Fake Plastic Trees to Solve Climate Change
by Kristin Underwood, San Diego, CA on 08.28.08
Image source: Getty Images
Okay so they're not necessarily plastic (though they could be), and they probably won't "solve" climate change, but according to Klaus Lackner, a geophysicist at Columbia University, the concept would give us time to develop alternative energies and slow the damaging effects of CO2 in our atmosphere. The San Diego Union Tribune reported today that both real and fake trees are being explored as options to fight climate change. Researchers are looking at both options to suck up CO2 out of our atmosphere and it looks like the fake trees might be winning.
The idea would be to make tall, fake "trees" that collect CO2; not in the way a normal tree would gather CO2, but rather, by using filters that stick to CO2 as it passes by. The current prototypes are 1,000 times better than real trees at sucking up CO2 and they are not using energy to photosynthesize anything.
Scientists at the University of Maryland and the University of Griefswald in Germany, on the other hand, are looking to real trees for the answer. They say that if we could manage all of the forests in the world then we technically could offset all of our fossil fuel emissions. Though there are several problems with this strategy A) thats a lot of management B) you would need a system to bury the trees deep underground when they die otherwise you're still releasing CO2 and C) that assumes no growth in fossil fuel emissions.
How Can We Manage Forests To Capture CO2?
The UM professors suggest thinning forests every 5 years and burying the wood. The possibility even exists to have tree farms strictly for growth, capture of CO2 and burial. The catch: the scientists estimate it would take 2.47 billion acres of forest just to capture annual global carbon dioxide emissions. "Its about 1/4 of all the Earth's land surface currently covered by forest." While you can plant trees just about anywhere, location and type of tree also affects carbon capture.
In addition, huge forests of trees can be heat sinks, thus raising the temperatures around them. There are also questions about how increasing trees would affect the landscape around the area.
How do CO2 filter trees work?
The fake trees are in test phase right now in Arizona. After several trials, they have a version that requires very little energy to operate. Basically, they use "tree trunks" that are multiple filters coated in a plastic resin. When air passes over the filter, the CO2 sticks to the resin and creates sodium carbonate (soda ash). When the filters are exposed to moisture the sodium carbonate is released and can then be stored/buried. The filters are then reusable.
What's even better is that they are so effective. A 20 square inch filter piece can take up the annual carbon emissions of one American in one year. One of these "trees" is 55 feet by 65 feet, and captures 90,000 tons of CO2 each year, equal to 15,000 cars. Now we're talking.
What to Do With the Captured Carbon?
Several options include burying it in underground mines or oil fields or even deep in the ocean. Since its denser than water it would be trapped at the bottom. Down the road it may be possible to turn the CO2 "into a stable, inert, harmless solid." Other options include turning it into a marketable product - its already used in fire extinguishers, as "dry ice" and even to promote growth in green houses. An even better idea - a fuel source - if its converted to liquid hydrogen-carbon. At this time it's still too expensive as a fuel source, but who knows what the future will bring. As for costs, estimates are that the trees could capture CO2 at $30 per ton (25 cents per gallon of gas), but they are still in the research phase.
The beauty behind the fake trees is that technically they could be located anywhere. Since CO2 is distributed globally, we could put them in the middle of nowhere or even right next to power plants with heavy emissions and and they would still do their job. No permitting fiascos (a la offshore wind) and no weird trees in our neighborhoods (a la fake cell phone towers) unless we want them.
Either way, we still need to get our emissions under control. Even if trees (real or fake) can capture our emissions, they are still rising with no stop in sight. According to Lackner, "this is not a scientific question. It's a question of our pain threshold. How long can we go before we all agree that something must be done?"
More on Carbon Sequestration
Carbon Capture and Storage: Now With 40% More Acid Rain
Scientists Develop Low-Cost Version of Carbon Capture and Storage
Important! Why Carbon Sequestration Won't Save Us
Human Brain Enzyme Used for Carbon Capture
Could a Century's Worth of Carbon Emissions Be Stored Within the Juan de Fuca Plate?
