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."
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?
"...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.