Toyota Develops New Flower Species To Reduce Pollution

teko_teko writes "Toyota has created two flower species that absorb nitrogen oxides and take heat out of the atmosphere. The flowers, derivatives of the cherry sage plant and the gardenia, were specially developed for the grounds of Toyota's Prius plant in Toyota City, Japan. The sage derivative's leaves have unique characteristics that absorb harmful gases, while the gardenia's leaves create water vapour in the air, reducing the surface temperature of the factory surrounds and, therefore, reducing the energy needed for cooling, in turn producing less carbon dioxide."

Comments

Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great but it may be a surprise to some people to learn that cherry sages do eventually die, and decompose and thus re-release that which they have absorbed.

Carbon offset, one of the greatest scams in history. Pay us to plant some trees, which we can later cut down and sell.

Re:Plants eventually die

[AniVisual]

Not really. That's where coal came from. Plants inhale the carbon dioxide in the air, make 'em carbom, die, decompose, get buried in the ground, and 100,000,000 years later become coal and oil.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? Have you SEEN plants turn into coal? I bet not! God put the coal there to test your faith!!!

Re:Plants eventually die

[noundi]

Obligatory Bill Hicks quote:

I think God put you here to test my faith dude.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in places experiencing significant subsidence (think of the Mississippi delta), where plant materials at the surface will eventually be deeply buried. The fraction of plant material that does ultimately get buried for the long term is minuscule compared to the amount that gets promptly recycled by decay processes, right back into the atmosphere. The chances the scenario you describe is happening at the site of a Toyota plant are small indeed unless it is built on a subsiding swamp.

The part I don't get is "while the gardenia's leaves create water vapour in the air" What? Don't ALL plants produce water vapour in the air?

Planting *any* plant would have the rather minor effects they describe. Getting rid of a lawn and allowing a genuine forest to grow might have a net positive effect, but only to a limited degree (as it grows). It's a fluff piece. The only thing innovative here is their public relations department.

Re:Plants eventually die

[wasmoke]

Close. Most coal came from the Carboniferous period where there was an explosion of plants, many of them in boggy areas. When plants die in bogs they fall in the water and bacteria can NOT decompose them. This is why the carbon was sequestered and turned into coal.
Today, there is very little chance of this happening, especially at a plant in Japan. In all likelihood these flowers will decompose when they die and release all their nitrogen oxides back to the environment.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

But... but... but it makes me FEEL good!

Al Gore is a very shrewd businessman, nothing more.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

Flower Power. Yeah Baby Yeeaah.....

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you have to kill'em and dump em in the landfill. That and a bullet in the head. Otherwise it's Godzilla Vs. the iceage-causing nitrogen-eating plant monster time.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

Plants may produce coal, but I have it on good authority that oil comes from dinosaurs:

First the Earth cooled...and then the dinosaurs came...but they got too big and fat...so they all died and they turned into oil...and then the Arabs came...and they bought Mercedes Benz's...and Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes...I couldn't believe it...he took her best summer dress out of the closet and put it on and went to town....

Re:Plants eventually die

[MobyDisk]

Yes, but that is not what is happening here. From "Coal" on Wikipedia:

Coal starts as layer upon layer of annual plant remains accumulating slowly that were protected from biodegradation by usually acidic covering waters that gave a natural antiseptic effect combating microorganisms and then later mud deposits protecting against oxidization in the widespread shallow seas

Unless Toyota intends to bury the plants every year then they are not doing anything to help sequester carbon.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Truekaiser]

incorrect. coal did not come from year to year decomposition of plants in temperate climates. Coal was formed mostly during the Carboniferous era in earth's past. at this time allot of the dry land was peat bog's and everglade's like swamps. year after year of leaf litter pressed down on the previous year's leaf litter preventing decomposition of the plants, add in a few million years of heat and pressure and the organic matter is carbonized thus forming coal.

give the current leaf litter in these area's today a few million years and the same heat and pressure and it will be transformed into coal.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Ginger Unicorn]

Wouldn't the nitrates in the soil act as a fertilizer for plants, as opposed to leaving it floating in the air for humans to breathe in?

Re:Plants eventually die

[RivenAleem]

We have this field down by my folks place in the country that is mostly left fallow (used for light sheep grazing) but it fluctuates repeatedly between grass and clover depending on the amount of nitrates in the soil. When the nitrates are low the clover wins out growing up strong, taking nitrogen out of the air and putting it in the soil, but then the grass comes back and chokes the clover until the nitrates are used up.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

The time aspect isn't quite right. While it is correct that *much* coal comes from rocks of the Carboniferous, there is plenty of coal in rocks that are younger. For example, much of the coal in India and Australia is Permian in age, and there are vast Cretaceous and Cenozoic coals in much of the western USA and Canada. Much of the "brown coal" (lignite) in Germany and other parts of Europe is Cenozoic. Post-Devonian, there's always coal being deposited somewhere in the world, although some time periods were more prolific than others, and there are places today that will probably result in coal deposits down the road.

Your basic point is still valid, though. This isn't likely to happen at a car plant in Japan.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe the lord created me in 7 days". Looks like he rushed it.

Re:Plants eventually die

[orsty3001]

Jesus told me that green energy is bad.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Quothz]

Wouldn't the nitrates in the soil act as a fertilizer for plants, as opposed to leaving it floating in the air for humans to breathe in?

Both. Some bacteria make ammonium from nitrogen, which keeps it in the soil. Others dump it in the air as N(2) and N(2)O. Local conditions limit how much gets mineralized into ammonium naturally. If there's enough oxygen around, other bacteria make it into nitrates, which then feed more plants. I reckon if they're planted sparsely, removed regularly (and composted properly), or rotated with nitrate-hungry plants, quite a lot would stay in the dirt. So, yeah, fertilizer and stuff, although some nitrogen is gonna float away no matter what.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Quothz]

Unless Toyota intends to bury the plants every year then they are not doing anything to help sequester carbon.

Nor are they trying to. So that works out pretty well.

(The plan is to reduce carbon emissions by keeping the area near the plant nice and cool.)

Re:Plants eventually die

[jackspenn]

What can't Toyota periodically replace sections where the plants are? $Counter = 0; 1). Cut down section of plants 2). Bury plants to trap chemicals just like a bog would 3). plant new plants in cleared section 4). $Counter++ 5). If $Counter >= 10,000 then recover coal/oil, $counter = 0 6). Goto line 1

Re:Plants eventually die

[afidel]

Actually the buildup of soil is in direct contradiction with your assertion that the majority of the carbon is re-released into the atmosphere. A good example of this process in action is right here where I live along the Great Lakes, the last glacial period ended only 12,000 years ago and as the glaciers retreated they completely scoured the bedrock yet today there are feet and feet of soil built up.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, coal and oil are not fossil fuels. There are a growing number of scientist that have rightfully challenged that theory. Also, oil companies in particular search out and find oil wells in locations (such as so deep in the earths crust) where there is no possible way that they could have been produced by plant and animal matter that was buried. Coal mines are also frequently dug deep within and under mountains. Seen any plants sink through thousands of feet of granite, iron ore, etc. and come to rest under a mountain?
If you'd like to know more, just do some real research on the subject. It doesn't matter if you are an evolutionist or a creationist, the evidence if clear to anyone who thinks critically.

Re:Plants eventually die

[wisdom_brewing]

Whats the density? Will they float? Tie a bunch together and dump it in a deep sea trench!

Re:Plants eventually die

[BlackSnake112]

+1 funny. Most of Slashdot readers are too young to remember Airplane!

Re:Plants eventually die

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are a growing number of scientist (sic) that (sic) have rightfully challenged that theory"

[citation needed]

You're an idiot. Plants don't sink under mountains, mountains are created when the earth folds, bends, breaks and pushes due to internal pressures and continental drift. What the sweet hell does evolution or creationism have to do with coal?

Re:Plants eventually die

[The Wooden Badger]

If by re-released you mean the process of photosynthesis (C02 + H2O = Carbohydrate + O2) produces food for animals and the animals then exhale CO2, then yes, most of the CO2 is re-released into the atmosphere.

Re:Plants eventually die

[electrosoccertux]

The oil deposits as we know them couldn't last for more than ~10,000 years.