Crossing Canada on an Electric Bike Using Only $10 of Electricity
|
Eat Well Guide Shares High Tech Tools for the Sustainable Food Movement
|
where are we going to get the subatomic transmogrifier to make liquid hydrogen from NaCO3?
Problem: if we are we looking at concentration and percentage of CO2 within atmosphere are we also looking at the concentration and percentage of oxygen within the atmosphere? These fake trees may take our burned fossil fuels' CO2 out but by relying on them to do so, would we be wrongly assuming that we could continue to destroy forests and burning fossil fuels WITHOUT growing and preserving forests, causing a deficit of O2 and in affect, continuing the problem by percentages, and increasing the concentration and percentage of nitrogen? When we breath we need not just the percentage of O2, we need the pressure of that gas to pass it into our lungs and into our blood stream.... We don't do very well on nitrogen as a gas nor do plants (without help).
This really looks like another scheme similarly poorly thought through like corn based fuels for our dammed cars!
tardigrade:
Not really. While real trees create oxygen from CO2, they also produce CO2 by decaying. As such, the world's forests are a balanced system.
Now, how fossil fuels came about, is from carbon dioxide getting trapped by plants and animals and getting buried - usually underwater - for a few million years. Oil and coal exist because there used to be more CO2 in the atmosphere, and a few hundred thousand generations of growing things removed it.
So if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere, we'll still have plenty of O2 to breathe.
Oh and by the way, the difference in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere between "ice age" and "catastrophic global warming" is about 4% (probably less). If the amount of oxygen went down that much, it wouldn't be a huge deal, believe me. Our atmosphere is around 21% oxygen.
Do we need to remind the scientists of the world working on these kooky projects that we have a cyclone of plastic floating out in the ocean with nowhere to put it?
Here's an idea. Plant more REAL trees! Get governments to stop building parking lots like crazy when they aren't needed and use empty lots to make more parks!
*mutters to self*
I have read that the vast majority of CO2 abatement occurs through geologic weathering processes, and we are dealing with such vast amounts of CO2, that THIS kind of artificial abatement can only really be miniscule compared to what's required.
Natural systems require no energy input, although leaving them be creates opportunity cost for people who want the land/resources for something else. Understandable. Humankind is creative, and needs resources, with which it creates order from entropy.
I applaud any potential abatement technology, because it means we're at least acknowledging the gravity of the situation, but if we evaluate it and find it to not meet the scale requirements we need, (which I think will happen) then, since the problem has been acknowledged, the next step is consumption limitation, not by the price system, but by government mandate, motivated by global security concerns, which would supervene the priorities of the price-fixing institutions.
Plant decay varies greatly by latitude: tropical forests as a result have very thin soils beneath them. Generalizations do not work here.
Anyone want to be that an engineer cooked up this scheme without involving any ecologists or botanists?
>How Can We Manage Forests To Capture CO2?
Biochar is the answer. By turning biomass into char, we can permanently sequester carbon.
CO2-concentrating technologies do have a role, in that they can be used to enhance plant growth locally. For example, greenhouse operations have used "CO2 enrichment" for a long time. Plant yields for some plants may double with CO2 concentrations of 1400ppm. In a forest, CO2 concentrations during a sunny day can quickly drop down to 150 ppm from the atmospheric 385 ppm. This restricts tree growth. By using such CO2 concentrating techniques, CO2 in the forest can be kept elevated throughout the day. This may then enhance plant growth. More biomass can be harvested and turned into biochar. That's where we need to go ! So one could look at these CO2 concentrating techniques as "photosynthesis boosters". But there is a need for permanent sequestration.
I think that this scientist is missing the forest for the trees.
The problem is that our use of finite fossil oil, coal and gas for raw materials and fuels is putting excess CO2 into the air. Using a energy consuming, water consuming, space consuming, man-made device to scrub CO2 from the air which must then be sequestered misses the point.
