting (or running from) the hordes of insects. For that matter, part of my land is wettish river bottomland, completely covered in random wild trees, yet the larger critters and the birds seem to prefer the drier pines.

      Still, you are right that a pine forest's understory and associated critters are relatively sparse... but that is not due to monoculture; it is true of any pine forest, even the much-vaunted old-growth redwoods in California. This is because pine needles naturally acidify the soil, and most other plants can't tolerate that. It is the pine's own natural anticompetitive practice.

      Either way, pines (and other softwoods) are still the fastest way to sequester large amounts of airborn carbon. Your beloved understory vegetation has a fast grow/die/rot cycle which does not permanently sequester any carbon, and which slows down the trees which do. Perhaps you should disentangle your pro-carbon-sequestration argument from your pro-biodiversity argument, because the fastest and most profitable way to sequester airborne carbon is also the least biodiverse. (And if you compromise on "most profitable", then brace yourself for the world's unwillingness to do it.) The reverse is also true: the most biodiverse place in the world is the rainforest, and rainforests have so much rot that they do not consume any net carbon at all. (If you think they do, I'd love to hear an explanation of where they're storing it.)

      Speaking of cost, how much do you think it costs to cut a ton of timber, turn it into chips, ship it from Australia to Japan and then turn it into paper that is shipped all over the planet. I will wager those costs are far more than the cost of an extra garbage run to collect a ton of used paper that is ready for pulping. Having worked at a sawmill many moons ago the waste timber that was chipped on site was collected by a truck and driven ~200miles to a sea port.

      True enough. Domestic timber production is the answer... and indeed was the answer here in America. We had a great pulp market until the feds, under pressure from Environmentalists, banned logging in national forestlands. That drove a lot of the domestic mills out of business, and when they died, the bottom fell out of the pulp market. Presently, I will be paid $0 for the pulpwood take from this year's thinning. Now what effect do you suppose that will have on

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    18. Re:Uh... by zacronos · · Score: 3, Informative

      A GROWING forest since a mature one doesn't absorb net carbon.
      I'm sorry, but this is wrong. From this article on genetically engineering trees (emphasis mine):

      The established myth that forests drastically slow or even stop their carbon sequestration as they mature has been found to be false. Research shows that intact mature forest ecosystems have a net carbon absorption not directly related to the growth of the established forest trees. Undergrowth and natural regeneration additionally contribute to carbon absorption. Forest soils also hold carbon, which is lost into the atmosphere when the forest is logged.
    19. Re:Uh... by zacronos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the first couple sentences of the abstract of the PSU paper I linked previously say, "Old-growth forests are often assumed to exhibit no net carbon assimilation over time periods of several years. This generalization has not been typically supported by the few whole-ecosystem, stand-scale eddy-covariance measurements of carbon dioxide exchange in old-growth forests."

      Again, I don't know where that carbon goes, but research seems to indicate that the carbon-absorption of old-growth forests may never really drop to totally insignificant levels. However, I'll grant that at some point, it would be more efficient to cut the trees down and and plant new ones, taking the short-term hit to CO2 absorption. However, the ideal time to chop down the trees (in terms of ecosystem carbon absorption) is much later than what intuition would suggest based on the growing cycle of the trees -- I would assume "mature" trees are past peak growth (or else we wouldn't use that term to describe them), and yet that is when the ecosystem is doing the most carbon storing. Based on the numbers given earlier, I would estimate those trees should be cut down no earlier than 150 years after planting, maybe closer to 200. I don't have enough data to calculate the actual optimal age, but I don't expect to be too far off.

      I more-or-less agree with you in principal, but there must be better ways to store carbon than growing trees and throwing them in the ocean (where they'll still rot and release carbon unless we do something to seal them up). If tree stands did most of their carbon storing in the first 20-50 years of their life, then it would be a much better idea. But the reality is that it takes a long time (50-100 years, according to one of the linked papers) just to break even from planting new trees, much less to have a significant net carbon store. Maybe there are better trees for doing this, but I still bet we can come up with something (in terms of carbon capture technology) that would be better than those trees.

  2. New Technology! by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meanwhile, in a competing lab, scientists have unearthed a competing technology, known in ancient times. These "plants" are rumored to absorb CO2, and unbelivably, some of them, it is rumored, are edible.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  3. How much coal to power this? by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article does not mention how much carbon needs to be burned to power the device.