Re:Plants eventually die

[mrchaotica]

But how much of that soil is organic (from the decomposition of plants) rather than clay minerals (from the weathering of that exposed bedrock)?

Re:Plants eventually die

[fugue]

Yes, it's a stopgap.

But we need a stopgap. We need to reduce carbon levels yesterday, and that means not just cutting emissions to nothing, but also an emergency program of planting trees, which if done on a large enough scale, could save our asses from the fire for the next 100 years while we figured how to actually live like a civilisation that means to be around for a while.

I, for one, support military intervention in Brazil, the Amazon, Canada, and all those other places where people are cutting down trees... um, that'd be everywhere. But it looks pretty good compared to the alternative.

Re:Plants eventually die

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If we're still worried about oil in 10,000 years, we're a big Fail on technological development.

> Toyota has created two flower species that absorb nitrogen oxides and take heat
> out of the atmosphere.

Ok, enough fun and games and disasterbation. We do not necessarily want to do this, because if we overdo it, we will induce another ice age. That will actually kill billions, especially if it comes on in a few years, as is current theory when such things begin.

Opposed to this is global warming, which involves people moving away from the sea over the course of many decades or several centuries, and that's pretty much it.

While bad, it's no way near as bad as a new ice age. So please think twice before trying to cure your pimples by injecting bloodstream with chlorine.

Re:Plants eventually die

[vlm]

What can't Toyota periodically replace sections where the plants are? $Counter = 0; 1). Cut down section of plants 2). Bury plants to trap chemicals just like a bog would 3). plant new plants in cleared section 4). $Counter++ 5). If $Counter >= 10,000 then recover coal/oil, $counter = 0 6). Goto line 1

Because Toyota is primarily a car company, not a TDP company. If they were experts at the esoteric art of TDP they would probably operate a TDP plant instead of making cars, but since they are experts at making the world's best cars, they make cars instead, along with occasional PR filler material like the article.

Also, its unclear if even the TDP experts can run a TDP plant at a profit, but Toyota has a track record of running a car company at a profit ... so do what makes the money ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Re:Plants eventually die

[Jarik C-Bol]

woosh.

he's purporting that, oil deposits, in the form and structure they are in at this stage, could not be over 10,000 years old. He is saying, that, if the oil deposits where really millions of years old, that there layout, format, and structure within the ground would be fundamentally different
(at least, thats the impression i got from his statement).

Re:Plants eventually die

[Jarik C-Bol]

if i had mod points, i'd mod you up.
i love the formatting of the response as a program outline.

Re:Plants eventually die

[eleuthero]

Given the composition of the "clay minerals" in my area, I'm going to have to agree with the gp here. Organics leave a lot of mess behind. My yard is composed primarily of limestone based clay--which has a significant amount of carbon whatnot in it

Re:Plants eventually die

[afidel]

Lots of it. According to this paper 10.2 ± 2.8 kg m^2 in the upper 1-m depth.

Re:Plants eventually die

[operagost]

Your sig is ironic, because in your world toilet paper won't be allowed. CO2 isn't warming the planet, because it is incapable of warming the planet in the concertrations we're emitting and even if it did, we're currently in a cooling cycle so getting it done "yesterday" is irresponsible and alarmist when calm, steady progress is what's needed. We won't be "around for a while" because in order to get it done "yesterday", we're turning control of our lives over to big governments as if they're some sort of super beings who have all the answers. But I guess my ideas are falling on deaf ears, since I'm talking to someone who thinks it's okay to turn armies on loggers.

Re:Plants eventually die

[fugue]

CO2 isn't warming the planet, because it is incapable of warming the planet in the concertrations we're emitting

Really? Your research supports that claim? If so, you're just about the only climatologist in the world with that opinion. Please link to your papers (and, of course, make sure you make clear who paid for the research). Or do you somehow think that you're more knowledgeable than the people who have the training, the data, and the supercomputers?

Re:Plants eventually die

[electrosoccertux]

Yessir, that woosh was very appropriate :)

Re:Plants eventually die

[justicenfa]

Surely you don't remember Airplane, you mean. I do, and don't call me Shirley.

Re:Plants eventually die

[acheron12]

Indeed. The only way (on a non-geological timescale) to keep carbon out of the atmosphere is to convert the plant tissues into a solid or liquid form, e.g. some kind of biofuel, and store it. Alternatively, burn it instead of fossil fuels - that won't keep it out of the atmosphere, but it will prevent some extra carbon from being released.

This kind of article reminds me of "we thought the Amazon rainforest removed CO2 from the atmosphere but scientists say it actually releases it!!!11!" articles. Duh! Is the carbon cycle really so difficult for the average person to understand? :-/

Re:Plants eventually die

[Dodgy G33za]

This is true of the plant matter above the surface - if left in place it will oxidise as CO2 - although there is a good chance that the Toyota gardeners will tidy up any dead matter and recycle it, in which case it may be turned into mulch. However the matter below the surface will decompose and add to the soil.

Re:Plants eventually die

[eluusive]

So you think. There's actually more going on due to ocean salinity changes then you would like to think. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20031117204012data_trunc_sys.shtml

Re:Plants eventually die

[ResidentSourcerer]

Carbon fraction of most top soils is only a few percent.
That of subsoils are even less. The terra preta soils are an exception to this.

Consider: A square foot of land has about a ton of air sitting on it. (15 psi * 144) 350 ppm is CO2.

That turns into .75 lbs of CO2. The mass fraction of C is 12/44. Gives you 0.2 lbs of C per square foot.

Typical top soils are a few inches to a foot. Soil runs
about twice the density of water -- call it 120 lb/cubic
foot. So if we had a foot of top soil, with 5% organic
matter in it, it would amount to 6 lbs of organic matter.
Assume that most of that is in the form of carbohydrates --
cellulose. Mass fraction of C in cellulose is 12/30.
So a bit over two pounds of Carbon per square foot in
the soil.

Even if soil carbon is continuously converted back to CO2 in the atmosphere, the soil carbon pool is several times larger than the atmospheric pool. Changing our land usage to increase the size of this pool can have an effect on the atmosphere.

Re:Plants eventually die

[afidel]

From the numbers I gave in reply to a sibling post it's closer to 2-3lbs per sq ft where I live, but that's still several times the concentration of the atmospheric carbon. The problem is that arable landmass is a fairly small percentage of the earths surface. I'm not saying using biomass sequestration isn't useful, it's just not going to fight heightened CO2 levels on its own (not to suggest you were saying it is).

Re:Plants eventually die

[rhakka]

I am watching, year by year, exposed rock in my yard being covered by moss, dirt, and grass. this is in a yard in maine.

I don't think it's as slow of a process as you think.

Re:Plants eventually die

[ResidentSourcerer]

I'll admit there was a large amount of furious hand waving.
Key idea is that the land pool is large compared to the air pool.

The key concept: The atmospheric pool is small compared to
other pools. By slight shifts of the equilibrium constants
between pools, we can set the level in the atmosphere.

Carbon pooling doesn't necessarily depend on arable
land mass.

No one considers the northern boreal forest to be arable. But it is a large carbon pool. Not clear how to make it larger.

Peat bogs are a net carbon sink. As the arctic warms, lots
of peat bogs will have much longer growing seasons. Of
course thawing permafrost will make a mess.

Incorporating charcoal into soil (terra preta) has enormous
potential as a carbon sink -- (Yes, arable land is a small fraction, but I understand that existing terra preta soils
are many feet thick, and comprise up to 15% carbon.) By itself, not a complete answer. But an effective step.

The key concept: The atmospheric pool is small compared to
other pools. By slight shifts of the equibrium constants
between pools, we can set the level in the atmosphere.

Even the exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean is
controversial. I've read of time constants as low as 55 years and as high as 12,000 years. What's the mixing depth?
What is the deep ocean exchange rate. Buffering capacity.

What?

[abigsmurf]

"while the gardenia's leaves create water vapour in the air, reducing the surface temperature of the factory surrounds and, therefore, reducing the energy needed for cooling"

Doesn't pretty much every plant with leaves do that? Hence the need for watering...

Re:What?

