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."

Comments

More hair-brained ideas for "Global Warming"

[swaha]

Just like the fact that we legislated use of compact fluorescents with NO plan on disposal,
we have a half thought out plan on liquifying CO2, but nothing on storage and disposal.

Re:More hair-brained ideas for "Global Warming"

[Daimanta]

Two objections:

1. The CO2 would be released into the air again
2. I really doubt that if this plan is implemented on a massive scale(which is the only way it would be remotely useful) there would be enough demand from the carb-soda industry for the product

Re:More hair-brained ideas for "Global Warming"

[Joce640k]

Can't we turn it into biodiesel with algae farms? That would be win-win.

Re:How about 'non synth'?

[FooAtWFU]

They need water. (Hello California.) They need sunlight. You need a place to put them. They may be mildly sensitive to environmental shock when you're putting them up. They're somewhat low-density. The roots can damage structures in the vicinity. After several decades they die, and if you don't do something with the carbon they sequestered in the wood it'll make its way back to the atmosphere.

Still great, stuff, just not perfect.

Why not real trees?

[Geoffrey.landis]

It would make a lot more sense to use real trees. They don't "cost as much as a Toyota," they grow by themselves from seeds, and are self-replicating. They don't extract carbon dioxide in the form of stuff that has to be liquified and then sequestered somehow; they extract CO2 and solidify it in the form of cellulose, a material that is naturally solid at room temperature and pressure.

Obviously, if the trees are then allowed to rot, the CO2 returns to the atmosphere, but that is an easy problem compared to the problem of sequestering CO2 for a few centuries. Just pile it up in the desert, where it won't rot. Or, heck, bury it and let geological forces compress it for a while, and you make new coal that our successors a few million years later can deal with. Wood is a heck of a lot easier to sequester than carbon dioxide!

In short, I can't think of anything more idiotic than designing "artificial" trees, when nature has been evolving real trees optimized to do exactly this task (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere)-- and has had a few hundred million year head start.

Re:Why not real trees?

[blind biker]

The artificial "tree" is projected to remove as much CO2 per day as 25194 real trees.

Am I the only one who smells bullshit, in this statement?

You mean to tell me that someone came up with this particular figure, 25194 "real trees", and wasn't laughing his own ass off? And what kind of tree is a "real tree"? Is it an oak? A pine? An eucalyptus? At which stage of development of said tree is this "a real tree"? Which season?

Isn't it ridiculous that the post was modded "informative" although it contains no information whatsoever, except for a number clearly pulled out of someone's ass.

Re:CO2 is water soluble

[Noren]

I cannot imagine that it would take decades or centuries for dissolved CO2 to diffuse a few miles through water, even with a pressure gradient. I'd imagine months at most, more likely days.

As an added disadvantage, the resulting carbonic acid would only speed up ocean acidification.