Synthetic Tree Way Better Than God's Trees

Katherine Mangu-Ward | June 23, 2009

While it lacks the aesthetic appeal and archetypal significance of its natural rival, this "synthetic tree" is 1,000 times faster at carbon capture than the real thing:

As the wind blows though plastic "leaves," the carbon is trapped in a chamber, compressed and stored as liquid carbon dioxide.

The technology is similar to that used to capture carbon from flue stacks at coal-fired power plants, but the difference is that the "synthetic tree" can catch carbon anytime, anywhere.

The artificial tree's designer, Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering at Columbia University, told CNN he'd pit his "tree" against a windmill, too—thus spitting in the face of God and man.

"If you give me one of those big windmills which have those big areas through which the rotor moves—how much CO2 can I avoid? And if I had an equally sized CO2 collector—how much CO2 can I collect? It turns out the collector is several hundred times better than the windmill."

Comments

ed|6.23.09 @ 12:08PM|#

it lacks the aesthetic appeal and archetypal significance of its natural rival

And it's too large to hug.

|6.23.09 @ 12:10PM|#

And it's too large to hug.

Not if you hug with your heart.

God|6.23.09 @ 12:17PM|#

KRRRACKA-POW

|6.23.09 @ 12:20PM|#

Too efficient- REJECTED.

New World Dan|6.23.09 @ 12:21PM|#

What does one do with all the CO2 that gets collected? Make a whole bunch of soda?

KyleG|6.23.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Why are these sick fucks trying to deprive real trees of much needed CO2 and us humans of much needed O2?

passivatedObserver|6.23.09 @ 12:25PM|#

After the Great Plant Die-off of 2014, special greenhouses will be constructed and all the sequestered CO2 will be released used for growing food.

|6.23.09 @ 12:28PM|#

What does one do with all the CO2 that gets collected?

We shove it up the tight asses of hippies and then give the diamonds out to poor people so that everyone can be rich.

|6.23.09 @ 12:32PM|#

Color me skeptical of the whole carbon capture "solution". How many years is this CO2 going to remain sequestered? The irrational wing of the environmentalist movemnt has apparently managed to kill Yucca mountain for nuclear waste disposal because we can't gaurantee that the solid nuclear waste for remain inviolate forever. How long will the gaseous (NTP) CO2 remain isolated from the atmosphere? Tectonic plates are still moving, groundwater is still dissolving limestone, etc.

Convince me the storage is secure for >100,000 years and I'll get onboard, though the aforementioned irrational types probably won't.

|6.23.09 @ 12:33PM|#

Uh, if God created humans, then anything that humans create is still (indirectly) God's creation.

Jeff P|6.23.09 @ 12:36PM|#

Secret origin: Klaus Lackner, renowned geophysicist, found his woman using a plastic phallus which she claimed was more efficient, durable, and satisfying than his fleshy one. It also vibrated. Lackner was so traumatized by this that he decided to make more effective artificial versions of everything his wife held dear.

Thus Klaus Lackner became Doktor Artifice!

Forty-Two|6.23.09 @ 12:41PM|#

J sub,

Lackner's process binds the CO2 in a liquid solution. The liquid would be sequestered, probably by pumping it into the ground.

I don't know if it's a >100,000 year solution, but it's definitely not short-term.

Some dude|6.23.09 @ 12:41PM|#

What the hell is "liquid carbon dioxide"?

Trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. Why is it better to turn it into liquid carbon dioxide?

|6.23.09 @ 12:42PM|#

Uh, if God created humans, then anything that humans create is still (indirectly) God's creation.

Because man is sinful and in need of redemption, his works are imperfect and flawed. Religion is deep in mans psyche - no wonder environmentalists adopt the same logical constructs for their religion.

Paul|6.23.09 @ 12:43PM|#

Convince me the storage is secure for >100,000 years and I'll get onboard, though the aforementioned irrational types probably won't.

Pipe it underground back into the empty oilfields that we've drained.

However, I have it on good authority that carbon sequestration... hell... anything we do to fight global warming is doomed.

robc|6.23.09 @ 12:55PM|#

I agree with some dude.

This is a good start, but how about releasing the O2 and just storing the carbon. I will store in convenient solid form that wont easily escape. And maybe the blocks of carbon can be used as fuel?

|6.23.09 @ 12:56PM|#

The more sucessful technologies like this are, the more likely that the risk of global warming is worth some preventative cost. If the cost can be made low enough, the world will adopt - even if the premise is ultimately unfounded.

Ample Bosoms|6.23.09 @ 1:02PM|#

"The technology is similar to that used to capture carbon from flue stacks at coal-fired power plants"

Wait a minute. I thought there was no such thing as clean coal. That's what Joel & Ethan Coen tell us in there TV propaganda spots.