[Yo_mama]

And if they release MORE water, does that mean they increase the dependency on reservoirs and the environmental impacts of dams and water shortages?

Re:What?

[wizardforce]

Good point. Their heating costs go down bu the amount of water they're using probably goes up. Is it worth sacrificing water conservation for power conservation?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

*cooling costs my bad..

Re:What?

[Zerth]

Seeing as water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas(by volume, mass, and % of warming caused), could one say that this is like opening the fridge to cool the kitchen?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is Tokyo. I'm pretty sure they get lots of rain.

And to someone who commented on plants becoming coal, that's not true of all plants. However i'm pretty sure that most of the nitrogen would in some way be re-used as fertilizer by the rest of the plants, were it in a natural environment. Since it isn't, i guess that depends on how they dispose of excess plant matter.

Re:What?

[palegray.net]

No. You're only telling part of the story; here's an excerpt from the easily digested Wikipedia article dealing with the topic:

"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures. The primary negative feedback is the effect of temperature on emission of infrared radiation: as the temperature of a body increases, the emitted radiation increases with the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No see, that's the ingenious part. They imported a species of plant that actually produces water right out of the thin air. And by the time winter comes along it freezes to death.

Re:What?

[captainpanic]

They should patent the evaporation of water. And patent photosynthesis too, for good measure. they obviously made a great invention.

p.s. Don't tell them that they found nothing new. This is just like a biologist finding out that cars exist (carrus automaticus gasolinus). Quite exciting really, and certainly worth a publication or two. :)

Re:What?

[Yvanhoe]

Well, I am a bit confused. Plants do perspire and release water vapour but they also usually release heat (they have a metabolism and show on infrared). I think that once agains one has to dismiss the sensationalist journalism and get at the real science. My suspicion is that the only new thing here is the absorption nitrogen oxide and that Toyota also reminded the journalist the other advantages a plant offers in a workplace.

Re:What?

[TheRaven64]

Note that plant water doesn't need to be particularly clean, just desalinated. You can water plants with drain water in a lot of situations. Japan isn't a desert, the only water shortages that they are likely to have will come from overloaded processing and treatment plants, not from supply of rain.

Re:What?

[jrumney]

Well, this is Tokyo.

Asia is not all city states like Singapore and Hong Kong, you know, Toyota city is near Nagoya, over 200 miles West of Tokyo.

Re:What?

[jc42]

Well, I am a bit confused. Plants do perspire and release water vapour but they also usually release heat (they have a metabolism and show on infrared).

It is a bit complicated. ;-)

It's true that plants give off IR radiation. But they also release water vapor, and the evaporation process is endothermic. This cools the plant tissues slightly, and conductance cools the air at the leaf surfaces. There's a lot of energy conversion and transfer going on around a functioning leaf. The "bottom line" of it all is that the air among masses of plant life is usually a few degrees cooler than the outside air, unless the air is cold, when the plants may somewhat warm the air. You can feel this when you walk into a clump of trees, even if you're still in the sunlight. Much of this effect is due to inefficiencies in the plants' techniques for controlling their own internal temperature.

It is interesting that plants can be giving off IR while being cooler than their surroundings. Part of the explanation is that the photosynthetic process involves a lot of frequency shifting. Photons are absorbed at one frequency, electrons bounce the absorbed energy around a bit, and another photon is radiated at a lower energy level. Most of this is significant to the plant's metabolism, but there are inefficiences. Thus, chlorophyll absorbs best in the green/blue part of the spectrum; a quick google found a graph at http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Chlorophyll. Note the complexity of the graph, with a lower peak in the red. To increase its absorbency, chloroplasts surround the chlorophyll with frequency-shifting molecules that absorb photons at other frequencies and reradiate the energy as photons that the chlorophyll prefers. But chlorophyll molecules don't intercept all these green/blue(/red) photons, explaining why leaves are greener than the incoming light. The whole process is impressively complex, and we're not very close to fully understanding it all. But much of the accidental reradiation is at low-energy frequencies, in the IR part of the spectrum.

Some interesting research reports a few years ago involved some tiny temperature sensors that could measure the temperature inside leaves. They reported that a wide variety of plants tested, over a wide range of atmospheric conditions, the internal leaf temperatures were close to 21 Celsius. This is somewhat cooler than our body temperature, and generally different from the air. The "higher" plants seem to have evolved some impressive temperature regulation methods, presumably because chemistry is simpler and cheaper if you can control the temperature. So at cooler temperatures, leaves tend to absorb lots of photons that they don't need for photosynthesis, but which function solely to warm the leaf to its operating temperature. The leakage from this process mostly loses low-energy photons, i.e., infrared. At higher temperatures, leaves can both radiate more energetic photons, and also release water vapor, which cools the tissues rapidly. In this case, most of the inefficiency is in heat absorbed from the surrounding warmer air, which is the main reason that clumps of plants are cool. But it's not really that the water was vaporized to cool the air. It was vaporized to cool the internal leaf tissues, and the air cooling is due to poor insulation at the leaf surface. The plants are trying to keep themselves at operating temperature, and cooling of surrounding warmer air is an inefficiency in this process.

Anyway, it's complex. And it's impressive how much control can be done by critters that have no muscles or nervous system and are stuck spending their whole life in one spot. It's almost entirely complex chemistry, including some very sophisticated control of photons and passing energy via electrons along chains of carbon atoms. Understanding what's known of it takes years of study. But you can find a lot of summaries by googling for someth

Re:What?

[n0tWorthy]

Very informative! Thanks for taking the time to explain it so well.

Re:What?

[acheron12]

Great article. I've come across several people trying to claim that watering your lawn causes more irreversible damage than driving an SUV. Of course that ignores another key difference ... carbon released from fossil fuels isn't going to turn back into coal anytime soon, but evaporated water frequently comes down as rain.

Tea Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

...And then you can dry it and brew tea!

All plants transpire

[treeves]

thereby reducing the surrounding temperature, don't they? Gardenias do smell nice though.

Flowers for plants...

[wfWebber]

Almost sounds like pets, doesn't it?

Bad reporting

[AxeTheMax]

Lots of bad science reporting there, just what you would expect from a motor journalist talking about botany. New species??? All plants absorb gases, including any nitrogen compounds in the air. Any nitrous oxides would be absorbed within the leaf, since they are nutrients and plants have an ability to absorb nutrients through the leaves (foliar feeding). All plants give off water vapour. I suspect most trees would be better at cooling the factory surrounds than gardenia plants, since by their size and nature they are faster growers and thus can transpire more water, and (for most species) they have more leaf area per unit of ground area.

Re:Bad reporting

[CrashNBrn]

Apparently, they've done the tree planting thing too.

Even the grass has been specially developed to grow more slowly than conventional lawn. As a result, it only requires mowing once a year, compared with three times for the grass it replaced. In 2008, Toyota planted 50,000 trees to offset the factory’s CO2 emissions.

Re:Bad reporting

[TubeSteak]

October 6, 2005
Toyota Develops Shrub that Greatly Improves Air Quality
--New Cherry Sage Better Cleanses Air, Reduces "Urban Heat Island Effect"--
http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/05/1006.html
"TMC started selling its Gardenia plant, known as the "Wald", which has a very high atmospheric-cleansing ability, in October 2003."

The grass mentioned in TFA linked by /. is a breed of "zoysia grass" known as "TM9"
I read about it on page 40 of Toyota's 2009 sustainability report (8MB PDF) and it has been on sale since 2006.

Nothing in this story is new except for the positive PR that Toyota is getting.

Re:Bad reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, but... TOYOTA made this plant! From like, their super duper plant manufacturing plant, man!

Re:Bad reporting

[hallucinogen]

Actually there are no plants at all that can fix nitrogen by themselves. If the summary was even half right this would be THE biggest news of the year.

Re:Bad reporting

[rvw]

Nothing in this story is new except for the positive PR that Toyota is getting.

And even that is not new.

Re:Bad reporting

[dasunt]

The irony is that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas that currently contributes to most of the global warming in earth's atmosphere. (We'd be something around 25 to 30 degrees C cooler without it.)

CO2 contributes to a minor fraction.

Not that anthropogenic water vapor is a huge factor, AFAIK. But it is interesting that people assume water vapor has no effect on the climate, while CO2 is often assumed to be the sole factor.

