It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Synthetic Tree Captures Carbon 1,000 Faster Than Real Trees

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Synthetic Tree Captures Carbon 1,000 Faster Than Real Trees


www.physorg.com

Scientists have designed a synthetic tree that traps carbon dioxide from the air in an attempt to combat growing emissions. The device looks less like a tree and more like a small building, but it can collect carbon about 1,000 times faster than a real tree. One synthetic tree could absorb one ton of carbon dioxide per day, an amount equivalent to that produced by about 20 cars, on average. After being trapped in a chamber, the carbon would be compressed and stored in liquid form for sequestration
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Could this be the answer to out carbon pollution problem?



If this is as effective as it sounds, I hope to see one of these "trees" on top of every commercial flat roof. With cap and trade going on maybe one can create carbon credits with a synthetic tree farm. Whats the difference?

-E-

www.physorg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I dont think that storing it underground in tanks is better than what trees do. (make oxygen out of it) We would just be leaving it for another generation to deal with. and also these tanks will eventually rupture(sooner or later) putting hundred of tons of c02 into the atmosphere in one go. i think that could threaten life on earth.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB
 


Good point, I wonder if there is some method to convert it to something beneficial.

-E-



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
This is a big no-no.

Are people forgetting that all lifeforms in this planet are CARBON based?

If you take out CO2 from the atmosphere, you leave less food for all green biomass, which means less food for all life on the planet.

BTW, who in the world decides how much CO2 is "normal", and how much isn't?

People have to be naive to think they know what is the best climate, and what is the best amount of atmospheric CO2 that the Earth should have.

This will cause more problems than solve problems.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Well said. In times past, when the earth had a lot more CO2, most of the planet was a tropical paradise. Dinosaurs roamed on antarctica which sported vast forests.

Even more recently during the global warming event around 1000 AD, the vikings farmed greenland and there was a huge beneficial impact to mankind.

They are likely to plunge us into an ice age with their ill formed interventions.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


This reminds me of one of the last original "Highlander" movies where Connor had helped design and build a dome and the inside environment became corrupted and the outside was fine!
When you mess with mother nature no matter what your intentions, she will assuredly mess back!

Zindo



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
seems like a great idea, but coming from someone who is ignorant to the whole global warming thing, and also one who does not trust the likes of Al Gore, would this take away the necessary carbon dioxide trees need to survive and grow?

Or am I way off base?



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I wonder how the plants are going to deal with having all their CO2 stolen.

An elementary trick to growing bigger plants and vegetables is to raise the Co2 levels in your greenhouse. The plant's response is to grow bigger.

I remember reading about how all the plants and trees during the jurassic period were a lot bigger for this same reason.

Oh well, who cares about how healthy the trees and plants are, they just create our oxygen, right??



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Time? -The Future
Place? -Earth

Carbon dioxide is totally controlled and the oxygen content of breathable atmosphere is 20% less than the populace needs to maintain mental acuity. The elite are riding around in limousines with high oxygen content and inside of sealed buildings with high content. The masses are controlled by being unable to comprehend whats going on and become the drones the elite always wished for. George Soros is President and on his 5th reconstituted body and Al Gore is president of Vice and on his 3rd body. There is no Congress or Senate or even US as a country and the world is one nation.
End of story and my ultimate nightmare!

Zindo

This scenario reminds me of the movie' Idiocracy'!

[edit on 7/10/2009 by ZindoDoone]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


lol...
...thers a conspiracy for you....

classic....



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This is a big no-no.

Are people forgetting that all lifeforms in this planet are CARBON based?

If you take out CO2 from the atmosphere, you leave less food for all green biomass, which means less food for all life on the planet.

BTW, who in the world decides how much CO2 is "normal", and how much isn't?

People have to be naive to think they know what is the best climate, and what is the best amount of atmospheric CO2 that the Earth should have.

This will cause more problems than solve problems.



Nope not at all, as long as its done with understanding.

For example, as you stated, it would make zero sense to put one of these in a national forest as it may rob the trees around it of normal nourishment.

However, PLEASE put several of these in downtown LA.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazyninja
I wonder how the plants are going to deal with having all their CO2 stolen.

An elementary trick to growing bigger plants and vegetables is to raise the Co2 levels in your greenhouse. The plant's response is to grow bigger.

I remember reading about how all the plants and trees during the jurassic period were a lot bigger for this same reason.

Oh well, who cares about how healthy the trees and plants are, they just create our oxygen, right??



See this is why I think that it would be better not to turn it into sledge of some sort for storage underground, but to capture it in places where it's off the charts and sell it to greehouses and the like as you mentioned.



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


seriously..L.A.. is so bad...

you can see the haze approaching it from the 101...then once you get into the middle of i, it burns your eyes...nasty...

but that smog, is probably made of more stuff than just carbon dioxide...



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 



You do know that smog has barely anything to do with CO2 and is in fact made out of other real noxeous gases?

This will not clean up the smog you find in cities at all.


Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.
.....
Photochemical Smog
This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (R'O)

All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't like quoting from wiki because of their bias but since many members use, and trust wiki the above is from such source.


As another member stated, with higher CO2 content in the atmosphere plant life was bigger, and greener, and life for the most part thrived.

CO2 is increased in greenhouses from 500 -1,500 ppm to increase the yields/harvests, but many people control the amount of CO2 to lower levels so they don't have to work all day on their greenhouse to take care of the extra yields/harvests.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I wonder why carbon tax is even being sold to us as carbon tax. Since like someone pointed out, the problem is not carbon dioxide but rather pollution itself. Why not just call it smog tax, or pollution tax? There must be a reason for coming up with a name which is so easy to explain as a scam.

We obviously do have pollution problems, and we need legislation to deal with it. Whats the deal with this carbon tax baloney?

Only thing I can think, is that a tax on pollution itself would hurt the industrial sector too badly to function well enough to maintain economic growth. Carbon tax it seems to be mostly a tax aimed at us little people. Some companies are being hit with the tax too, bu you'll notice it's all companies involved in service rather than industry. For example, an airline can easily pass their tax onto the consumer by hiking their ticket prices. Perhaps companies involved in infrastructure, concerning building and so on, cannot so easily pass this cost on, and would become crippled by an encompassing pollution tax?

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Lazyninja]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
While I can see some risks in 'carbon dioxide capture,' I think the benefits of such artificial trees may out way some of them. If they are used in moderation.

Using a few thousand of these 'trees' in major cities, oil fields, and in proximity to major factories/smelters/etc. is not a bad idea. While it may not reduce smog, however, if the technology is similar enough, how long until they work out a way to filter out the smog materials as well?

Personally I think this sort of technology is a good thing and research like it should be funded intently.

However, I do think planting more trees would help matters as well. (Just not any fraking Mulberry trees, as I am allergic to them
)

M.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


Simply because all humans, and animals emit CO2, hence TPTB can tax EVERYONE and claim that we are to blame for Climate Change so we better pay them more money to do something which THEY WILL NEVER SOLVE.

They do not want to solve the smog/pollution problem at all, they just want to blame us and tax us so they can become richer and have more control over us.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Did you know that at least in the northern hemisphere, as well as in the oceans that the Earth's green biomass has increased? Of course the GREEN movement doesn't want to tell you this because then they lose power/control, and so will everyone involved in the Global Warming Hoax.

BTW the Global Warming hoax is the claim that anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is the cause for the Climate Change Earth has been experiencing, which has never been proven.



[edit on 12-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
they should find a way to compress it into pellets ... the pellets could be used in the building industry as gravel etc....



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join