Breakthrough In Artificial Photosynthesis Captures CO2 In Acetate

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers from Berkeley Lab and the U.S. Dept. of Energy have created an artificial photosynthetic process that capture carbon dioxide in acetate, "the most common building block today for biosynthesis." The research has been published in the journal Nano Letters (abstract). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in at least three million years, primarily as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Yet fossil fuels, especially coal, will remain a significant source of energy to meet human needs for the foreseeable future. Technologies for sequestering carbon before it escapes into the atmosphere are being pursued but all require the captured carbon to be stored, a requirement that comes with its own environmental challenges. ... By combining biocompatible light-capturing nanowire arrays with select bacterial populations, the new artificial photosynthesis system offers a win/win situation for the environment: solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide."

Comments

They're called trees.

[jdharm]

"...solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide." Trees. Quit cutting them down. Plant more. Problem solved.

Re: They're called trees.

[timrod]

I don't know how viable these devices are for mass production or what it takes to keep them running, but you could potentially use them in places (building roofs, taller light fixtures in parking lots) where there isn't enough space or it isn't viable to plant trees.

I do recall, however, someone pointing out to me that industrial hemp is more efficient at removing co2 than even some trees.

Re: They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

I do recall, however, someone pointing out to me that industrial hemp is more efficient at removing co2 than even some trees.

Hemp is harder on the soil than its proponents would have you believe. Bamboo is even more efficient than hemp, you can harvest it and build stuff out of it every five years or so, sequestering carbon. And you can do it all with hand tools. You do need water, but it can be pretty crappy water.

The proper solution will be varied.

We already have a way to fix CO2 on your roof, it's called a green roof.

Not cutting down the trees is a useful step, because mature growth fixes more CO2 than new growth.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

...and then the trees die, decompose and release back the C02 ... problem not solved

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except trees (plants in general) respire. In the absence of sunlight (i.e. night time), they take the sugars they've created and burn them as food. Creating CO2 and water again.

I'm going to assume these devices don't that and can be used in areas where trees and plants are not viable.

Re:They're called trees.

[Penguinisto]

Trees. Quit cutting them down. Plant more. Problem solved.

Strangely enough, at least in North America, we've planted more trees than we've cut down, and have done so for around what, 100 years now? ( By way of example, here in Oregon, loggers are required by law to plant anywhere from 3-5new trees** for each one they cut down, and they have to survive for at least a year after planting.)

Mind you, this doesn't speak for the third world (where firewood for heat and cooking is an actual thing, farming is a growth industry, not to mention the exotic hardwood cutting), and definitely doesn't speak for Europe and Asia (where the former has few forests left, and the latter is largely ignored and therefore unregulated for the most part).

** the number depends on soil quality, slope, and other factors, but it's at least 3.

Re:They're called trees.

[gtall]

That's not sophisticated enough. The problem is we're taking eons of sequestered carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere all at once. Trees only sequester carbon for about 100 before they're broken down into CO2 and other stuff again. Think of it as time dilated burning. And planting the world over with trees cannot possibly capture all the sequestered CO2 we're dumping.

Re:They're called trees.

[BradleyUffner]

"...solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide."

Trees. Quit cutting them down. Plant more. Problem solved.

Actually, cutting down trees is a great way to optimize carbon storage, as long as new trees are planted to replace the ones cut down. It clears space for new trees, which grow faster and eat more carbon when they are young. The cut wood keeps the carbon locked up and is a useful building material. As long as the cut wood keeps the carbon in solid form it isn't going to affect the atmosphere.

I've actually seen plans where cut wood is dumped to the bottom of the ocean where it won't decay, then replanted in a constant cycle. That carbon would basically be locked up forever (at least until we start mining it at some point in the far future).

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you do the napkin math you can quickly determine that planting trees will not substantively address the problem of co2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
There may be many other good reasons for planting trees and not cutting them down though.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, but it does solve the problem a bit. The old trees die and decompose, most of that organic matter sticks around long enough to be used by the next generation of plant, fungus, and animal. The soil is in turn enriched which supports more life that it previously could which in turn sequesters more carbon. It may be a pyramid scheme, but it is one that has worked for a very long time. Also, if enough organic matter is present it might actually recreate the fossil fuels that caused the problem in the first place completing the cycle (albeit in the distant future).

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough sunken trees to be significant would probably cause enough rise in sea level to solve the human-induced carbon problem through extinction. Damn that Archimedes.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where did the fossil fuels come from? dead plants... where did the dead plants come from? CO... it's not like this is a new cycle - just unbalanced due to human activity.

Re:They're called trees.

[Pinky's Brain]

With Peak Fossil Fertilizers and population growth it might not be such a good idea to put all those nutrients on the bottom of the ocean. You need to sequester the carbon without too much other valuable stuff.

Re:They're called trees.

[aitikin]

Mind you, this doesn't speak for the third world (where firewood for heat and cooking is an actual thing, farming is a growth industry, not to mention the exotic hardwood cutting), and definitely doesn't speak for Europe and Asia (where the former has few forests left, and the latter is largely ignored and therefore unregulated for the most part).

Bob Taylor has done some wonderful work in making the "exotic hardwood cutting" sustainable. It's incredible what would happen before.

Re:They're called trees.

[abies]

Europe and Asia (where the former has few forests left [...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Canada and the United States 26%
European Union 35%

And from
http://wdi.worldbank.org/table...
Europe it was 36.5% in 200 and 37.9% in 2012.

Not sure how good these statistics are, because it says 'Canada &United States = 26%' and then 'Canada =31%' and 'USA= 30.84%'... In any case, Europe has more forest area atm and amount of forest is growing rather than decreasing.

Or did you mean Europe has few forests left compared to situation from 2000 years ago? I can agree with that, but I don't think that global warming is THAT old - we used to have some mini ice age in meantime I think...

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide."

Trees. Quit cutting them down. Plant more. Problem solved.

Actually, cutting down trees is a great way to optimize carbon storage, as long as new trees are planted to replace the ones cut down.

Nope

Re: They're called trees.

[DigiShaman]

Not cutting down the trees is a useful step, because mature growth fixes more CO2 than new growth.

You're not thinking long-term. Eventually the trees will die, decompose, and go back into the system as CO2. No, what you want to be doing is cutting down trees after their maximum growth rate has been achieved, then sequester the logs someplace. Clearing old growth makes room for newer faster growing trees that will soak up more CO2 than if you left old growth in its place. The only advantage of that (leaving old growth behind) is a more stable ecosystem as it would render that area less disturbed.

Re:They're called trees.

[sonamchauhan]

Haha - you can't see the wood for the trees! (this idiom has a double meaning here)

See the tree? The wood is almost all 'fixed' carbon.

And when it dies, a tree doesn't go 'poof' in a cloud of CO2. Instead, organic matter gets trapped in the ground and new topsoil is created (again, mostly carbon).

Recall a well tended urban 'nature strip' in an older suburb (a century or more)? Typically, the strip tends to 'pops out' from its concrete lining. That's a small version of the same effect.

Some interesting info I just came across: http://managingwholes.com/new-...

Re:They're called trees.

[dave420]

And when the tree dies? Or stops eating up as much CO2 as it did when it started growing? That's the problem with pithy one-line answers to complicated questions - they're usually wrong, and make the giver look rather foolish :)

We need something far better than trees to store CO2 simply because we produce so much of it.

Re:They're called trees.

[slimshady76]

Mind you, this doesn't speak for the third world (where firewood for heat and cooking is an actual thing, farming is a growth industry, not to mention the exotic hardwood cutting), and definitely doesn't speak for Europe and Asia (where the former has few forests left, and the latter is largely ignored and therefore unregulated for the most part).

The Third World doesn't burn the wood for cooking/heat. It's cut and processed either to expand the agricultural frontier so more soybean can be grown and exported to the First World or to make paper in factories the First World bans and get relocated here.

Re:They're called trees.

[dave420]

And practically impossible to re-start, as the majority of coal was created because tree-eating bacteria hadn't yet evolved. Clearly they have now, and so the cycle is not just unbalanced, but completely broken. It might be possible to create coal from peat bogs and the like, but that's nowhere near as easy or widespread as forests, clearly.

Re: They're called trees.

[Dr. Evil]

"...mature growth fixes more CO2 than new growth."

Only if your definition of "mature" is the peak-growth period of the trees and not a forest which has stopped growing.

Mature forests are as carbon neutral as an untapped oil deposit. Carbon release through decay balances with carbon capture from growth.

Using forests as a tool for carbon capture means either growing forests to maturity as carbon storage fields, or clearcutting new-growth forests and building permanent structures with a lot of wood, of course considerin the carbon-cost of processing the lumber and restoring soil nutrients.

Hardwood floors in shopping malls might be a good start.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

there isn't enough space or it isn't viable to plant trees.

Space. The eventual destination for all bio-replacement technology, and humans.

Re:They're called trees.

[moeinvt]

Yes, you have to prevent them from oxidizing somehow. Dumping them in water or burying them raises a lot of questions though. Would the operation of cutting them down and either digging deep holes to bury them or transporting them to the ocean to be weighted down and dumped be carbon negative? The market need for building materials is presumably being filled with current operations, so I don't think you could store much additional carbon that way. Many logging operations also re-plant.

I wonder if something like hemp wouldn't suck up more carbon than trees and be easier to sequester?

Re:They're called trees.

[mspohr]

After you've clear cut an area, it only makes sense to try to restore it but the reality is that you can never put it back the way it was...
Plant 3-5 new trees (each weighing less than a pound) to replace a 20,000 pound tree is a joke. After 20 or 50 years, these trees might grow enough to begin to replace the carbon sequestration of the tree you cut down but don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a solution. It's still best to just not cut down the trees in the first place.

Re:They're called trees.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No with trees you need to cut them down and harvest the wood. If used in durable goods it becomes a very effective method for sequestering carbon. If you really want to go for long term sequestration then dig a giant hole and then fill it so there is a giant pile of harvested trees and then cover it with dirt.

Re:They're called trees.

[mspohr]

I think you've hit on the problem. We do need to stop producing so much CO2. We need to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. We need to leave fossil CO2 in the ground. We can switch to renewables (solar, wind, etc.) and replace most of our fossil fuel consumption and the faster we do that, the less damage from fossil CO2.

Re:They're called trees.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My understanding is that wood if it is buried far enough down and kept away from oxygen will still basically turn into coal eventually.

Re:They're called trees.

[allcoolnameswheretak]

That's an interesting Wiki page. But I'm afraid those figures say almost nothing about the actual number of trees or forest density in those countries.
For example, Spain has a higher forest area percentage than Germany, 36% vs 31%. Not sure what counts as "forest area" though, because while it is true that Spain has more untouched wilderness than Germany, most of the land is dry with very sparse tree density. In contrast, Germany has mostly moist, rich land and very dense forests. By these accounts I wouldn't be surprised if Germany had three times more trees than Spain despite it being a smaller country with less forest cover.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in at least three million years, but is still at the extreme lower end of historic levels.

Fixed.

Re:They're called trees.

[operagost]

It's hard to get anything out of the trees without cutting them down and releasing the carbon dioxide. Also, trees are hard to grow on top of buildings.

It's OK-- most of the people commenting below didn't read the article either.

Re:They're called trees.

[itzly]

It seems awfully counterproductive to dig two holes, and take carbon (coal) out of one hole and put other carbon (wood) in the other one. Instead, you could just burn the wood, and dig up a little less coal.

Re:They're called trees.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My experience would dictate that it takes far less than an century. I dispose of all of the leaves, BBQ ash in the garden plot in my backyard. When I moved in the dirt that was there was about 2 inches below the concrete (just some ugly unkept bush was there), now it is at least an inch above (I have to shovel it back in) and when I till it in the spring it will fluff up another 3-4 inches. Then again I am disposing of all sorts of stuff in there, all of the leaves from trees, fish and bits of fish, and BBQ ash so there is a lot of material that ends up in there.

Re:They're called trees.

[BradleyUffner]

That article just says that old forests capture more carbon than was initially thought. They initially thought they captured none; that really isn't a high bar to get over. Young forest still capture more than old forests.

Re: They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

Only if your definition of "mature" is the peak-growth period of the trees and not a forest which has stopped growing.

You've got to take it on a species-by-species basis. Take, for example, Sequoia Sempervirens. Right up until the trees fall down because they outgrow their root systems, older trees put on more mass and thus fix more CO2 than the same area filled to capacity with younger trees.

Even trees which aren't getting taller are often getting thicker, so the question for a given species is whether younger or older members put on more mass for a given area. Virtually all of the non-water mass of all vegetation is carbon, and nearly all of the carbon of all vegetation (even relatively high soil carbon users like corn) comes from the air.

Re: They're called trees.