Re:Bad reporting

[Dodgy G33za]

Actually trees are pretty bad at capturing carbon in the short term to medium term (which is probably the lifetime of this factory). Most trees take a minimum of 20 years to reach any size - so not much good for cooling. They are also dormant in the winter. Imagine the weight of grass clippings (buried as much) you can produce in that same 20 year period. Better yet some weeds (such as the thistle) have a cycle of less than 100 days. The best thing that Toyota could do would be to let the grounds get completely overgrown and slash and mulch every so often. But then that wouldn't meet our aesthetic would it?

Nothing can go wrong here!

[assemblerex]

Let's cross breed with kudzu! We can always just pull it up. I mean, Kudzu is so easy to get rid of, right?

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Adambomb]

cmon, the universe needs a true daiseyworld as a warning to others!

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

bwahahaha... the plant that ate the south... seems like a good use for it.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Sparr0]

Kudzu is trivial to get rid of. Just let a herd of goats loose. Not only do they eat kudzu, they PREFER it, and will eat it before almost any other human-desirable plants. There are companies that rent out goats specifically for this purpose.

If you think Kudzu is bad, read up on Cogon Grass.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[KronosReaver]

But then won't we have to plant more cross-breed cherry sage plant/gardenia/kudzu to deal with all of the Goat Emissions?

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Rogerborg]

What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?

Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert. Then come the sandworms. Nice, you've doomed us all.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Alcari]

But with sandworms comes spice and He who controls the Spice controls the universe. I'd like to rent some goats please.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[mpe]

What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?
Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert.

Only if the people involved are too daft to eat the goats (and turn their skins into leather).

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[stupid_is]

Presto!!

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Again.. Ask Africa...

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kudzu is trivial to get rid of. Just let a herd of goats loose. Not only do they eat kudzu, they PREFER it, and will eat it before almost any other human-desirable plants. There are companies that rent out goats specifically for this purpose.

Then, we simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the goats.
Of course, the snakes are even worse, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat. I can hear you saying, "But then we're stuck with gorillas!" That's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[db32]

With sandworms comes spice! With spice comes prescience. Prescience brings the Kwizats Haderach. The Kwizats Haderach makes it rain. The rain kills the sandworms and then plants can grow again... Come on now, don't you know anything?

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Chris Mattern]

What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?

Well, that's when we bring in the mountain gorillas.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Dragonslicer]

Then come the sandworms

Then you have to spend your entire afterlife worrying about the next sandworm attack.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[ZarathustraDK]

Well, that's when we bring in the mountain gorillas.

Better do it quickly before we've turned them all into ash-trays and bush-meat.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[dodobh]

It only dooms you puny humans who cannot live in the desert. Now, on to the sandtrouting.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[R2.0]

"What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu? "

Make "goats" the object of the verb "eat" and you have your answer.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[skornenicholas]

You simple minded fools, we don't bring IN anything to eat the Goats. WE eat the goats! They are food, we feed the goats to the homeless and send millions of their frozen carcasses to Africa for food and reduce the amount of foreign aid we have to provide in the form of money. PRESTO INDEED.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[heritage727]

What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?

Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert. Then come the sandworms. Nice, you've doomed us all.

No, no, George Clooney will take care of the goats. I'm not worried.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I don't have any Magic cards with cogon grass on them.

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Gilmoure]

Or release Dingos to deal with all the goats running amuck!

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

> What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?

> Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert.

You mean after finishing Kudzu, they get dessert?

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[Anonymous Coward]

can anyone say "Day of the Triffids"!!

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[SnarfQuest]

Hey, it's MUTANT kudzu that you're planning on feeding the goats. If you do this, you're going to end up with MUTANT goats! Just think of the problems you'll have with a MUTANT spider-goat. Goat tracks all over your ceiling, not to mention all the goat-silk splattered all over the walls. The cleaning bills alone would be enormous!

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[HiThere]

No, you see the trick is that just as the kudzu is on the edge of being wiped out, you start eating the goats.

Now getting rid of the people, that's the tricky bit. (At least unless you don't mind getting caught in the process.)

Re:Nothing can go wrong here!

[operagost]

Then when the global cooling comes because we've overdone it, they all freeze to death!

Put your "oh oh" in my "oh oh."

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your "oh oh" in my "oh oh."
Put your- Put your "ohh oh" in my "oh oh."
Put your- Put your "oh oh" in my "oh ohh."
Put your- put your "oh" in my "oh oh" Put your "oh oh" in my [repeat 3x]

New tag should be....

[thatseattleguy]

whatcouldpossiblygrowwrong

Re:New tag should be....

[jrumney]

My first thought was this.

Re:New tag should be....

[thatseattleguy]

Or this.

If they want to reduce pollution

[drsquare]

Why don't they stop making cars?

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[robfoo]

Because cars are awesome, hippy.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Rogerborg]

Presumably they like to earn enough to enjoy the luxuries of life, like putting their kids through college, health care, food, that sort of thing.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[aussie_a]

I agree. They could also get into the assassin business, so they can stop people like you from polluting the internet.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they don't want to reduce their profit.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[L4t3r4lu5]

GM tried, but the government just won't let them stop. Even when nobody is buying them.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Virak]

Your clever plan has one slight flaw, namely that Toyota is not the only company on the planet making cars. If they stop then people will just buy cars from elsewhere that are probably less environmentally friendly, resulting in more pollution overall.

Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[releaze]

Well, Toyota apparantly put a whole different meaning to the term Flower Power :')

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[TubeSteak]

Your clever plan has one slight flaw, namely that Toyota is not the only company on the planet making cars. If they stop then people will just buy cars from elsewhere that are probably less environmentally friendly, resulting in more pollution overall.

Naw dude. You missed the clever part: once Toyota stops making cars, we just move onto the next care company and keep asking them "Why don't you stop making cars?" until they finally give up.

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then they stop making cars."
-Ye Olde Buggy Whip Monthly Newsletter.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Devout_IPUite]

But when you have fewer car companies, the existing companies will be making more profit on worse cars due to lack of competition. Would you really expect Ford to close it's doors when it had a monopoly and could make cars that got 15 mpg and trucks that got 2 mpg?

Nah, then they'd enjoy their money and we'd all be worse off for it.

We shouldn't be encouraging companies to stop making cars, we should encourage people to stop buying cars. Fix demand, not supply. There will always be supply for anything that has demand.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Totenglocke]

Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".

It could also do with a lot more of the primary environmental figures actually practicing even .001% of what they preach. The worlds worst polluters are the very people screaming about how we need to cut down on pollution (just take a look at Al Gore's massive homes and electricity usage - I read once that he uses something like 14 times more electricity than the average US citizen - not to mention how much pollution is caused by flying around in private jets all the time).

While I am all for reducing pollution, the environmentalist lobby group is one of the biggest scams in history.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[bjourne]

You're a retard.

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[TheKidWho]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore offsets his emissions by purchasing carbon indulgences. From his own carbon indulgence company, of course. It's a very convenient arrangement. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that carbon indulgence purchases also count as a tax credit. That's just how that smarmy douchebag rolls...

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Anonymous Coward]

It could also do with a lot more of the primary environmental figures actually practicing even .001% of what they preach. The worlds worst polluters are the very people screaming about how we need to cut down on pollution (just take a look at Al Gore's massive homes and electricity usage - I read once that he uses something like 14 times more electricity than the average US citizen - not to mention how much pollution is caused by flying around in private jets all the time).

Yeah, that is kind of absurd. There are a few ameliorating factors. The dude is, after all, a former Vice President of the USA. As such he requires protection from the crazies. That protection probably consumes considerable resources (electricity, gasoline, airplane fuel..etc). Granted, it doesn't require huge homes.

However, as long as there are 30 environmentalists who consume less than the average amount of a given resource for each celebrity environmentalist the environmental movement is still reducing pollution. I would be surprised if there were even 1 celebrity environmentalist for every 100 environmentalists.

While I am all for reducing pollution, the environmentalist lobby group is one of the biggest scams in history.