    1. Re:How much coal to power this? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ohhh... I know, a whole new idea. Make it solar powered!

      Dibs on the patent! Nobody's ever invented anything that uses solar power to split CO2!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How much coal to power this? by mrogers · · Score: 3, Informative
      Here's an academic paper by the designers of the system described in the article. Unfortunately the paper's only available to journal subscribers, but someone seems to have published it on Freenet, or you can find a preprint version here. From the paper:

      The minimum energy required to capture CO2 from the air at a partial pressure of 4×10^-4 atm and deliver it at one atmosphere is therefore about 20 kJ/mol or 1.6 GJ/tC (gigajoules per ton carbon). If we add the energy required for compressing the CO2 to the 100 atm pressure required for geological storage (assuming a 50% efficiency for converting primary energy to compressor work) the overall energy requirement for air capture with geologic sequestration is about 4 GJ/tC.

      The 4 GJ/tC minimum may be compared to the carbon-specific energy content of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas have about 40, 50, and 70 GJ/tC respectively. Thus if the energy for air capture is provided by fossil fuels then the amount of carbon captured from the air can in principle be much larger than the carbon content of the fuel used to capture it. The fuel carbon can, of course, be captured as part of the process rather than being emitted to the air.

  4. It's a start... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:

    The air extraction device, in which sorbents capture carbon dioxide molecules from free-flowing air and release those molecules as a pure stream of carbon dioxide for sequestration

    I assume that this is more energy efficient than the usual refrigeration based methods for generating pure CO2. This is a good thing. However, they don't say what they're going to do with the CO2 once they purify it. If you can't answer that question, you haven't solved the sequesteration problem.
    1. Re:It's a start... by interiot · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a market for 11 billion tons of CO2?? Even if there were a market for that much CO2, the point of carbon capture isn't to use the carbon in a way that will be re-released into the atmosphere, the point is to store it away for as long of a time as possible (millions of years, preferably).

      The very specific problem with burning fossil fuels is that it's liberating carbon dioxide that hasn't been part of the natural carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years... it hasn't been in the atmosphere or part of plants or anything like that... it's been buried underground. By burning the fossil fuels, humans are introducing that carbon back into the atmosphere at a very rapid rate, and the only way to make sure we don't increase the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is to semi-permanently store as much carbon as we're mining from underground in the form of oil.

    2. Re:It's a start... by tjl2015 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, guess I should have Googled first.

      Google: "synthesizing hydrocarbons from water and carbon dioxide":
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox- a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=1QI&q=synt hesizing+hydrocarbons+from+water+and+carbon+dioxid e&btnG=Search

      Apparently they've been working on this technology for awhile. I think they were originally planning on using the exhaust gases from a coal plant or something as a source of raw carbon dioxide. But I don't see why you couldn't use this new technology!
      http://www.inl.gov/videos/sc/syntrolysis.pdf
      http://www.kpk.gov.pl/images/i7pr/bb295736b8d250fc 0ccf0a0742b164c1.pdf
      http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/artic les/olah/index.html

      I think this could work. Imagine a facility centered around a nuclear reactor. It draws water from a lake/river, uses what energy is needed to power an array of these atmospheric C02 extractors, and combines them to produce usable fuel! This could change everything. At our current level of technology, we don't have a problem with clean energy. If we had the will power, we could turn off all the coal plants, build a bunch of reactors, and remove that component of global warming overnight (relatively speaking). However, we would still need a source of portable power. A facility like this would be an "instant oil field." Any nation on Earth can become its own Saudi Arabia.

      I really hope this CO2 extraction technology proves viable, because if it is, we have on our hands nothing less than the solution to the entire global warming problem.

  5. The spice must flow. by Meph_the_Balrog · · Score: 5, Insightful
    FTA:

    Extensive deployment of the GRT air capture system makes it possible to envision an actual reduction of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, perhaps even to pre-industrial levels.

    I find this idea somewhat concerning. All too often the human race is guilty of doing things because they can, before they learn whether or not they should. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, but in all honesty, what the hell will we break if we start trying to extract too much carbon from the atmosphere.