[bdeclerc]

The sun is _slowly_ brightening - this is happening on timescales of tens to hundreds of millions of years. The fact that CO2 was significantly higher tens or hundreds of millions of years ago is not super-relevant to today's conditions, but it helped keep temperatures bearable in the distant past, when the sun was fainter. We are adding CO2 at a rate that is essentially instantaneous compared to the effects of this solar evolution, they are even still extremely quick on the much shorter (tens of thousands of years) timescales of the Milankovitch-cycles (which are the orbital cycles which are the underlying cause of our glacial-interglacial variation in the past few million years)

What interests us at this time is what we are doing to our atmosphere over a period of tens to hundreds of years, and what effect that has on timescales of tens, hundreds and thousands of years - even if we humans stop all of our CO2 emissions (except breathing of course), the increased concentration versus "before" will be considerable thousands of years into the future, as will the effects of that increase on climate.

So stating "still at the extreme lower end of historic levels" is technically correct, but practically misleading, as it suggests there's nothing wrong with CO2-levels.

Re:They're called trees.

[Dan East]

So, on that wiki article it says the percent of forested land area, by country is:
Canada: 3,101,340 km2 forested which is 31.06%
USA: 3,030,890 km2 forested which is 30.84%

But then Canada and USA combined is: 4,680,000 km2 or 26.00%

Obviously something is quite wrong with that article.

Re:They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

Strangely enough, at least in North America, we've planted more trees than we've cut down

What we care about is not forested area, although it's relevant to weather patterns, but forest mass. Older trees put on mass faster than young trees, and most of a plant's non-water mass is carbon from the air. Strangely enough, this simple fact seems to go mostly ignored in discussions about global climate and carbon, and I have to bring it up in literally every discussion on this subject here on Slashdot. I can use the karma, but I'd prefer that more of you land-rape apologists would wake up and smell the burning.

Re:They're called trees.

[CanadianMacFan]

Unfortunately the majority of trees that we've planted are a monoculture meant to grow quickly and be harvested again for either pulp or timber. I've seen the result of clear cutting on the hills on Vancouver Island and it's terrible. Nothing living was left. Everything was brown with no green at all. Granted this was about twenty years ago but I doubt that things have changed except that they have gotten more efficient at it.

Re:They're called trees.

[CaptainLard]

Interesting, but the important question is how much possible forest land is forested? About 1/3 of the US is desert and the top 1/3 of Canada is tundra. I don't think the EU has nearly as much as either. But I won't deny the good news that forests in those two continents are somewhere in the neighborhood of sustainable these days....

Re:They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

Trees only sequester carbon for about 100 before they're broken down into CO2 and other stuff again.

It's not even that simple. The percentage of carbon which is released instead of being fixed into the soil is related to the rate at which decomposition occurs. However, even tropical rain forests are net carbon sinks. As well, when you harvest timber and build things out of it, you keep the carbon fairly well-sequestered, at least until the wood gets successfully attacked by a fungus or set on fire, etc etc. But mature trees fix more carbon than young trees, further complicating the issue. The truth is that planting the world over with trees is no substitute for not having cut them down in the first place, and no amount of wishing will make it so. That's not an argument against replanting, just an argument against any further cutting of old growth. It should simply not be permitted, unless those trees absolutely will fail regardless — and soon.

Re:They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

Actually, cutting down trees is a great way to optimize carbon storage, as long as new trees are planted to replace the ones cut down. It clears space for new trees, which grow faster and eat more carbon when they are young.

What? I say, what did you say, son? A quick google search would have proven you wrong, but you didn't even do that. Or, you know, having paid attention to any of these discussions here on slashdot in ages, since I bring this point up every time we have one. I haven't been bothering with links and citations until now, but nobody has asked so I didn't feel it was important since I'm not the only person who knows how to use google, am I? I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking I'm smarter than everyone, but I have this sneaking suspicion that I've been giving the average slashdotter way too much credit — and it wasn't that much, in my estimation.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you haven't been keeping up.with politics, the US claims the first 1500 miles north of the border as "terrorist inspection zone".

Much like how Mexico claims the first 200 miles into the US as " fruit picking, drug trafficking zone. "

Re:They're called trees.

[kheldan]

Better look out, Monsanto (aka Umbrella Corporation IRL), will probably find some way of patenting tree DNA, then sue the fuck out of everyone who has trees on their land.

..but all bullshitting aside: Mod parent up to 'Score:9.99E+36, Ultimate Truth'. Stop cutting down trees, plant MORE trees, do it NOW.

Re:They're called trees.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well if we already have a hole and excess wood.

Re:They're called trees.

[zmooc]

Actually, cutting them down and storing the wood (call it a house or paper) while letting a new tree grow in its place would be much more effective at taking CO2 out of the loop than not cutting them down.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, you could.partially burn the trees into biochar. Most of the gases in the wood combust giving energy, but the vast majority of the lignin stays as pure carbon (not too different from coal). Then we can bury the coal. Net free energy gain and carbon sequestration at the same time.

I wonder what the efficiency of this compared to solar cells would be only with the added effect of carbon sequestration and far fewer toxic biproducts. Also probably less energy per unit area.

Re:They're called trees.

[itzly]

We don't have a hole, and we don't have much excess wood. The holes we get from mining coal are typically filled with the overburden.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, merely to keep pace with our current activities, we need to plant an EXTRA 30billion tons of trees each year... Maybe 10-20billion trees,depending on speed of growth.

EACH YEAR.

How does your tree planting go on a par with your CO2 use, by the way?

Given the whining about how much space solar panels take, wanting that amount of land used to plant trees isn't going to be accepted when it's decided to do that.

Re:They're called trees.

[Solandri]

The referenced source from the wiki lists all the countries by their forested area (in thousand hectares), and in a handy spreadsheet no less. Add in the square km of the countries and you can calculate the percentages:

Country - percent - forested - total
Canada - 31.1% - 3,101,340 - 9,984,670
United States - 33.1% - 3,030,890 - 9,147,593
EU - 36.0% - 1,577,190 - 4,381,376