Plants (trees, bamboo, grasses, perennials, etc) clean the air and water, provide shade and habitat, and provide food, fuel, and the raw materials to make everything from clothing to housing without needing to be plugged into the grid. Even the "waste" products (dead leaves, bark, small branches) can be used to mulch and build soil, which may be the ultimate carbon sink. Photosynthesis works great and doesn't require fossil fuel inputs, only intelligent management.
We're going to need a lot more farmers and foresters real soon to grow our way out of the fossil fuel age.
What a silly story. plastic to replace living organisms?
By the way, trees have to die before they start to decay and depending on the tree that can be quite some time.
One last thing, what happens when one of these plastic forests catches fire? and don't say they can't, ever seen a tire pile burn? you don't want to be anywhere around.
Just another vote for real trees.
This isn't a replacement for trees. In fact, one of the great advantages is that it can be put places where no trees (or anything else) can grow, like AZ. Also, they sequester CO2 at a rate 1000x greater than a natural tree. We need to remove a lot of carbon, fast. This seems like a way to do that. It's ironic that the solution to removing all the fossil fuel waste from the atmosphere would come from...fossil fuels, since the trees are made of plastic.
@ mcleodtim
Yeah, I was wondering myself what they were talking about exactly.
@tardigrade
Obviously we need a multipronged solution to GW, so I doubt we'll be building these and then justifying our coal burning. ALL fossil fuels are becoming more expensive, so renewables will be cheaper to use. Planting forests alone won't cut the carbon out of the atmosphere. These filters sound like a great solution. The cost would be high, but not as high as not removing the carbon from the air.
The majority of oxygen in the air comes from ocean plankton, not land-based plants. And we'd be removing a very minuscule amount of carbon from the air, not enough to affect either O2 levels or gas pressure. Really, we just need to remove CO2 from the current 400 PPM down to 300 PPM to prevent global warming from making the planet largely uninhabitable by humans.
@ Jenny
Planting trees is largely carbon neutral since the carbon reenters the atmosphere once the tree dies and rots. This product would actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere for good. And it wouldn't end up floating in the ocean. $10 / gal gas will take care of the parking lot problem. We could use more parks, though.
@ rob
I've read that the largest single source of carbon sequestration comes from ocean animals like mollusks and krill who form their shells from calcium carbonate. That's why the acidification of the ocean (from CO2) is so worrying, since these animals can only form their shells in a basic pH. I did a google search, but the only geological carbon abatement I could find was artificial carbon sequestration. Do you remember how that worked ? If cheap and scalable enough, we should be able to remove a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. I would certainly prefer this to some of the other solutions offered like shooting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to shade the earth.
High latitudes with short growing seasons seem to bewhere atmospheric carbon levels are growing fastest. If these artificial trees can continue capturing CO2 during the winter, then we could see a real benefit more quickly and perhaps restore arctic sea ice sooner. There will be no magic bullet to slow climate change. We need to approach the need to reduce, and store, carbon emissions on many fronts and we need to be flexible in our approach. Going carbon negative in Canada and the northern tier may be more effective than at the equator, where the longer growing season may benefit from extra CO2.
This sounds like a great idea but has many downfalls to it. Having "fake" trees will allow people to feel as if natural trees can be continued to be cut down for lumber. Deforestation might highten after the introduction of these artificial trees. Also wildlife will not be able to survive in an artificial habitat so therefore there will not be any substance to the forest, it will simply be just artificial trees. Yes the trees will help will the world's CO2 emissions, but I doubt its possible to make a big impact since so much space is needed to "plant" these trees. i would simply suggest to help stop deforestation so there will not be any need for these trees
Plastic trees...come on, plant real trees that can reproduce. Has the guy who came up with idea got a plastic factory? hmmmm
I think this is a great idea! Why if we only plant say 5-6 Billion of these trees we could make an infinitesimal impact on Co2 levels in the atmosphere.