    Mind you, find a way to quickly and efficiently separate the carbon from the oxygen, install in long range space craft and you suddenly have near limitless air for deep space voyages.
  6. Re:Dry ice by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    No it doesn't. Dry ice is made from commercial CO2, which comes from fossil fuels. In fact, the manufacture of dry ice releases additional CO2 beyond just what ends up as dry ice. The reason is that air is only a few hundred ppm CO2, which is not normally economical to capture and do anything with. Industrially it often comes as a byproduct of ammonia production -- natural gas, CH4, is converted into hydrogen and CO2; the hydrogen is used in making ammonia.

    See Carbon Dioxide for details.

  7. Capture, then split into CO and O? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/07041 8091932.htm

    There's some work going on at UC San Diego to use solar power to convert CO2 into CO (carbon monoxide) and O. Apparently, CO is useful in industrial chemical processes like making plastic. There's also some talk of using it as a fuel.

  8. How it Works by mrcaseyj · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article doesn't say how it works. They link to a Discover Magazine article that describes one of their methods.
    http://discovermagazine.com/2005/oct/climate/?sear chterm=heading%20toward%20twice%20the%20CO2

    Liquid sodium hydroxide turns to sodium carbonate as it absorbs CO2. Then you percolate it over solid calcium hydroxide and the calcium captures the carbon. Then you heat the calcium carbonate to 900 deg Celsius to get it to release the CO2.

    They claim to have developed a new sorbent that isn't as nasty as sodium hydroxide, but none of the articles seem to say what it is.

  9. Can some provide a useful link? by msevior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As others have pointed out, this article is almost entirely useless.

    Can someone provide a link to something that answers the obvious questions:

    1. How does it work?

    2. How much energy does it take to extract it's 10 tonnes of CO2 per year?

    3. How does this compare with refrigeration or plants as a means to reduce CO2 concentration?

    4. What is it's likely cost?

    1. Re:Can some provide a useful link? by bakuun · · Score: 3, Informative

      3. How does this compare with refrigeration or plants as a means to reduce CO2 concentration?

      Plants die eventually. And when they do, they release the carbon dioxide again - that is why plants and bio-fuel are said to be carbon-neutral

      Being able to extract carbon dioxide from the air and store it - for instance, in crevices deep in the ground (just like the oil we are so merrily pumping up!), will actually reduce the levels, though.

      However, it would be more efficient and more interesting to apply this technique to power plants. Coal is really cheap, everybody knows that (besides which, there are huge amounts of coal lying around). What if we could actually use this coal in power plants without the environmental cost that carbon dioxide introduces? Simply imagine one of these carbon-dioxide sequestering gadgets at the top of the chimney of the power plant, and you have that. (Well, there would of course not be a need for any chimney. But you get my point, I think.)

      That is the future. (or will hopefully be, anyway - the IPCC recommendations for how to survive global warming relies heavily on carbon sequestering later on.)

      (Granted, as people have pointed out, this requires that you solve ways of doing this storage - for instance underground - securely. Having the gas leak back out again wouldn't be such a big hit once you have some thousands of these facilities.)

  10. Re:What about the oxygen? by physicsnick · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your post doesn't make any sense. If we start stripping CO2 out of the atmosphere, it will not (immediately) affect the amount of oxygen. They are two entirely different molecules which interact differently with matter, and in this context the fact that CO2 actually contains oxygen nuclei is irrelevant.

    In any case, the atmosphere is 20.946% oxygen and 0.038% carbon dioxide (by volume). Even if we strip all the carbon out, the overall amount of oxygen nuclei in the atmosphere will remain essentially unchanged.

    Obviously removing ALL of the CO2 would be an insanely bad idea; not because we'd be removing oxygen from the atmosphere, but because all the plants would die.

  11. No, not so much by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wood pulp is mostly soft wood, with spruce, pine and fir being real popular. Hardwood is sometimes used, but much more rarely and then generally birch. In the US at least a large amount of it is grown just for that purpose. There is neither the need nor reason to use old growth. Young, small, even diseased and dying trees do just fine. Thus it is fairly economical to farm them.

    Old, large trees of the hardwood variety are much more valuable for construction and thus you see them used there. No point in using an expensive tree for paper when a cheap one does quite well.

    That's not to say there's no reason to recycle, but please let's not spread BS about paper production. It is not people sneaking in to the rain forest and cutting down huge, thousand year old trees. It's tree farms in the US growing some scraggly pine and pulping that.