Second only to all the scams perpetrated on the American taxpayer by big business. The tobacco lobby used to be huge (perhaps still is?). The oil/"energy" lobby is huge. Insurance is huge. So is the auto industry. Phamaceuticals are also huge.. big business in general has an extraordinary lock on government. Not only through lobbyists but when their top execs are "consult" "our" representatives.

Each of the lobbies I mentioned above has outright lied to our elected representatives at one time or another. Tobacco claimed cigarettes weren't addictive. At one point they even advertised it as a health-promoting habit (when they knew otherwise)! The auto industry has repeatedly claimed that it can't improve mileage yet countless developments (hybrid vehicles being the most obvious) demonstrate otherwise. When automobile safety legislation was first being considered, they claimed they couldn't make cars safer. The legislation passes and what do we get? Seat belts dramatically improve safety. Airbags. Crumple zones... etc. Pharmaceuticals have been pushing estrogen hormone therapy when they've known for years how detrimental it can be. They're all scammers making billions through deceit of the consumer and their elected representatives.

I'm sorry but folks who want clean water and clean air -- as opposed to what pours out of industrial plants -- are not the scammers. The scammers are the AIG execs who see taxpayers as the means to sustain their undeserved salaries. Or any executives paid thousands or millions of times the lifetime earning potential of the average worker. The scammers are the insurance companies that want to force everyone to buy their inflated insurance costs under the guise of "healthcare reform". Already we're forced to buy auto insurance for example -- how's that turning out? At least then you can choose to not own a car.). Insurance is the ultimate in legalized scamming. They take your money when times are good and then weasel out of paying even paltry sums when times are tough (true of auto, home, and health insurance). Then they have the gall to complain about people trying to scam them! Theft between theives.

And compared to that you want to call a bunch of penniless hippies scammers? Please!

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[afidel]

Because then people would buy more cars from their former competitors who are not so focused on sustainability?

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Devout_IPUite]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing this letter you notify you that we here at Straw Man Inc. have chosen to cordially accept your application to Straw Man Inc. As a professional lawyer for Straw Man Inc. you will be trained in the art of straw man and making woooshing noises until your people on the internet give up and log off. Everyone knows that making a WOOOSHING noise on the internet shows of your intellect and immediately ends the argument in your favor.

Sincerely,

Straw Man Inc. Management.

One might assume you're suggesting the poster above me was sarcastic... If that was your suggestion, you need to actually read more of the books/webpages that global warming deniers put out, you'd stop assuming that speaking idiocy means someone's joking.

If you think I'm just wrong... WHOOOOOOOSH x 2. :-P

Re:If they want to reduce pollution

[Totenglocke]

I'm sorry but folks who want clean water and clean air -- as opposed to what pours out of industrial plants -- are not the scammers.

And you didn't read a damn thing I wrote. People like Al Gore tell everyone ELSE that we have to sacrifice and live in the stone age "to save the planet" while they pollute just as bad as the worst industrial complexes do. THAT is what I'm complaining about, not people who want to clean things up.

The scammers are the insurance companies that want to force everyone to buy their inflated insurance costs under the guise of "healthcare reform".

Actually, that's your beloved Democrats who want to rape us with that. The entire "reform" bill is a joke that will do nothing but raise costs to unsustainable levels. Guess who'll get hit with the worst of those costs? The poor and the middle class. But your beloved Democrats claim that it's going to help the poor and middle class, so you lap it up even though the facts are plain for anyone who even heard of Economics 101 to see.

And compared to that you want to call a bunch of penniless hippies scammers? Please!

Al Gore and Co. are penniless? Interesting you say that, considering that they have hundreds of millions of dollars....but then again, a Democrat has never once let facts get in the way of their argument.

Flower Power ... Back Baby !

[bintech]

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya...

In a fast german car...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed that I survived
An airbag saved my life

Too abstract?....

Availability

[Sarten-X]

Ignoring naysayers for now, and assuming this plant is the benefit the article claims: What about me?
Does Toyota plan to release these plants for sale at my local garden store?
Can I get a nice slow-growing lawn that I don't have to mow?
Can I get some extra-cold flower gardens?

Re:Availability

[Gerafix]

I wish our society would just get over the green grass lawn. It's absurdly wasteful, especially in dryer climates.

Re:Availability

[drinkypoo]

You can already get excellent air cleaners at the local nursery. Buy a Ficus.

Re:Availability

[TubeSteak]

Ignoring naysayers for now, and assuming this plant is the benefit the article claims: What about me?
Does Toyota plan to release these plants for sale at my local garden store?

Not at your local garden store, but they are for sale through "Toyota Roof Garden Corporation".
AFAICT their sales are entirely out of Japan, so good luck with ordering.
http://www.toyota-roofgarden.co.jp/

Re:Availability

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice slow growing lawn you don't have to mow. White clover. It grows ~4-6 inches high and never needs mowing. It also has the benefit that the neighbourhood bees will go into an orgy of honey making, usually enough to last a small family all winter. The butterfly's and other insect life is another nice bonus. Downside is that some wildlife thinks it's an all you can eat buffet. But I can't say I mind watching deer and moose fertilizing the yard from my front window.

Unfortunately, you probably live in a city, and local by-laws will force you to have a grass lawn. Stupidest idea ever.

Re:Availability

[rockytopchip]

Absolutely correct. Lawn seed mixes used to contain clover. Now people consider clover to be a weed and are quick to apply herbicides to kill it. People seem to think that a proper lawn is a sterile monoculture of KY31 fescue. Au contraire. On my East Tennessee farm I seed red and white clover into my cool season perennial grass pastures in the spring. Clover is a legume plant that is very nutritious and much desired by horses, cows, deer, turkey, etc. Clover will grow in the heat of summer when grass production slows. Clover fixes nitrogen into the soil so one does not need to apply nitrogen fertilizer in the spring. This practice prevents nitrogen fertilizer runoff from getting into the waterways. Also as OP pointed out, bees love clover.

Progenitor Virus

[mister_playboy]

Umbrella Corporation (from the Resident Evil series) cultivated some funky flowers in Africa which led to their biological weapon development... zombies, Majini, etc. were the result.

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Re:Progenitor Virus

[canajin56]

This isn't genetic engineering as in gene splicing, it's genetic engineering as in selective breeding. Fucking fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Just like those cows bred to produce less methane. whatcouldpossiblygowrong. Well, the same things that could always possibly go wrong, I guess? A random mutation between one generation and the next turns their meat into poison? Which would happen with or without selective breeding. When that article got posted about women getting shorter and heavier due to natural selection, did you post "men are genetically engineering women without their consent? whatcouldpossiblygowrong?"

What could possibly go wrong...?

[primesuspect]

Feed me, Seymour... :-/

Re:What could possibly go wrong...?

[srussia]

Feed me, Seymour... :-/

Actually, if the plant eats pets, it'll save the environment!

um this may not be as good as you think

[CHRONOSS2008]

some organic life needs nitrogen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen

scroll down to:
Biological role

Specific bacteria (e.g. Rhizobium trifolium) possess nitrogenase enzymes which can fix atmospheric nitrogen (see nitrogen fixation) into a form (ammonium ion) that is chemically useful to higher organisms. This process requires a large amount of energy and anoxic conditions. Such bacteria may live freely in soil (e.g. Azotobacter) but normally exist in a symbiotic relationship in the root nodules of leguminous plants (e.g. clover, Trifolium, or soybean plant, Glycine max). Nitrogen-fixing bacteria are also symbiotic with a number of unrelated plant species such as alders (Alnus) spp., lichens (Casuarina), Myrica, liverworts, and Gunnera.

and so on and you want to really really give these oil gurgling morons more incentive to screw up the earth WHY ARENT they focusing on i dunno making electric style cars and hybrids more OR tech to go beyond oil prodcuts

The PR machine is go!

[RudeIota]

This is all obviously for attention and is merely a token to the public of Toyota's commitment for being 'green'. The actual 'good' done by planting even an infinite number of flowers around their manufacturer facility is infinitely negligible even on a regional scale.

Perfect Timing!

[adamchou]

I'm finalizing work on a new species of cow that eats unnecessary grass that has been dried. It then produces plenty of methane and CO2 to feed these plants.

Re:Perfect Timing!