Why spend that money on something as frivolous as capturing factory and power-plant emissions and running them through scrubbers on sight. This is a much better plan.
Thank goodness we have scientists out there who can come up with these ideas, because it is quite obvious that common sense will never work!
Which Plastics manufacturer funded this research? I've got to invest now.
JS Dryer:
I got that factoid from Ward and Brownlee - Life and Death of Planet Earth. Basically, CO2 eroding rock faces deposits calcium in the oceans, which is then available to shellfish. Of course, the calcium in the stones, or some of it, may have been a life form already, maybe even more than once.
I'm not opposed to artificial modes, I'm just worried they're not gonna be nearly enough, and the highly efficient natural processes, available for free on a very wide scale, shouldn't be inhibited.
And Arizona is not too dry to participate in CO2 abatement, because desert grasses can absorb something like 30% more CO2 than woody plants. (I believe that's the case - its the C3 photosynthetic pathway vs. the C4).
I support this cause this sounds amazing and looks like it is a viable solution. we don't have much time left to save the earth, so we all should be aware of the issue now, any of there activities saving the earth should be encouraged and if there's something wrong with the plans, let us sit down and find a way out!
@ Sisyphus
Did you understand the article? A 20 square inch piece will account for all the carbon produced by a citizen of the country with the largest carbon footprint, the USA. That's 10 square inches for a Japanese or European, 4 square inches for a Chinese person, and about 1 square inch per person in Africa. A few thousand of these is all it would take to account for all the anthropomorphic CO2 production in the world. A few thousand more, and we can begin to reduce atmospheric carbon.
The real issue is what to do with all of that sodium carbonate.
It's frustrating to see all the negativity surrounding this invention. It appears that someone has invented a relatively inexpensive (vs. the effects of GW), scalable, and effective way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and possibly avoiding the greatest environmental disaster facing mankind and all people can do is complain.
1. Due to the expense, it won't result in people continuing to burn fossil fuels or cut down trees any more than they already are.
2. It won't be instead of natural processes or growing trees.
@ JS Dreyer,
I understood the article all to well, We should produce fake trees to clean up the mess we have been making of the planet.
I am not impressed by the more than 2,000 square miles of coverage it would take just to counter the C02 emissions in the US alone. you may wish to check that few thousand trees notion. 305,000,000 people in the US. Let's not even get started on China shall we. I continue to hold that capturing at the source and reduction of C02 emissions is the only solution to the problem.
When I use the word solution, I do not refer to cleaning up after the fact. Spend the money to solve the problem.
These trees, as stated in the article, will only produce another waste product that we will have to deal with. I for one am not happy with dumping it in the Oceans and I'm pretty sure pouring down mine shafts will evoke a swift Enviro. EPA, red tape nightmare. Remember Yuka Mountain, this may not be radioactive waste, but no one will want it in their back yard.
This is fun conjecture and very interesting science, but not practical.
In my opinion.
One thing about Treehugger that makes it unique is that it presents "green" ideas in a generally positive light. It's probably a good idea to make our problems appear solvable, but ti comes at the expense of critical thinking. Too many crackpot ideas are presented without critical review.
Real plants and trees are solar powered carbon vacuums. It is thermodynamically highly improbable that we can come up with a more efficient method of removing trace amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.
Let's look at all proposed solutions with an eye toward energy inputs and outputs and lifecycle issues.
Where are the statistic ts for the energy that will be used and the CO2 that will be emitted during the oil prospecting, transportation and refining plus the manufacture, transportation, installation and future disposal of these plastic trees? How is anyone supposed to make a balanced judgement of a scheme without all the facts and figures? We need to see a proper "inputs and outputs" flow diagram for this. Without offering the necessary information, the peddler of any scheme may as well be a snake oil salesman. I suspect the scheme is utter nonsense and that the inputs would prove to be much too intensive to balance the beneficial output of CO2 emissions but, hey, I could be wrong, it would be interesting to see.
Does the energy needed to manufacture plastic trees not create C02?