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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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: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.

"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.