Slashdot Mirror
DoE Considers Artificial Trees To Remove CO2
eldavojohn writes "CNN is running an article on a new angle of attack to reducing greenhouse gases. After meeting with the US Department of Energy on the concept, the researchers revealed the details that each 'tree' (really a small building structure in the concept design) would cost about as much as a Toyota and remove 1 ton of CO2 from the air per day. Don't worry, they're accounting for the energy the 'tree' uses to operate: 'By the time we make liquid C02 we have spent approximately 50 kilojoules [of electricity] per mole of C02. Compare that to the average power plant in the US, which produces one mole of C02 with every 230 kilojoules of electricity. In other words, if we simply plugged our device in to the power grid to satisfy its energy needs, for every roughly 1,000 kilograms [of carbon dioxide] we collected we would re-emit 200, so 800 we can chalk up as having been successful.' Each unit would remove 20 automobiles' worth of CO2 from the air and cost about as much as a Toyota... so the plan might be a five percent surcharge on automobiles to fund these synthetic tree farms."
Return them to HomeDepot. There your problem is solved.
We have had places that take waste like cfls and half used paint for ages.
If CO2 COULD be a solid in the ocean, it WOULD be a solid in the ocean and there would be huge piles of the stuff down there.
A few hundred feet down, the pressure is still less than 10 atmospheres and temp is obviously above 0ÂC (273K). CO2 under those conditions is still very much a gas. It won't stay solid at 0ÂC unless you're above about 5,000 atmospheres. Even at the bottom of Challenger Deep, you're barely 1100 atm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg
i'm not wrong, this has been demonstrated. proven. it's simple university physics.
there is a reason why triple points of substances are given at temperature AND pressure.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Only hemoglobin transports oxygen to the tissues, it does not transport CO2 in any way shape or form. CO2 will influence the affinity oxygen has for hemoglobin, and in the presence of higher concentrations of carbonic acid, hemoglobin more readily releases oxygen to the surrounding tissues.
Not true. A hemoglobin can carry a single CO2 molecule (as opposed to the 4 molecules of O2 it can carry). However, since cellular respiration has a 1:1 ratio of O2 and CO2, the other 75% of the CO2 is carried as carbonic acid / bicarbonate. Anyway, the bonding of protons and a CO2 to hemoglobin decrease its affinity for O2, causing it to release the O2 in the capillaries near body cells where the pH will be lower due to the constant production of CO2 from respiration. A.K.A. the Bohr Effect.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
The artificial "tree" is projected to remove as much CO2 per day as 25194 real trees.
For great justice.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "in your face" refers to dental fillings. Any of us that have silver fillings have a fair bit of mercury in our mouths with little or no harm (depending upon whom you believe.) Unless of course you were born in the 80s and your dentist never used amalgam fillings.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Exactly. ~5g per amalgam filling, versus ~5mg on the top-end for a CFL with "modern" ones down to 1-1.5mg.
The enemies of Democracy are
http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/06/12/how-toxic-is-a-busted-compact-florescent-bulb/
Also don't connect them to dimmer switches (even if you leave the dimmers at 100% all the time)
Many dimmers designed for incandescents work by rapidly turning the light on and off. This is a very bad thing for inductive loads such as fluorescent starter coils, and will destroy the device in no time flat.
But, yeah... avoiding the cheap ones seems to work pretty well. I'm sure there are also name-brands that are also crap, and cheap ones that are good, so I suppose you're best off switching brands until you find one that works well for you.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose