Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"...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).
"...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.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"