[value_added]

IANACE, but how is that an improvement over a cow that naturally grazes on fresh grass?

Re:Perfect Timing!

[Anonymous Coward]

IANACE, but how is that an improvement over a cow that naturally grazes on fresh grass?

whoooosh!

Re:Perfect Timing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh sorry, I have both the copyright and patent on both the business method and Engineering. You can use it for a royalty though. I got my patent last year.

Re:Perfect Timing!

[acheron12]

Bah, your advances are trivial. I'm creating a cow that excretes a tasty white liquid for human consumption. I've also invented various ways of fermenting the liquid to create Yoghurt (TM) and Cheese (TM), patents pending.

Harmful gases hey?

[syousef]

Where can I buy some of this to shove in my undies? I'll be so popular when i fart and it comes out roses^H^H^H^H^Hgardenias.

Branching out

[TehBlahhh]

Reduce pollination? What, on earth, does plant birth control have to do with toyota? Unless they're going for umbrella corporation status, that sort of thing would be way outside their usual line of business. Of course, if they ARE...

Oh wait. Pollution.

Re:Branching out

[afidel]

Well, they sort of already are part of an umbrella corp or keiretsu, they are part of the Toyota Group.

These Flowers Get Great Mileage!

[Bob_Who]

...but they all look alike and they're not very good at city driving.

FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[Futurepower(R)]

FRAUD? Plants always metabolize nitrogen. The extra humidity is not needed in humid Japan, and therefore provides little cooling.

This seems to be a P.R. blitz. Google lists an amazing number of references.

Slashdot is a technology web site with editors who seemingly only know computer technology.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[jgardia]

Plants cannot metabolize nitrogen directly. You need some nitrogenated molecules to allow them to absorb the nitrogen. This job is typically done by bacterias in the soil. Why do you think you put nitrogen fertilizers to plants, if the atmosphere is > 70% nitrogen?

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[sarahbau]

While I agree that it does seem like this will do little, from the article you posted, it sounds like nitrogen can normally only be absorbed by the roots of plants, and only by means of nitrifying bacteria. The article says the plants can absorb nitrogen oxides directly through the leaves. I'm no botanist, but I think that's the key to the article, not that they can metabolize nitrogen.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[Mathinker]

Plants cannot metabolize nitrogen directly.

You are correct. However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants.

Why do you think you put nitrogen fertilizers to plants, if the atmosphere is > 70% nitrogen?

As you probably know, we'd all be dead if the atmosphere were ~70% nitrogen oxides.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no botanist

Yeah... well... I ain't seen no plants grow out of no toilet.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[mpe]

While I agree that it does seem like this will do little, from the article you posted, it sounds like nitrogen can normally only be absorbed by the roots of plants, and only by means of nitrifying bacteria.

Certain plants form nodules on their roots which contain bacterial symbiotes which "fix" nitrogen. This arrangement being of mutual benefit to both the plant and the bacteria.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[TheKidWho]

Seems to me like we wouldn't have evolved the way we did if the atmosphere was primarily Nitrogen Oxides, but something would be there!

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[mpe]

However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants.

This the question becomes "Are these plants significently better at adsorbing the oxide mix produced in vehicle exhausts compared with other plants?"

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[Anonymous Coward]

" FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again? (Score:-1, Flamebait) "

Even though there is plenty of agreement with the parent comment, it is marked "-1, Flamebait" at present.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm kinda working on a similiar project, however, my product is a flower that when in bloom, produces particles of 'nectar' with about 82% concentrations of nitrogen dioxide NO2, when the glucose in the nectar dissolves from a (secret) catalyst reaction and breaks down into water we get Nitric Acid. Meaning it's pretty good at metabolizing!!
My next step is to include a process for producing cyanides and then make the reaction into a big schwwoooomba.

A flower as beautiful as it is lethal. HahahAHAHahAHaHAhahAahahhaaa

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[HiThere]

I think that depends on *which* nitrogen oxide. I think 70% NO is breathable, provided the rest isn't oxygen. (That would make it too rich.)

P.S.: It might be breathable, but you wouldn't be exactly conscious. NO is the safest of the anesthetics, and is sometimes called "laughing gas".

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[cekander]

Would we be dead? Or would we have never existed? Or perhaps our soul would be embodied in a different evolved specie adapted for 70% nitrogen oxide.

Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again?

[BoogieChile]

Yes, but at least we'd all die laughing

And then?

[VincenzoRomano]

What are the long term plans for the foliage disposal?
Once those leaves will be stuffed with the bad gases, they will die. And then?
Back to the soil and the athmosphere?
Nice solution then!

Re:And then?

[Arlet]

Only the oxides are harmful. When nitrogen is bound in other compounds, it works as a fertilizer. Plants need nitrogen, but they generally can't get it from the air, but they will readily absorb it from the soil.

Re:And then?

[Anonymous Coward]

>What are the long term plans for the foliage disposal?
Yucca Flat.
Radiation will keep the plants from decaying.
As I stated above:
>That's why you have to kill'em and dump em in the landfill. That and a bullet in the head. Otherwise >it's Godzilla Vs. the iceage-causing nitrogen-eating plant monster time.

Some of us

[Kupfernigk]

Live in areas with a metre of rainfall per year, like to have somewhere to go outside in summer, have children and grandchildren, and are aware of the problems of runoff from concrete surfaces, decks and so on. Our lawn requires no fertilizer, no watering, and by next year the robot mower will be recharged from a solar panel. And it provides foot access to the vegetable garden and the fruit trees.

You insensitive clod!

Having said which, you are totally right. Lawns belong in places where the climate is suitable and they are a cheap, low-maintenance,environmentally friendly surface cover. But most places in the world are not Southern England.

Re:Some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

But most places in the world are not Southern England.

For a second I thought you were talking about Belgium there......

Re:Some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

"But most places in the world are not Southern England."

We can dream, though.

CAPTCHA: nettle. Hahaha.

Re:Some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Southern England where all the hose-pipe bans are? No thanks mate, I'll stick to Scotland, only problem we have is stopping the damn plants from being drowned or from floating away...

Water Vapor?

[dreamchaser]

Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Talk about feel good marketing ploys!

Re:Water Vapor?

[Arlet]

The amount of water vapor is also more or less constant. If you try to put more vapor in the atmosphere, it will just rain out somewhere else.

Re:Water Vapor?

[Anonymous Coward]

More specifically; Manchester, England.

Re:Water Vapor?

[canajin56]

Actually, it's less potent by 5x. It has a bigger effect on the atmosphere because there is 40 times as much of it in the air...also as the other poster pointed out, it falls out of the air all of the time. You may be familiar with the effect, even if you live in a desert. And the article is about NOx. That's 1500 as strong a greenhouse gas as water vapor. Still so absolutely positive that gardens are the true and only cause of the greenhouse effect? Your argument makes sense, right? Who uses greenhouses? Gardeners! QED, BITCHES. Burn down all of the fields and forrests, trees cause global warming, that's why things keep cooling off as we cut them down! Temperatures only started rising again as damn hippies made us plant trees! CRUEL IRONY.

Re:Water Vapor?

[acheron12]

I wonder why these water vapor trolls get worried about a few drops of transpiration from a plant when there's an entire rolling, splashing ocean out there. I'm pretty sure that's a larger source of atmospheric water vapor, and it's been there longer than humans have, so it's obviously not having much of a detrimental effect.

...Unlike digging up fossil fuels that have been buried since before humans existed and releasing that carbon into the atmosphere - an irreversible process until we develop an efficient way of turning atmospheric carbon back into oils and other storable compounds. E.g. algal biofuels.

DNA* headline

[codeButcher]

That's what happens when you are too stressed at work to properly read. You develop faux dyslexia. So that headline read:

Toyota Develops New Flower Species To Reduce Pollination

And then I run around claiming that everything I know I've learnt from /. headlines.... Scary.

(* = National Dyslexia Association, for those who've never heard the old joke.)

This is great!

[Aldenissin]

I have had visions of society using the tools that were given to us. We CAN find solutions, if we only try. We have to identify the problems accurately first, and then instead of excuses, seek the answer.

Don't all plants create water vapor?

[firefarter]

School's been a while back, but if I remember correctly, water vapor is a by-product of photosynthesis?