    1. Re:No, not so much by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "but please let's not spread BS about paper production"

      If you look at my post I was not attacking US forestry, as I said most wealthy countries look after whatever they have left. But lets not kid ourselves that the bulk of the worlds woodchips come from from wealthy countries. High quality hardwood chips from the places I mentioned are extremely cheap when compared to what the original resource is really worth.

      "It is not people sneaking in to the rain forest and cutting down huge, thousand year old trees"

      Not sure about 1kyrs but the mill I worked at (early 80's) used 350yro mountain ash (Australian version is a huge tree) for house frames and bridge timber, the substantial amount of waste was chipped, the "hearts" are full of red dirt and are burned. The area is now a national park but the practice continues in other areas. Even in the eighties that was small scale and highly regulated compared to the modern day practices in the other places I mentioned, look it up - these people aren't "sneaking" they are large companies with the type of political clout the *IAA has wet dreams over.

      And if bulldozing eveything in sight is not bad enough, take a look at the Shell's practices in Nigeria or Texaco in Ecuador, or any of the countless number of times that western society has shat on it's neighbours veggie garden.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  12. And for one very simple reason by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cost. Pure and simple there is no reason to cut down trees in another country and ship them back here to make paper. Paper is made form pulp, you literally grind up a tree. Thus really any tree will do. Softwood is fine, young trees are fine, even dying trees work fine. Thus is is by far the most economical to just grow them.

    If you are going to go to the trouble of shipping rain forest wood over you are going to use it to build something. A tree fetches far more as some nice mahogany tables than it would ground up and made in to newsprint.

    For whatever else you might think about companies, they don't waste things just for the fun of it. It all comes down to economics. No company in their right mind is going to waste money on importing expensive wood when cheap wood will do. Especially when rainforests are a touchy topic and doing so brings bad PR.

    I really think people who wish to push environmental action would do much better if they got their facts straight and stopped trying to make everything out to be a crisis.

  13. HEMP by essence · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All this recycling and tree replanting should be avoided in the first place. We should be planting hemp everywhere. It has many more benefits than growing pine, for instance. Less to no chemicals needed. It's a nitrogen fixer (in the soil). Grows quickly. Hemp is the answer. Leave the forests to become old growth again.

    1. Re:HEMP by FredThompson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can make paper from hemp. Curiously, people burning hemp paper don't care about the smoke. Go figure.

  14. Re:Mod GP up by bigmammoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're not cutting down the rain forests.
    right we are burning them, for bigMacs ...

    (and the process of modernization and industrialization of previously subsistence populations into a global economic framework. Basically a lot of people became really poor and desperate to make money once neo-liberal policies forced the integration of local economies into the global market. Survival instincts quickly take over and once the race to the bottom takes full swing. Who can make deals with corrupt officials the fastest and stake a claim to land & burn the most rain frost possible, grow your net worth, integrate indigenous populations into a profitable business. Have them work for you instead of for themselves in a system outside of global capitalism.

    Ofcourse even the boss won't make shit compared to the corporate execs, pushing the deals, pushing the neo-liberal reforms, and "new" economic models of production... but that is the beauty of capitalism makes selling out/buying in much more attractive than the actual participation.

    For the majority at the bottom, raising beef simply becomes much more particle when local means of substance are debased via privatization of previously subsistence resources such as land, watter and the flooding of the local food markets with foreign subsidized imports eliminating diversity in local economies and pushing people into the global market where burning Rainforst is simply the best they can offer.

    And what to do... We live in a culture where the aesthetics of consumption is hole-heartily disconnected from the means of production. Consuming the bigMac brand and animal caucus is completely disconnected from torching the Rainfroest and watching the last family of a particular species of some fury creature in a failed attempt to escape a fiery inferno.

    But I imagine most people understand from since childhood when they first see a picture of earth from outer space at night and bother to ask what are all those lights doing in the Rainforest Mommy? That's the rain forest burning for progress, economic growth and global market integration honey, now finish your bigMac or you won't get a frosty (or whatever the fuck they call their ice cream now) :P

  15. Interesting coincidence by XNormal · · Score: 4, Informative

    The MIT Technology Review has just posted an article titled The Case for Burying Charcoal. It showed up on my RSS reader shortly after I posted my comment.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.