Algae-coated buildings touted as climate fix
London, if it gets an algae-growing makeover.
(Credit: Institution of Mechanical Engineers)The future of green technology is algae-cultivating buildings, artificial trees, and lots of white roofs, according to the U.K.'s Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
The group on Thursday released a report that recommends governments fund research on geoengineering, or large-scale fixes for climate change. The report, a year in the making, is targeted at policymakers and is meant to inspire engineers to develop ways to cut greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
As concern grows over climate change, a number of geoengineering ideas have been proposed, including placing mirrors in space to reflect sunlight or shooting sulfur particles into the stratosphere, which would also have a cooling effect.
However, in its analysis, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers found that most promising geoengineering techniques can be done on Earth. It argues that a handful of technologies be deployed at large scale, along with other strategies, to mitigate the effects of climate change.
At the top of the list are artificial trees, which are mechanical devices that can absorb carbon dioxide from the air faster than trees and then sequester that gas underground.
The institution's report refers to the research done by Columbia University Professor Klaus Lackner, who is researching the concept and materials to absorb large amounts of CO2. Also required are underground storage formations, such as depleted oil wells. At a cost of $20,000 per tree, the institution concludes that it's the most practical approach.
Cultivating algae to make liquid fuel is one of the most active areas of research in biofuels. The institution recommends that algae be incorporated into buildings so algae can be grown at a large scale.
How artificial trees, which capture carbon from the air, could be deployed alongside wind turbines.
(Credit: Institution of Mechanical Engineers)Engineers envision that long plastic tubes, called photobioreactors, be integrated into building designs or retrofitted onto existing skyscrapers.
Algae would grow from pumped-in carbon dioxide and sunlight and be harvested for use either as a liquid fuel to run in a combined heat-and-power unit or turned into biochar, or charcoal used as a soil conditioner that also sequesters carbon from the air.
Finally, the institution says that buildings should be retrofitted with reflective roofs to deflect the sun's rays. In the past months, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has publicly touted this relatively low-tech approach, which was studied in-depth at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory last year.
Although proposing billions of white roofs doesn't appear to be controversial, many other geoengineering ideas are. For example, scientists have warned about the environmental impact--or effectiveness--of "seeding" the ocean with iron to spur growth of plankton to sequester carbon.
In anticipation of a report on geoengineering from the U.K.'s Royal Society next week, watchdog ETC Group warned against unintended consequences from large-scale projects. "Even the most careful computer models won't be able to predict what will happen if an experiment is scaled-up and moved out of doors," the group said in a statement Friday.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
Place once hot will become cold. Places once cold will become hot. Dry - wet and wt - dry. The economic and social impact will be devastatiing to the under-developed countries.
Yes - some skiiers will be happy when they can ski in Southern Texas but teh farmers will be very unhappy.
Comeon guys - get with teh pr5ogram. The earht really is round and teh sun does not evolve around it.
The earth is really a bit older than 5000 years. Live with it.
Place once hot will become cold. Places once cold will become hot. Dry - wet and wt - dry. The economic and social impact will be devastatiing to the under-developed countries.
Yes - some skiiers will be happy when they can ski in Southern Texas but teh farmers will be very unhappy.
Comeon guys - get with teh pr5ogram. The earht really is round and teh sun does not evolve around it.
The earth is really a bit older than 5000 years. Live with it.
And climate change has nothing to do with Chicago, but with the planet.
However, I do agree with your opinion about predicting the effect of artificial trees.
It's a beautiful dream and I hope researchers can make similar situations a reality for all of us one day!!!
Another example of supposedly educated people not thinking things through.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
Historian of science, Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego, states "Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies. If we feel that a policy question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the consensus of experts on this matter."
Climate change has been extensively researched and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the observed modern day global warming is unprecedented and is very likely caused by humans. Although there is little serious debate between climate experts, many in the general public still think that these scientists are unsure about climate change and the role that humans have played in modern day global warming. The Website above summarizes some of the key research that has led scientists to their overwhelming consensus while also addressing some of the unfounded claims by climate change skeptics and denialists.
The only plausible explanation is that today's warming is primarily due to human activities. The increase in greenhouse emissions can easily account for this warming. There is robust evidence for the man-made global warming. There are no other known sources of warming that can explain the observed modern climate change. People that claim there is no warming or that the warming is not caused by humans have offered no credible alternate hypotheses. Yes, these folks make claims but none of the claims has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Because I see/hear much disinformation from well-intentioned folks, I feel it is my duty to try to educate people on this very important matter. Unfortunately, it is an uphill battle because most of the real science is discussed in hard-to-read scientific journals and most of the bad science is easily accessible on Web pages, blogs, and other forms of mass media. Worse, there are political organizations such as The Heartland Institute that present themselves as scientific organizations but these organizations are directly and indirectly funded by the fossil fuel industry and others that stand to lose if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.
It is fine to be skeptical, but it is never fine to be a denialist. A skeptic is willing to hear both sides and is honest with his assessment of the information. A denialist blindly accepts everything that supports his opinion and immediately discards everything that does not. Carefully read my Global Warming site with an honest, open mind. Then weigh what I am discussing with what you have heard and where/who you have heard it from.
All you have to do is look at some of these suggestions and realize that, A. Not the smartest people are working on this (i.e. "seeding" the ocean with iron... seriously? What about the REST of the ocean wildlife?) B. There is no definitive proof that any of this would even help. (Again the computers that make these predictions are wildly inaccurate.) and lastly C. Can you seriously trust a guy that said "I created the Internet." when he doesn't even know how to check his own email. (I'm pulling your leg there, but still he likes to make small things into big things.)
- by surfbenet August 30, 2009 7:07 PM PDT
- We live in a fishbowl. We are crapping in it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(28 Comments)I am fascinated by the recent upsurge in the empowerment of the ignorant.
My favorite quote from the past few days.
"God is not a religion. God is God."
re; news [dot] yahoo [dot] com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_us/us_god_reference