Synthetic 'tree' promises to catch carbon
The thought of an artificial tree usually excites memories of building and ornamenting a Christmas centerpiece. But here's an innovation that will put those plastic branches to shame: scientists at Columbia University are developing a structure that can capture carbon 1,000 times faster than a real tree.
The carbon-capturing structure looks more like a cylinder than a soaring Redwood.
(Credit: Global Research Technologies)Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at the university, has been working on the project since 1998, according to a CNN report, and is optimistic about a near-future application.
Modern improvements in coal-fired power plants have reduced carbon emissions, but Lackner is seeking a different function. The "tree" would be used to trap carbon that has already been emitted into the air by car gasoline or airplane fuel, CNN reports.
Unlike the real thing, the synthetic "tree" doesn't need direct sunlight, water, a trunk, or branches to function, as it looks more like a cylinder than a soaring Redwood. The concept, which Lackner says is flexible in size and can be placed nearly anywhere, works by collecting carbon dioxide on a sorbent, cleaning and pressurizing the gas, and releasing it. Similar to the way a sponge collects water, the sorbent would collect carbon dioxide.
Each synthetic tree would absorb one ton of carbon dioxide per day, eliminating an amount of gas equivalent to that produced by 20 cars. Lackner is also co-founder and chairman of Tuscon, Ariz.-based Global Research Technologies, which is working on the technology.
Although the prospect of this is exciting, manufacturing the structures would be expensive, as each unit would reportedly cost about $30,000 to make.
There are 135,932,930 cars on the road in the United States, according to the U.S Department of Transportation. To offset their combined emissions, we'd need about 6.8 million of these "trees." Given the current economy, the United States, for one, probably can't afford to make this happen--at least, not for a while.
Nonetheless, Lackner and his team are pushing the project full-force. CNN says he has already met with U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu to discuss the concept, which Lackner says will have a prototype within three years. He is also writing a proposal for the Department of Energy in a continuous effort to raise attention for a concept, which he explains is several hundred times more effective than the traditional windmill.
Sharon Vaknin is the CNET Labs' go-to intern. When she's not testing MP3 players, blogging, or making the lab look presentable, she can be found playing computer games. Sharon formerly worked for Best Buy and is currently studying journalism at San Francisco State University. E-mail Sharon. 
LOL++ Good one :-)
that's the price (at $30k per 20 cars) to build enough 'trees' (6,796,647) to offset the carbon dioxide produced by 135,932,930 cars.
what do these structures run on, though? the bit about not needing things normal trees need is funny, but in all seriousness, do these structures require energy?
They do require energy that would release the equivalent of 5% of the captured CO2 amount (from the GRT FAQ).
It's going to be beneficial later on. If you could think even further in the future. This would be great as a material for space travel. We really can't grow trees in space (someday, maybe) ... but this would help with collecting CO2 if the makers can perfect the technology.
Even today ... if they can reduce the cost of the manufacturing. We can use them as barriers against highway walls. There is so much pollution from those areas that this would help cut down smog emissions in places like L.A. We don't need to have one for every twenty cars on the road, but if we had some in key areas, that would help.
What I want to know is what happens when this material is filled to max. Will it look dirty? Do they have to squeeze and drain it like a sponge or does it need to be replaced?
that's the price (at $30k per 20 cars) to build enough 'trees' (6,796,647) to offset the carbon dioxide produced by 135,932,930 cars."
While that sounds astronomical, that's the cost to offset ALL the cars on the road. That would be great, but unrealistic. These units could greatly improve the air quality in metropolitan areas.
Also, if this technology exists, why aren't these units sucking the co2 out of smokestacks and tailpipes everywhere?
BTW, cars are just part of the problem, we also have airplanes spewing this stuff out by the ton. Adapt them too.
What is the total carbon cost of making that sorbent?
Follow-up questions would be:
What is the monetary cost of the sorbent?
How much carbon dioxide will the sorbent trap per unit $ cost?
What is the environmental cost of the sorbent?
Is the sorbent toxic or a possible source of another type of pollution?
How much energy is used to produce the sorbent, from cradle to grave life of the sorbent?
Is the sorbent recoverable and recyclable?
How much energy will it take to rid the sorbent of carbon dioxide so that it can be reused?
Do we need to reinstall once the sorbent is saturated?
I am betting the planet that if these are answered honestly and accurately, it is worse than planting trees.
What about CO?
What about the other pollutants inherent in the combustion process?
http://www.grestech.com/faq.php
As for global warming, maybe it is real, maybe it is not. Maybe it is human caused, maybe it is just the natural cycle of things. Any way you look at it, they can't even get the 10 day forecast right, so whether this is a big issue or not, I am pretty sure they don't really know.
- by HeavyJim June 25, 2009 11:45 AM PDT
- This is just a coverup for the fact we keep cutting trees to build, make more gadgets and an excuse for a company to make money off of the scare of global warming. Ecoterrorist keep whining about the amazon and such places loosing trees, they keep forgetting to look here.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(31 Comments)