Water vapor is ALSO a greenhouse gas.

[EWAdams]

You don't necessarily want to be making more of it in large quantities, although presumably as 7/10ths of the planet is covered by water, the amount generated by some flowers won't be terribly significant.

On the other hand, the forthcoming fuel cell cars should really include condensers so the water coming out the tailpipe is liquid rather than gaseous. One downside: the roads will ALWAYS be wet. We can presumably expect a certain increase in accident deaths from that cause, although it will be offset by the reduction in lung diseases.

Boooooooooogus

[CFD339]

This is as bogus as the whole "clean" concept of the Toyota Pious. These cars are dirty as hell to make, dirty as hell to recycle, and only provide real benefit for city driving. VW and Audi have done much more important work with their "clean diesel" engines that get mileage similar to that of the hybrids without massive dirty batteries, and those cars get high mileage on long haul trips and long country roads like we have here in the US.

Shameless drivel

[jandersen]

It is a load of shameless and deceptive nonsense; and does make it better that it is wrapped up in florid language, if you will excuse the pun, hur, hur. "Create a new species"? Even highly educated plant breeders haven't been able to do that, but a car manufacturer manages to do it with a gesture and a lorry-load of hype?

For a plant species to work well as carbon-capturer, it ought to grow fast (thus producing large quantities of biomass) and it should break down slowly, so the CO2 isn't released quickly again. Gardenias and sages don't really fit the bill - grasses might, some trees might and green algae, perhaps. But I understand, of course - surrounding the offices with a few hectares of slimy ponds isn't as pretty.

The real mystery is - how on Earth did this make it as far as being mentioned here?

Re:Shameless drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is an obvious sign that Toyota has been conducting super-secret research into genetic engineering and managed to get way ahead of anyone else in what they are capable of.

When they reach the same phase in their secret AI research, they'll release a biomechanical car with sentient AI...unfortunately for us, they'll rebel and take over the world!

Re:Shameless drivel

[wisdom_brewing]

Try a Eucalyptus grove... Those thing grow insanely fast in most climates...

Re:Shameless drivel

[xelah]

It is a load of shameless and deceptive nonsense; and does make it better that it is wrapped up in florid language, if you will excuse the pun, hur, hur. "Create a new species"? Even highly educated plant breeders haven't been able to do that, but a car manufacturer manages to do it with a gesture and a lorry-load of hype?

I'm not so sure that 'species' is so well defined a concept when it comes to plants and hybrids that everyone agrees on what is and isn't a new species. However, I distinctly suspect that 'hybrid' got turned in to 'species' somewhere between the grower's mouth and journalist's article. Science journalists in particular seem to love writing complete bollocks that sometimes even flatly contradicts their only source.

For a plant species to work well as carbon-capturer,

No-one has said anything about them capturing carbon. They were chosen to capture and degrade other pollutants. Plants /do/ degrade pollutants like formaldehyde and some people buy particular pot plants specifically to reduce volatile organic compounds in their indoor air. (Though you're probably better off buying a proper filter). It sounds like Toyota's gardener has heard of the idea and though 'hmm, maybe I could do that, too' and then made the mistake of allowing their PR department to catch on.

Re:Shameless drivel

[Anonymous Coward]

"Create a new species"? Even highly educated plant breeders haven't been able to do that,

You are joking, right? Remember, Google is your friend. Might I suggest 'artificial selection plants' as a suitable starting point?

Stop GMOs!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to treehuger.com the flowers are genetically engineered. It's a danger unparallelled in human history, we're destroying the millenia old single lifeline there is, the genetical code.

And when the GMOs contaminate natural plants, one would expect the company making them be sued out of business but what actually has happened is the company goes suing the farmer for using their intellectual property! This model encourages careless handling of the GMO seeds and even intentional contamination. The human greed is boundless and shows no mercy.

Shame on Toyota, I for one certainly will not buy their products after this. I bet many people (especially in the EU) feel likewise.

Re:Stop GMOs!!!

[holmstar]

It was selective breeding, not genetic engineering per se.

IE: It is the same thing that led to nice red apples, juicy peaches, and pretty much every other cultivated fruit or vegetable that ends up on your table. Oh the HORROR!

Amazing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trees that absorb polutants and release water vapor. Oh my God! Tell everyone what an amazing discovery!

Oh yeah wait a minute we've known this for like the last 100 years.

The best way to lower your carbon footprint is to stop breathing, feel free to do so at any time.

Ob. HHGG reference

[Kupfernigk]

You are right, but as a good HHGG follower, I don't use swear words on Slashdot.

Our New and Improved Toyota Prius

[Kreeben]

...with virtually no impact on environment!* * except for huge fields of Toyota Gardenia (TM), and who doesn't like gardenias?

Stop one greenhouse gas with another?

[TerribleNews]

I really hope someone did some pretty heavy analysis on this. The atmosphere is a big and complicated place.

Re:Stop one greenhouse gas with another?

[canajin56]

So...you're advocating cutting down every plant on the entire planet? If you take the Wikipedia numbers, Michael Moore style, the maximum effect of water is 72% from 2% of the atmosphere. The minimum effect of CO2 is 8% from 0.04% of the atmosphere. So, CO2 gives 1/9 the effect, but from 1/50 the amount. If you make 5 tonnes of water vapor and lock away 1 tonne of CO2, you come even. Also, water vapor precipitates out of the air very fast, while CO2 tends to just sit there. Also, the article isn't about CO2, it's about Nitrous Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide. Nitrous is 300x as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. So that's about 1500x as much as water. If it they even absorb a total of one tonne of nitrous per 1500 tonnes of water vapor, they break even. And again, that water will precipitate back down fairly easily, whereas nitrous will just float up there breaking down the ozone layer, for a double whammy of reflecting heat back at us, and also increasing incoming radiance.

Now, when I say that the water will fall out eventually, I mean all of it, and extremely quickly. It's only a consideration on the page you linked, because the amount the air will hold is a function of its temperature. But almost all of it comes from evaporation in the ocean. Plants are nothing. The atmosphere is already basically fully saturated almost everywhere. No matter how many plants you grow, you'll have absolutely no effect. Because the air won't hold it, it will float up, turn into a cloud, then rain a bit more. The end. Don't fucking link Wikipedia articles to "prove your point" without even reading them. If the temperature goes up, more water will be held from the oceans. You can't up the temperature, and then say "oh good thing Toyota didn't grow any fucking flowers, or that extra heat would mean more water staying in the atmosphere instead of raining." No, the ocean absolutely and unequivocally dwarfs any plant based effect on Earth, let alone any plant based effect humans can cause that we haven't already undone many times over by unchecked deforestation.

Where did you leave your critical thinking today?

[nietsch]

Dubious claims that sound scientific, but not made in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed and making 1st grade biology errors in the title, and you still think there is some truth in that article?
'Species' is a fundamental term in biology. For instance evolution depends on the definition of a species. If they would have truly created a new species of plant (utilising a different nice and unable to interbreed) then that would be news. Making a cultivar and planting that on a factory grounds is just not that.

/. biology, economics, politics, manufacturing...

[Anonymous Coward]

experts come out of the woodwork to respond in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

You'd all own your own islands by now, if only your massive intellect were truly appreciated...

Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors

[Migraineman]

Mutated plants with wheels ... I swear I've seen this somewhere before, but I thought it came out of France.

They're called Triffids...

[clickety6]

...and they eat people, thus reducing pollution.

It's a rather radical solution.

Re:They're called Triffids...

[jack2000]

An order of triffids and a side order of human blood fertilizer please.

Plants probably don't become oil ...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You see, actually that's an open question. There are several other alternatives that might have lead to the creation of oil, the most promising being underground bacteria that live from geothermal and radioactive food sources (yes there are bacteria that "eat" radioactivity).

I doubt you're entirely correct about coal either. After all, coal is pretty much pure carbon, it does not have to be biological in origin.

The problem is, if you're right, oil would be found where the ground first went down at least several miles and then came back up again, over the course of at most a few 100 million years (and less than a billion years). However in reality oil (and coal) is found where the ground has been rising slowly since long before the advent of plants. So there are lots of large oilfields and coal mines that just couldn't possibly ever have been plants.