Austria - 46.1% - 38,620 - 83,855
Belgium - 21.8% - 6,670 - 30,528
Bulgaria - 32.7% - 36,250 - 110,994
Croatia - 37.7% - 21,350 - 56,594
Cyprus - 18.8% - 1,740 - 9,251
Czech Rep - 33.6% - 26,480 - 78,866
Denmark - 11.6% - 5,000 - 43,075
Estonia - 50.5% - 22,840 - 45,227
Finland - 66.5% - 225,000 - 338,424
France - 23.0% - 155,540 - 674,843
Germany - 31.0% - 110,760 - 357,021
Greece - 28.4% - 37,520 - 131,990
Hungary - 21.2% - 19,760 - 93,030
Ireland - 9.5% - 6,690 - 70,273
Italy - 33.1% - 99,790 - 301,338
Latvia - 45.5% - 29,410 - 64,589
Lithuania - 32.2% - 20,990 - 65,200 -
Luxembourg - 33.6% - 870 - 2,586
Malta - 0% - 0 - 316
Netherlands - 8.8% - 3,650 - 41,543
Poland - 29.4% - 91,920 - 312,685
Portugal - 40.9% - 37,830 - 92,390
Romania - 26.7% - 63,700 - 238,391
Slovakia - 39.3% - 19,290 - 49,035
Slovenia - 62.3% - 12,640 - 20,273
Spain - 35.5% - 179,150 - 504,030
Sweden - 61.2% - 275,280 - 449,964
United Kingdom - 11.7% - 28,450 - 243,610

The EU's percentage is skewed up by the Scandinavian, Baltic, and Slovakian countries. Though Germany, Spain, Portugul, Italy, and Austria are right around the EU average. Anyway, can we just drop this stupid penis measuring contest? It's close enough to call it a tie.

Re:They're called trees.

[Filter]

I heard an idea that seems too simple and cheap to actually ever try but, if we do ever need to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, the proposed solution is to cut the trees and convert them to charcoal by pyrolysis, then bury the charcoal, of course plant new trees and repeat.

Re: They're called trees.

[sillybilly]

Yeah, but what you are forgetting is topsoil depth is pretty lacking around the world, and when trees die, decay and go back into the global carbon cycle, a portion of them is converted into usable fertile black humus rich topsoil, which is undigestable to even the top digesting lifeforms. Topsoil by far is the ultimate form of carbon sequestration, and also the source of underground coal after millions of years if it undergoes tectonic heat and molten lava silicate phase separation.

On another note, the diagram these scientists give requires two photon captures, one for generating a proton and oxygen, and a 2nd that generates acetate from proton and CO2. This may be the most efficient, hard to tell, but I expected one stage for photon capture that generates temporary chemical energy, and another stage that converts that chemical energy consuming CO2 into acetate, without requiring a 2nd photon capture. Ocean floor volcanic eruption environments have bacterial lifeforms and a whole ecosystem fueled by not the Sun, like the rest of life on planet, but the internal heat of the Earth. These creatures live in absence of sunlight completely and they are based on a sulfur based high energy low energy state chemical cycle. As a crude adaptation one might just have a concentrating solar power collector and a sample of the biosphere from such an environment with water recirculated near the "volcanic eruption hot zone" in a solar concentrator, and cooled to the other zones where these lifeforms live, and there you go, you have a solar based CO2 captturing station, but quantum efficiency would probably be low. However that sulfur cycle could be used as a starting point to create something where the solar capturing stage can be separated from the bacterial farming stage, such as bacteria living in huge underground ponds aerated with CO2 (possibly captured via ethanolaminej or something untouched by the lifeforms in a massive downdraft solar tower) and the light collection sections could take up all the real estate, moreover they could be super high temperature if needed, where reaction rates are faster possibly giving better quantum efficiencies too.

That's my 2 cents.

Re:They're called trees.

[budgenator]

It's encouraging that Taylor gets it, but the real problem is going to be convincing the the guitarists and violinists; there is a lot of superstitions involved in luthiery and especially in the classical markets. Currently most ebony available for reasonable priced instruments has had a coat of Lincoln black shoe dye applied to it, but admitting it publicly would kill your market. Everyone who considers themselves an elite performer is going to think that B grade Ebony is OK for the masses, but they'll get the "good" stuff because they are special, and a lot of mediocre players consider themselves elite performers.

The only reason they use ebony is because Stradivarius and Torres didn't have plastic.

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, well, there were no humans and a fragile oil-powered world wide web of technology back then either.

Re:They're called trees.

[budgenator]

Biochar puts carbon in the soil, improves the soil, sometimes dramatically, and keeps it there for mostly likely millennia.

Re: They're called trees.

[Smauler]

You've got to take it on a species-by-species basis. Take, for example, Sequoia Sempervirens. Right up until the trees fall down because they outgrow their root systems, older trees put on more mass and thus fix more CO2 than the same area filled to capacity with younger trees.

Then they die, and decompose, releasing nearly all that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Even trees which aren't getting taller are often getting thicker, so the question for a given species is whether younger or older members put on more mass for a given area. Virtually all of the non-water mass of all vegetation is carbon, and nearly all of the carbon of all vegetation (even relatively high soil carbon users like corn) comes from the air.

Yes, trees that are growing do take carbon out of the atmosphere. After they die, it gets released back. Hence mature forests are essentially carbon neutral.

Now, if we did something else with the dead wood, such as burning it instead of coal, or using it as a building material, it would be a net positive (perhaps not ultimately with the latter - nearly all wood rots eventually). Many species and ecosystems, however, are dependent upon rotting trees; removing them could have adverse effects on the ecosystem.

Re:They're called trees.

[smugfunt]

I've actually seen plans where cut wood is dumped to the bottom of the ocean

What a great idea! We could weight it down with gold or uranium or something.

Or we could build furniture, houses or other long lasting useful stuff out of the good timber and use the charcoal made with the rest to improve the soil.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

But if we took into consideration forest mass, how would pundants like algore afford to buy carbon offsets?

Re: They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

Current levels are not even "average" in the context of history.

It's amusing you cite the Sun in any fashion because it wasn't all that long ago than any mention of the Sun with regards to climate change was dismissed out of hand.

What you are doing is making shit up on the fly and talking in circles just avoid the fact that the CO2 concentrations today pale with what the traditionally have been.

Re:They're called trees.

[terjeber]

solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide

Sorry to disappoint you. A forest is carbon neutral. It produces as much CO2 as it consumes. Your suggestion will have no impact on CO2 removed from the air.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard an idea that seems too simple and cheap to actually ever try but, if we do ever need to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, the proposed solution is to cut the trees and convert them to charcoal by pyrolysis, then bury the charcoal, of course plant new trees and repeat.

FYI: Pyrolysis is a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen (or any halogen)

So you are saying put wood into a furnace powered by... Coal, based on a plurality of world energy production.

Then do what with the charcoal? Can't safely dump it in the ocean, it floats.

Leaving forests to mature is better. If we need wood production, buy new land and grow pulp trees there instead for paper instead of corn subsidies or some other BS. You can also plant new trees with OUT cutting old ones. That will slow the burn rate, even if no single solution is a magic bullet.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

solar-powered green chemistry using sequestered carbon dioxide

Sorry to disappoint you. A forest is carbon neutral. It produces as much CO2 as it consumes. Your suggestion will have no impact on CO2 removed from the air.

Plant a new forest. The older a forest is, the taller it gets. It's pretty clearly taking in carbon. Think of it and each tree as the volume of a sphere. One big trunk holds a LOT more CO2 than a bunch of little ones. drinkypoo and others have pointed out links for the actual forestry science basis for this.

As for little trees, a 5' xmas tree weights about 15kg. The USA per capita CO2 output is 17.6k metric tons. To keep the atmospheric CO2 from getting worse, that means you need to plant the equivalent of almost 1200 5' tall trees. Every year. And the mass burn we've done in the last two hundred years or so is still going to acidify the oceans.

So planting new trees isnt a magic bullet, but its a better idea than tax subsidy hand outs to "carbon sequestration" in old coal mines. It's also a lot cheaper and is proven to work without a need for billions in subsidies. Not burning more coal in the first place would help too. War, famine and/or disease killing off 90+% of the population is the default alternative.

Re: They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

None of your points are wrong, however replacing deforested areas with forests is a net loss in atmospheric carbon. Sure they don't magically sit there and scrub the atmosphere, but the existence of the forest is sequestered carbon that was previously in the air.

Re: They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

Current levels are not even "average" in the context of history.

What kind of timescale are we talking about? Hundred years? Thousand? Ten thousand? Millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? You could be very wrong, or very right with that assertion. I'm going to assume you're right, and we'll talk hundreds of millions.

It's amusing you cite the Sun in any fashion because it wasn't all that long ago than any mention of the Sun with regards to climate change was dismissed out of hand.

I had assumed in the first quote, you were defining history as "a really fucking long time", which humorously enough, is the exact timescale where the Sun's variance over time starts to play a real part in the Earth's thermodynamic equilibrium game. Turns out solar evolution is a pretty slow process. Of course, now that you've asserted that short-term variations in solar output are driving climate change, I can see I you've just attempted to change the definition of "history" that you initially assigned to fit a contradicting argument. Seems legit.

What you are doing is making shit up on the fly and talking in circles just avoid the fact that the CO2 concentrations today pale with what the traditionally have been.

At least he isn't changing definitions every other statement to support his assertion. Ignorant, or trolling? Can't tell.

Re:They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

Problem absolutely solved. After tree dies, new tree grows. Atmosphere now has -1 trees worth of carbon in its atmosphere as the new forest attains carbon neutrality, minus the mass required to grow it. Adding more machinery to the cycle necessarily consumes more energy, where cycle is the life and death of trees in a forest, and the energy is CO2. Unless of course you believe in perpetual motion.

Re:They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

You're right, of course. However, forest mass is loosely correlated with forest area, and the latter is simpler for people to grok, lest the conversation devolve into people saying: "Ha! What happens when the tree you planted dies?! All that carbon back in the atmosphere!"

Re: They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

Then they die, and decompose, releasing nearly all that CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Again, that depends on the rate and type of decomposition. In fact, if you allow duff to build up, it sequesters carbon.

Yes, trees that are growing do take carbon out of the atmosphere. After they die, it gets released back.

Some of it gets released back. The faster it gets released back, the more of it gets released back. Some of the carbon is sequestered in the soil.

Re:They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

Bingo. The primary problem isn't that we're producing too much CO2, it's that we're putting Carbon that has been out of the cycle for a very long time back into it. If we source our carbon from the cycle, we're not adding anything to it. Whether that can be done is anyone's guess, but we need to stop adding carbon back into the cycle, otherwise we will *never* find magical ways to sequester it. That coal comes from a time when the entire damn planet was covered in trees. It can't be that way again. One hole. Trees go in it. Plant more trees. Rinse and repeat until carbon cycle contains desired amount of carbon.

Re:They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a car is carbon neutral as well. It produces as much carbon as it consumes.

Come on, dude. Certainly you understand that the addition of a forest where previously there was not is a carbon sink, and even if that new sink is neutral, it still represents a net decrease of unsequestered carbon floating around in the fscking atmosphere?

Re:They're called trees.

[sonamchauhan]

Thank you - this is very interesting to me.

Re:They're called trees.

[dwye]

And it doesn't need to be very deep or for very long. Not all the peat in bogs comes from the early Iron Age, some is less than a century old. Peat is just lignite in waiting.

Re:They're called trees.

[dwye]

If you burn the 20,000 pound tree after cutting it, then your complaint is valid. If, in an extreme example, you bury it in the Thames as pilings for the Roman bridge in Londonium (most are still down there) while the 3-5 new trees are growing (and sequestering) you are doing much better than leaving a huge tree to rot and hollow out.

Anyway, the high tech "solution" in the article is must better at sequestration than a mere tree, more than an order of magnitude better. The trick is whether it can scale to the point that it affects the planet, rather than just a submarine or even just a rebreather for one diver.

Re: They're called trees.

[Smauler]

drinkypoo, be honest. It essentially all gets released back in mature forests. Do you think that which doesn't goes somewhere magical?

There isn't new coal being created by trees at the moment, that we've seen, at any significant rate.

Re:They're called trees.

[terjeber]

but a car is carbon neutral as well. It produces as much carbon as it consumes

You really need to share some of the drugs you are taking. They must be awesome. So, what kind of photosynthesis does a car do?

the addition of a forest where previously there was not is a carbon sink

Yes, for a little while. In the fastest growing period. Once the forest is somewhat established, the rotting processes etc in that forest will produce as much carbon as the forest consumes. Sure, the growth stage is semi-long in human terms, but it is both far too slow and far too inefficient to do anything about our current emissions.

As for cars, putting any kind of restrictions on cars to curb CO2 emissions is retarded, since personal transport constitutes a tiny part (4-5%) of the total CO2 emissions. Going electrical is retarded since the electricity used to drive the car is, in the end, produced by burning coal. None of the current efforts to curb CO2 emissions have any theoretical possibility of making a dent in CO2 emissions since they do not encourage, or enforce, a reduction in (or stopping of) the burning of coal.

Germany has gone to 30-40% electricity production using renewable energy. Still, their CO2 emissions have increased at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. For two main reasons - 1/ The morons are shutting down nuclear plants, and 2/ when mixing renewable energy and fossil burning, the fossil burning becomes far less efficient and the CO2 emissions from coal and oil increases quite significantly.

Re:They're called trees.

[DamnOregonian]

You really need to share some of the drugs you are taking. They must be awesome. So, what kind of photosynthesis does a car do?

It of course doesn't, but you knew that.
However, you feed it carbon, and it spits it back out. In, out. No sequestration of carbon. Neutral.
Building a trillion cars adds 0 carbon to the carbon cycle, only adds steps to the cycle. It's the extraction of carbon from outside of the cycle that is not neutral.
This is unlike a tree, which takes atmospheric carbon, and builds this stuff called wood out of it.
Sequestration.

Yes, for a little while. In the fastest growing period. Once the forest is somewhat established, the rotting processes etc in that forest will produce as much carbon as the forest consumes. Sure, the growth stage is semi-long in human terms, but it is both far too slow and far too inefficient to do anything about our current emissions.

You still miss the point. Sure the forest becomes carbon neutral. Who cares. A car is carbon neutral. But that forest didn't spring forth magically from the ground. It took several metric fucktons of carbon to create that new chunk of carbon cycle right there. The existence of the forest is a net negative in atmospheric carbon, even if the forest's regular non-growing respiration is not.
Quit thinking about it in terms of emissions. Emissions aren't the problem. If you mean to say that we couldn't plant trees quick enough to offset the carbon we're injecting into the cycle from the depths of the Earth, then sure, you're probably right, at least in a long-term. The solution is to stop fucking adding that carbon to the cycle, or to offset that added carbon with more sink capability (trees) as much as possible. There is a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, + what we are adding via hydrocarbon extraction. We want more of that carbon to be in the form of biomass than CO2. That means trees.

As for cars, putting any kind of restrictions on cars to curb CO2 emissions is retarded, since personal transport constitutes a tiny part (4-5%) of the total CO2 emissions. Going electrical is retarded since the electricity used to drive the car is, in the end, produced by burning coal. None of the current efforts to curb CO2 emissions have any theoretical possibility of making a dent in CO2 emissions since they do not encourage, or enforce, a reduction in (or stopping of) the burning of coal.

Curbing CO2 emissions is retarded, directly speaking. But it has the added bonus of reducing the demand for the actual bad aspect here- the carbon being added to the cycle from below the ground.
Electricity to drive the car comes from many sources. Here in Seattle, I assure you it is not coal. For all of the electric cars in the midwest and the south, I'm sure you're absolutely right.

Germany has gone to 30-40% electricity production using renewable energy. Still, their CO2 emissions have increased at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. For two main reasons - 1/ The morons are shutting down nuclear plants, and 2/ when mixing renewable energy and fossil burning, the fossil burning becomes far less efficient and the CO2 emissions from coal and oil increases quite significantly.

I don't see how fossil burning becomes less efficient, at all when mixed with renewable energy. The base load is quite stable. I'm pretty sure reason #1 is the only real reason their CO2 output has increased... But what does that have to do with the conversation? We're talking about sequestering carbon in the form of trees...

Re: They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

drinkypoo, be honest.

Okay.

It essentially all gets released back in mature forests.

Wrong.

Do you think that which doesn't goes somewhere magical?

No, it's called topsoil. Maybe you should study up before you continue demonstrating your ignorance. Or are you just counting on my not responding? I now have done.

There isn't new coal being created by trees at the moment, that we've seen, at any significant rate.

Your logical fallacy is attacking a straw man.

Re: They're called trees.

[drinkypoo]

it doesn't matter, because the earth has never been habitable to humans when the CO2 levels have been higher. We don't care if the current CO2 levels are average or not, it's completely irrelevant. What we care about is whether they are convenient for us. The earth has gone through numerous ice ages without substantial perturbation of the cycle. Now we've created conditions that may change the cycle upon which we depend for existence, and we've already seen negative effects which are attributable to this carbon release.

Atmospheric CO2 levels certainly have been this high before, but the last time coincides with the last great exinction, so that is in fact a spectacularly shitty argument for denialists to engage in.

Re:They're called trees.

[brianerst]

There are two main sources on that page for forest numbers - the World Bank and an About.Com page. The World Bank numbers are what are being used for the individual countries. The US + Canada number is a misreading of the About.com page, which is about the entire North American continent (including Mexico). The About.com page gets its data from the UN Food and Agriculture (FOA) Forestry site, which uses a different method of determining forest cover as they are primarily concerned about forests as an agricultural product.

Re:They're called trees.

[Filter]

I think you would fire the furnace with a carbon neutral source, like wood. I think you would fire it with the very vegetation that you are carbonizing. I think they just restrict the amount of air they let in to the chamber.

Also I believe the proposed solution is to apply the char to soil to condition it.

I did a quick google of "pyrolysis carbon sequestration" and then "biochar"

I would say that most of the carbon sequestration ideas I have heard of sound much more crazy than pyrolysis of vegetation.

Personally, I would never support carbon sequestration anyway. I would say I am against purposeful human intervention of climate. If we have messed things up so far by accident or out of ignorance, imagine how bad things will be when we mess with climate for politics.

Re:They're called trees.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you would fire the furnace with a carbon neutral source, like wood. I think you would fire it with the very vegetation that you are carbonizing. I think they just restrict the amount of air they let in to the chamber.

Also I believe the proposed solution is to apply the char to soil to condition it.

I did a quick google of "pyrolysis carbon sequestration" and then "biochar"

I would say that most of the carbon sequestration ideas I have heard of sound much more crazy than pyrolysis of vegetation.

You are violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Pyrolysis is essentially low oxygen cooking. So you stick wood into a barrel, displace the oxygen and the heat it up. What are you using to heat it with? The current dominate energy source is coal. Rather than burn 2x coal to turn 1x wood into charcoal, why not.... just not burn the wood?

If you displace coal as a dominant energy source (and then oil and fracked methane), maybe then carbon sequestration can be of possible use, but it's pointless on a mass scale until then. LEt me put it another way, with apologies to NdGTyson:

NdGT: If airports had wormholes leading to each gate, you wouldn't need to walk all across the airport to make a connection!
Random Person: But if you had wormhole travel mastered, you wouldn't need airports in the first place...

Re:They're called trees.

[Filter]

Chop down two trees, burn one to heat the other in low oxigen, this is a carbon neutral activity. Now take that biochar and bury it deep in the earth, or use it to condition the soil.

Plant two trees and let them soak up carbon.

I don't see any thermodynamic paradox there.

You could just bury trees, but I think the idea is the charcoal doesn't degrade back to carbon dioxide as quickly.

How "artificial" is this, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

By combining biocompatible light-capturing nanowire arrays with select bacterial populations

Or hey, how about we combine biocompatible tupperware with select algae populations?

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears to convert into acetate as opposed to capturing in acetate

"However, this new artificial photosynthetic system synthesizes the combination of carbon dioxide and water into acetate, the most common building block today for biosynthesis."

Could this save us from our doom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth is reeling from the assault of the toxic gas. Massive storms sweep across the countryside, dropping H2O onto land that should be dry. Invasive life forms called plants explode in numbers, using the toxic gas as fuel to spur their growth. This in turn spurs the growth of other life forms, called animals, that use the plants as fuel to spur their growth. The atosphere warms, tipping the earth perilously closer to the conditions seen in the carboniferous period, when the invasive life forms became so numerous that they actually started to form layers of hydrocarbon compounds as they decayed. This must be stopped before such life-friendly conditions become the norm.

Re:Could this save us from our doom?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Earth is reeling from the assault of the toxic gas.

Sorry. I had Taco Bell last night.

Skating, not butthole surfing

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Initiate countdown, T -60 years to "Oh my god, we're pulling too much CO2 out of the atmosphere! Plants are having a tough time growing! And it's getting too cold -- people are skating on the canals of Amsterdam again!"

A sarcasm or a prediction? You decide.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[Anonymous Coward]

In the future we won't need to worry, Systemd will properly attenuate global C02 levels to ensure optimum balance between human survival and the needs of other species.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right, and we are drinking so much water we are threatening the ocean!

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[drinkypoo]

A sarcasm or a prediction? You decide.

Either it's sarcasm or you're an idiot, because it's easy to release carbon. What's hard is putting it back in the bottle.

I will choose to believe that you were being sarcastic, because it will make me feel better about the world I live in.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[budgenator]

Either it's sarcasm or you're an idiot, because it's easy to release carbon. What's hard is putting it back in the bottle.

No what's hard is convincing people that what was happening 18 years ago isn't happening now.

The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:

[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade. IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW

OMG is that actually a negative warming in the range of possibilities reported by the IPCC?

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[Anonymous Coward]

A sarcasm or a prediction? You decide.

Either it's sarcasm or you're an idiot, because it's easy to release carbon. What's hard is putting it back in the bottle.

I will choose to believe that you were being sarcastic, because it will make me feel better about the world I live in.

Drinky, stick to the informative posts. There are trolls and shills deliberately clouding the issue. You might want to add in that land based plants aren't the real issue, but the CO2 acidifying the oceans (aka seltzer seas). Anyone with an aquarium used for more than carvinal gold fish or solitary confinement beta knows that a small ph change can kill off fish, much less coral. And once the coral die, the rest of the food chain goes too. That's where most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is headed right now too as any AP Chem student can work out.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[Anonymous Coward]

Either it's sarcasm or you're an idiot, because it's easy to release carbon. What's hard is putting it back in the bottle.

No what's hard is convincing people that what was happening 18 years ago isn't happening now.

The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:

[T]he rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade. IPCC AR5 weakens the case for AGW

OMG is that actually a negative warming in the range of possibilities reported by the IPCC?

No, that's cherry picking 1 range to reach a predetermined conclusion. I can show that oil, gold and beanie baby prices always go up, ALWAYS, if I pick the right start and end dates too. I have a lot more valid choices than you do though, because you had to pick that very narrow anomalous window in modern human civilization.

For more chuckles, let's look to XKCD:
XKCD Extrapolation

You are also deliberately ignoring the melting of ice (by volume, not just area) and the acidification the oceans, which are absorbing CO2 at a faster than expected rate. Both of those factors slow the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, just as ice melting in a glass slows the rate at which the temperature changes. The slower change in temperature does NOT mean there is less heat/energy in the glass/planet though. Once the ice is gone, for example, the drink's temperature will rise much faster than while the ice was melting.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[budgenator]

Of course the United Nation's Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate would cherry pick data that could cost them $Billions in funding and the opertunity for Climatologists to attend conferences in exotic locations all over the world.

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the United Nation's Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate would cherry pick data that could cost them $Billions in funding and the opertunity for Climatologists to attend conferences in exotic locations all over the world.

I imagine you are frothing at the mouth as you type that, as I'm not aware of anything the UN has spent a billion dollars on anything seems hard to swallow. In fact, their ENTIRE annual budget was $2.5B, from every member state in total, so even if you assume billions is 2 billion, that would mean that the UN spends 80% of their budget on climate research. Maybe you should try to get a job as a crazy root beer fan, frothing at the mouth like that...

Froth away!

Re:Skating, not butthole surfing

[budgenator]

My comment was poorly worded, the "them" was meant to be the IPCC and Climatologists in general, not specifically the IPCC alone;

the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years -- $31.1 million so far. U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel

but for Climatologists and Green Energy in general

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria

so yes I stand by my billions. It's just stupid to think the IPCC would cherry-pick data that undermines their entire purpose for existing.

Amazes me

[g0bshiTe]

How often CO2 is blamed on burning of fossil fuels, I often get gobsmacked by how many people forget plants breathe CO2 and release O2 yet no one ever correlates the increase to deforestation of rain forests. Possibly 1 is not enough to merit the change on it's own, but the two combined could account for the increase of CO2, not enough plants and trees in the rain forests to scrub the atmos of CO2 fast enough.

I recall in the 70's and 80's it was ozone, at some point we shifted and now it's CO2.

Re:Amazes me

[itzly]

yet no one ever correlates the increase to deforestation of rain forests.

They do. Deforestation is a well known part of the CO2 problem. But fossil fuels are a bigger part.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

We can very easily attribute what degree of co2 increase is due to fossil fuels because co2 from fossil fuels has a isotopic signature:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=384

In the 70s and 80s ozone was the big concern, and we changed some of the chemicals we use in our products because of it.

Now as we have learned more and as the world has changed there is a new concern.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

> I recall in the 70's and 80's it was ozone

Ozone problem was fixed with international treaties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
and it worked.

We need similar for CO2.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

The answers to your lack of information (and shock at others similar lack of info) is great.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

And we are gobsmacked by your simplemindedness. And it's means it is.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

yet no one ever correlates the increase to deforestation of rain forests.

They do. Deforestation is a well known part of the CO2 problem. But fossil fuels are a bigger part.

True, and here is your citation..

Re:Amazes me

[dave420]

Just as many are gobsmacked by those who assume they know all there is to know about the issues surrounding global warming, and then use their stilted, malformed knowledge of the subject to condemn those who take a more rational, rigorous approach as being hoaxers or charlatans or whatever other pejorative springs limply to mind...

