 |
Future Tech: Giant Carbon Sucking Trees Might Save The World |
11 Comments |
| By Michael d'Estries in Green Living | June 15, 2007 | ||
Standing more than 300 feet tall and 200 feet wide, the potential savior of climate change disaster looks more like a massive fly swatter than a high-tech carbon sequester. Designed by Klaus Lackner, a professor of Geophysics at Columbia University, this “synthetic tree” is designed to capture and store massive amounts of CO2 gas. Nearly 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year — roughly the amount emitted annually by 15,000 cars — could be captured by the structure. According to the July issue of Outside Magazine, “the 100-by-200-foot steel rectangles would have surfaces that soak up carbon dioxide — simulating photosynthesis — then exhale the C02 in a concentrated stream that would be stored in underground chambers.”
Pretty interesting idea — but if the structures run off fossil fuels, rather than renewable sources, they might end up having a limited impact. Still, if we follow predictions that the world only has a decade or so before climate change becomes unavoidable, than any idea should be followed through; no matter how bizarre. From a recent MSNBC article,
“Paired with a windmill, the carbon-capture tree would generate about 3 megawatts of power, Lackner calculates, making the operation self-sufficient in energy. ‘The carbon-capture efficiency is better than a [living] tree,’ he says. ‘We can, with such a system, collect a significant fraction of the carbon from the air.’
Loading ...
JFlores said,
And if instead of planting those monsters we plant trees? it will cost more trees to transform all that co2 but the result will be better.
rootyb said,
This sounds ridiculous. The people trying to make this are the same people complaining about humans destroying nature (and forgetting that we’re a PART of nature, and as such, so is everything we do), then turn around and try to build an ugly giant flyswatter to do what trees do naturally.
Hun Boon said,
“if we follow predictions that the world only has a decade or so before climate change becomes unavoidable, than any idea should be followed through; no matter how bizarre.”
I really don’t agree with this. We should be focusing our efforts on the ideas that have the best chances of success, precisely because we have limited time left, instead of mucking around with bizarre concepts that are out-of-this-world.
SayBlade said,
I suppose in arid areas where trees to not flourish very well, as in the photo, these may be of limited help. Otherwise, we should be planting lots of real trees where they normally grow well, starting with parking lots which once had them and barren wasteland of city suburbs built over once-flourishing farmland.
Good thinking outside the box, though.
Alex Wojtak said,
All very well to suggest planting real trees instead, but they *don’t* do the bulk of natural ‘CO2 sucking’. Mature trees actually produce more CO2. Most CO2 is taken up by algae in the oceans. So perhaps an alternate solution would be towering algae farms?
fallnhorse said,
“And if instead of planting those monsters we plant trees? it will cost more trees to transform all that co2 but the result will be better.”
It doesn’t work that way. Your only converting the energy. When the leaves fall off and die in the fall. They will decompose and co2 is released back into the atmosphere. This is why co2 fluctuate in the fall and spring. Only when the leaves, dead wood and etc, fall in swamps and fossilized to coal or oil, is when tree works. Then we use to coal and oil and release the CO2 again. Hence the “co2 cycle”
William Siu said,
I think that this method of fighting against global warming is very good. However, I have noticed from other sources that there is a money issue. According to a source, the project will be too expensive for a large scale project. I think that if people become more aware of this project, they will surely help finance it as much as they can. This is a very promising and hope that more and more Synthetic Trees are built so that our world can remain cool.
dudemister said,
Just think of how much energy it would take just to create a structure this huge. What is the thing made out of? Plastic? That’s not renewable and won’t last forever. It sounds like a good idea at first, but now I’m somewhat skeptical of its potential. Plus, it makes everything around it ugly.
wfp3 said,
Three things about this article concern me:
1.) how effective are the underground carbon sequestration chambers and what is required in their building and maintenance?;
2.) what effect will the locking up of two atoms of oxygen for every one of carbon have?;
3.) when we as a culture look towards new and developing technologies as “potential savior(s),” are we abrogating the responsibility for pollution to yet another future generation?
Evil Dictator said,
You shouldn’t worry about locking up oxygen with the carbon. As it is now, it’s locked up to the carbon anyways. Either way it’s unavailable to us, and we aren’t paying oxygen taxes yet.
sal z said,
it can be done