The only research that we have found that it is possible to create oil from plants. That does not mean that that has to be what happened. It is the accepted "explanation" for oil in popular scientific journals, but it is most likely not correct.

And btw, the largest storehouse of carbon is not the ground, but the ocean. In reality > 95% of the co2 increase in the athmosphere originated in the ocean, and not in some factory or car. The AGW theory is that the co2 release from factories triggered a tiny increase in temperature, resulting in much co2 release from the ocean, which resulted in tiny increase, ... The theory behind AGW is not that humans are themselves responsible for co2 rise, they only claim that's a tiny part of it, the theory is that 19th century factories tripped a feedback loop resulting in warming. That feedback loop was already feeding back on itself, even before those factories, but at a slower rate. Reducing human co2 output, even by 100%, will therefore not result in cooling, merely in slower warming. Until we get to a point where co2 increase will not further warm the earth and the feedback loop will reverse direction, resulting in a 16 degree drop in average temperature in less than 1000 years, resulting in permanent ice sheets reaching the outskirts of paris and New York. The point where the balance tips seems to be (given historical data) about 2-3 degrees warmer than today.

And it also means that if anything, we or some volcano or weather pattern, somehow succeed in creating a short term cooling, even a single degree, that will reverse the long term temperature gradient (even if we keep pumping co2 in the athmosphere, because we'll never beat the re-absorption of the oceans). That means removing a massive amount of energy from the athmosphere, but there have been eruptions and events that came close.

Or, of course, it could have been God. I doubt anyone outside of the madhouses ("mosques") of saudi arabia believes that, though. Of course, in that country, stating that it probably wasn't allah can get you your head chopped off. You see, if it wasn't allah, that would mean they have some 10-20 years to get a working economy going, one that can survive without oil. And ... progress in that regard has been ... less than stellar.

Re:Plants probably don't become oil ...

[EL_mal0]

You see, actually that's an open question. There are several other alternatives that might have lead to the creation of oil, the most promising being underground bacteria that live from geothermal and radioactive food sources (yes there are bacteria that "eat" radioactivity).

Actually, it's about as open a question as is evolution among biologists and paleontologists.

Exploration for coal and oil the "Dead Things Turn into Oil and Coal, Given the Right Conditions" hypothesis has been wildly successful. All other sources of carbon (from the mantle, etc.) pump far too little carbon into the upper crust for them to be viable mechanisms.

Re:Plants probably don't become oil ...

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

By the way, it's called science. The idea is to have an open mind, and look for explanations. For example it's been established that there's oil on Titan, a moon of saturn, as well as other gaseous hydrocarbons.

Any bets on how much of those are buried plants ?

Also these days plankton is "digested" even at the bottom of the ocean by so-called extremophile organisms. Plankton sinking to the bottom today will never become oil for that reason. And no-one knows how long plankton-eating bacteria have existed at the bottom when obviously the biogenic theory depends on that being a rather short time. Lots of things remain to be cleared up.

Yes plants CAN be made into petroleum. You're quite correct that that is proven. The question is, is that indeed what happened ? Not much research is going into it as there are no clear angles of attack.

Btw : even in evolution corrections are still made to the theory. Just recently it's been proven that the gene combining mechanism in sexual reproduction is not just a basepair-by-basepair, but there is in fact a rather extensive (and currently unknown) algorithm at work, which is, just to name one thing, able to tell the length of genes and "re-link" our DNA into a working program in ways that no direct copying algorithm would be.

Likewise even proponents of biogenic oil do not discount that abiogenic oil exists, the theory states that it's contribution is not significant.

Re:Plants probably don't become oil ...

[ryanov]

The idea is to have an open mind, and look for explanations.

Not quite so open that your brain falls out, however.

Toyota Eco Claims

[Sponge Bath]

Toyota is clearly making an effort to appear eco-friendly, but examine their claims closely. I heard squirrels are unharmed when run over by a Prius. As a Prius owner, I tell you that is not true. They pop like furry little grapes.

accumulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they conducted tests on how this affects insects? When bees and the likes come to feed of the flower, and then have the harmful components accumulate in the higher foodchains? Like they teach you in biology?

Re:Where did you leave your critical thinking toda

[jc42]

Dubious claims that sound scientific, but not made in a scientific journal, not peer reviewed and making 1st grade biology errors in the title, and you still think there is some truth in that article?

And to make it even sillier, the article is illustrated by a face (female, of course) sniffing three flowers from the Compositae family. The Sage (genus Salvia in the family Lamiaceae) and gardenia (genus Gardenia, family Rubiaceae) have flowers that are radically different from composite flowers.

I did especially like the claim that the gardenia "creates water vapor". Ex nihilo? If they release water vapor, that's pretty much what all leafy plants do as part of their normal metabolism. Of course, some are more wasteful of water than others, so maybe this gardenia has been selected to really squander its water. But, strictly speaking, the water vapor doesn't cool anything. The cooling happens when the water is converted to vapor, in or at the surface of the leaf. Anything else is cooled by the mixing of the air at the cool leaf surface with other air; entrained water vapor has no real effect on this. It might actually have the opposite effect, if the air is sufficiently moist to produce condensation, which will release a "heat of condensation" into whatever surface it condenses on, but this is generally a minor effect compared to the cooling from the leaf surfaces.

I'd wonder if there is a better description anywhere of what (if anything) they've developed. The story sounds like a typical mangling of a scientific report by publicists who don't understand any of the words. The fact that they'd illustrate it with flowers from a different family supports that inference.

Water Vapor no.1 greenhouse gas.

[Anonymous Coward]

All plants release water vapor, which is, by far, the number one greenhouse gas.

Let me try...

[denzacar]

First of all, what do you think releases more heat through its metabolism. A meadow or an automobile factory?

As for the effect these bio-engineered flowers have...
Think sprinklers. That require no power source but the water they are fed and ground they are planted into. Plus, they look like pretty flowers.

Did that help?

Where is the eco-fear/terror response?

[Wyatt Earp]

This sort of thing is generally attacked by the eco movements, so I wonder what their reply will be?

Where are the organic advocates?

[gryf]

I thought it was bad form or just plain dangerous to mess with Mother Gaia's design? Isn't modified plants against some natural law or something? What if pollen from these flowers drift into someone else's garden? Where's the boatload of decent, thinking, people ready to stamp out these horrors of science?

In the U.S. ...

[rnturn]

Some company like Monsanto will come up with plants like these (available only from them, of course) and patent the whole idea just so they can make a buck off of saving the planet.

A change in business type?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop buying Toyota cars. Toyota is into flowers now!

Dear Greenpeace

[The Yuckinator]

"How do you like GMO's now?"

What division do you work in again?

[DarthVain]

The flower department... why?

Heh, makes me laugh, but good for Toyota all the same!

Other Plants Toyota Could Build?

[LifesABeach]

I guess plant genetics draws attention away from Toyota's auto-motivations. How about a plant that would grow from a car? Each plant type would absorb something from the car like the car's Iron, or Copper, or Aluminum? The metal could be "stored" as a nodule that then could be "harvested" for future requirements. Wrecking Yards would be handled like farms.

Hypocritical bastards!

[fugue]

So they can claim to be "green" while still producing 4Runners and worse. Assholes.

Re: H2O worse than CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. Is the overall net effect from substituting X tons of water vapor emissions for X+N tons of carbon dioxide emissions worse? Panicky science-challenged AGW morons want to know!!

Carbon offsets == Ecomasturbation. You can feel good about yourself without actually having accomplished anything productive.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas, far beyond CO2.. Kinda defeats the point right?

Wrong oxide, but otherwise probably correct

[Mathinker]

... I think 70% NO is breathable, ... NO is the safest of the anesthetics, and is sometimes called "laughing gas".

You meant N20, nitrous oxide. OTOH, as a previous replier has also pointed out, life almost certainly could have evolved to use either NO or N2O as the primary oxidizing agent if it, instead of oxygen, had been what was available (considering the wide range of what various weird bacteria manage to use).

Genetic mods??? No good

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetically modifying plants is not good for the enviorment at all. Research how they do it and how it affects the enviorment. A great documentary "The Future of Food" illustrates many of these points.