Ozone was a different problem, which has been largely alleviated by international action.

You really should brush up on your knowledge before proudly telling everyone just how little you know.

Re:Amazes me

[CaptainLard]

You know why ozone (presumably you're referring to the ozone hole) isn't a problem today? Because the international community agreed to address it and its fucking FIXED (fixed enough anyway). If you meant ground level ozone, we got you covered there too. Tougher emissions standards and the ensuing cleaner vehicles have significantly reduced ground level ozone in the past 30 years.

Yes deforestation is a problem but the CO2 we're currently releasing from coal is coming from a bank of 50 Million Years worth of CO2 sequestration. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Human fossil fuel burning is absolutely enough to merit the CO2 change on its own.

Re:Amazes me

[Anonymous Coward]

How often CO2 is blamed on burning of fossil fuels, I often get gobsmacked by how many people forget plants breathe CO2 and release O2 yet no one ever correlates the increase to deforestation of rain forests. Possibly 1 is not enough to merit the change on it's own, but the two combined could account for the increase of CO2, not enough plants and trees in the rain forests to scrub the atmos of CO2 fast enough.

I recall in the 70's and 80's it was ozone, at some point we shifted and now it's CO2.

Like most things in life, it is simpler if you do the math.

A christmas tree weighs about 15kg. In the US, the average per capita CO2 emission is 17,600 kg. Each American burns the equivalent of 1200 christmas trees. Every year. Meanwhile an incandescent light bulb uses ~1852 pounds worth of CO2 emissions - a 50 trees worth. So yeah, while printing those to do lists and emails will kill a couple reams of paper a year, the energy for the printer will kill a lot more, much less the computer/tv/car, etc.

i wish i could be excited about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

but until they produce a working prototype, it's just a bunch of hot air.

Efficiency

[itzly]

With this approach, the Berkeley team achieved a solar energy conversion efficiency of up to 0.38-percent for about 200 hours under simulated sunlight, which is about the same as that of a leaf.

That's lousy. It may be a breakthrough for this particular field, but compared to regular PV panels, it sucks. It would be much smarter to keep the carbon in the ground, and set up more photovoltaics instead.

Re:Efficiency

[dave420]

It shows it's possible. No-one was expecting the early versions would magically appear fully-formed and ready for market... I mean, apart from you, it seems ;)

Re:Efficiency

[itzly]

I wasn't expecting anything up to this point, but both the article and summary do a good job of raising the expectations, by using terms as "game changing breakthrough". It may be a breakthrough, but it's not changing any games just yet.

Compared to natural photosynthesis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much more efficient this process is compared to plant photosynthesis.
Oh, wait. There is not enough profit in manufacturing and selling plants.
Because they grow on their own.
You have a factory, a power plant, Co2 capture, distribution, maintenance,.. all in one.
Just add water.

But here, with artificial process, we have an opportunity to create a new global super-corporation.
I wonder which one looks better to me, which one looks better to wallstreet?

Oceans forgotten

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil remains do not exist on the depth they now extract oil from. Therefore the fossil fuel term cannot be correct. With over 90 % of CO2 on earth contained in oceans, the claim of CO2 increase cannot be validated especially when measured only over some euro wacko agencies.

Re:Oceans forgotten

[gzuckier]

Fossil remains do not exist on the depth they now extract oil from. Therefore the fossil fuel term cannot be correct. With over 90 % of CO2 on earth contained in oceans, the claim of CO2 increase cannot be validated especially when measured only over some euro wacko agencies.

and not only that, petroleum is not a rock or stone, so the term petroleum cannot be correct.
and we have no proof that the increase in atmospheric CO2 measured isn't cause by CO2 coming out of the ocean, at a rate correlated with our generation of CO2 from burning carbon, which then disappears.
It could happen!

How much CO2 is generated..

[Viol8]

.. mining , transporting and refining the ores required to create these nanowire arrays and the surrouding support material for them and the bacteria compared to the amount they sequester before they need replacing? Its a rather important fact to know.

Re:How much CO2 is generated..

[dave420]

Wow! With your half-thought-out idea you have overturned their entire field of research! Amazing! It's simply staggering that no-one thought of this before! Quick! To the rooftops!

Or, just maybe, they know more than you. I know, it's a concept you have difficulty accepting.

Re:How much CO2 is generated..

[itzly]

Wow! With your half-thought-out idea you have overturned their entire field of research!

What idea ? It was just a question.

Re:How much CO2 is generated..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well most of the vehicles used in mining are electric drive so does it really matter what the generation source is behind them? Also the ball mills and other equipment typically involved in refining the ore don't seem to really care where their electrons come from either.

Re:How much CO2 is generated..

[Viol8]

You ever considered reading a post properly before replying? Try it, you never know, it might make you look less of a bell-end.

Is it reproducable?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are thousands of papers that are published in the literature that can't be reproduced. If it can, it might then be significant. If it is indeed significant, a second question comes to mind, "Is it scalable?"

"Artificial photosynthesis" is misleading

[MrVictor]

If I am understanding TFA correctly, this would be more aptly titled "solar powered electrolysis apparatus to feed oxygen to acetate-secreting bacteria on a nano-wire substrate". Bad science journalism. This will not save the world.

Re:"Artificial photosynthesis" is misleading

[Livius]

That's your idea of natural photosynthesis?

Tree-by-tree comparison. Forest is what matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tree-by-tree comparison. Forest is what matters.

The issue is fixing carbon per square foot of forest land. There is an optimum, and it may or may not be fully mature trees.

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I like the guy.. but his podcast sucks. I don't want to hear a smart dude and a comedian-flavor-of-the-week try to talk about science. Take those idiots out and just talk about science. And maybe a little less propaganda with it.

Re:Tree-by-tree comparison. Forest is what matters

[drinkypoo]

Tree-by-tree comparison. Forest is what matters.

RTFA, it doesn't matter how you measure, mature trees win either way.

So...

[gzuckier]

why don't we just use the energy collected by the nanowires, in the first place?
because if you think about it, to end the increase of CO2 we're going to need to synthesize as much carbon into acetate as we are burning coal; which means we're going to need the nanowire system to produce at least as much energy as the coal burning is releasing.

Re: Bamboo

[Anonymous Coward]

The benefit to Hemp is... it grows almost like a weed. Needs very few inputs and grows in a wide variety of climates. Good for the soil and a ready source of fiber. Excellent for capturing CO2.