Rich bastards.

|6.23.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Lackner's process binds the CO2 in a liquid solution.

Not really. It is compressed and stored in metal tanks as liquid CO2. Release the pressure, and it goes back into a gas, thus Poisoning Mother Gaia.

Not a long-term storage solution, at all. Not efficient, not scalable, not permanent.

|6.23.09 @ 1:22PM|#

Remind me again why global warming is inherently bad.

hmm|6.23.09 @ 1:28PM|#

Most of my work being of arboreal nature for the last 15ish years I will take old growth biomass of 300 foot trees, reusable stands, and propagated species that produce not only a scrubbing effect, but wood over a plastic fucking tree. I will be glad to test this synthetic tree's resilience to my MS 660 Stihl saw.

Why in the fuck is he calling it a tree. It looks like one of the lamps you have as a kid where the shade spins and the horse runs and jumps.

hmm|6.23.09 @ 1:30PM|#

Remind me again why global warming is inherently bad.

I walked my 2 miles to the train today at around 10 am in 90 degree weather with 70% plus humidity. FUCK YOU ALL FOR CONTRIBUTING TO MY SHITTY WALK THIS MORNING. If you all would just believe I could be walking in 40 degree weather and enjoying my walk.

|6.23.09 @ 1:34PM|#

Remind me again how CO2 is bad. This is just ridiculous--a terrible waste of good brainpower.

|6.23.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"Remind me again why global warming is inherently bad."

From my perspective up here in Canada, warming is definitely a good thing.

|6.23.09 @ 1:35PM|#

"Remind me again why global warming is inherently bad."

Reverend Gore says it will make you go blind and you'll grow hair on your palms.

ChanceH|6.23.09 @ 1:41PM|#

If he could just figure out how to combine it with hydrogen, we could burn the stuff. Would make great fuel.

I, Kahn O\'Clast|6.23.09 @ 1:53PM|#

I thought we were going to just vent all the extra CO2 into space....

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/venting_our_problems_away.php

Michael Ejercito|6.23.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Is it cost effective?

|6.23.09 @ 2:14PM|#

After I start my pollution-free metal tank garden, I'm going to begin work on my perpetual motion machine. All you naysayers will be sorry some day when I have the infinite pollution storage tank and perpetual motion markets locked up.

|6.23.09 @ 2:15PM|#

Is it cost effective?

Of course not.

Zeb|6.23.09 @ 2:16PM|#

"Remind me again why global warming is inherently bad."

Coastal flooding and changes in precipitation patterns will create economic difficulties in the short term, even if it ends up being neutral or good for people in the long term. People aren't good at seeing the big picture and politics makes long term planning impossible.

I doubt that the artificial tree is much good for constructing useful and beautiful items or keeping my house warm in the winter. So I will stick with the original, thank-you.

twv|6.23.09 @ 2:25PM|#

If the thing separated carbon from oxygen, I'd give it an A-plus. That's what's so great about plants, like algae and trees: They replenish oxygen. This only STORES CO2. When it produces atmospheric O and solid C, I'll get onboard.

If we really do need to offset our atmospheric carbon emissions, it should be with plants, no? Forget recent talk about white roofs and roads, for albedo effects. Maybe we should figure out a way to put moss/tundra/somesuch on our roofs. We'd increase insulation. We'd increase atmospheric O and capture C for the planet.

And maybe we could grow spices up on our roofs, and veggies as well.

This is a technological fix that could become a true growth industry.

|6.23.09 @ 2:57PM|#

There is a building right along the west side of US101 in northern Marin County that looks exactly like this with the spinning top and all. I've been wondering what it is for a while now; are these things already in production?

Hugh Akston|6.23.09 @ 3:37PM|#

The compressed CO2 can be fed to greenhouse plants or genetically enhanced phytoplankton in a closed environment. That way the scrubbing effect of nature still happens, but at a more efficient rate.

mark|6.23.09 @ 4:01PM|#

What's important is that if this technology is better for cutting CO2 emissions than using windmills, dum dum dum, you don't need windmills!

zoltan|6.23.09 @ 4:04PM|#

I walked my 2 miles to the train today at around 10 am

Where do you live? The 10 AM is where you went wrong! Here in Texas, you must avoid the hours of 10a.m.-4p.m.

Forty-Two|6.23.09 @ 4:09PM|#

RC,

Perhaps he's changed his process, but his early prototypes used a patented solid material to capture the CO2. The solid was then rinsed clean with a liquid solution. Treating the liquid (with electrolysis, I think) would convert the CO2 back to gaseous form. The liquid would then be reused.

Perhaps he's managed a breakthrough and created a membrane substance to replace the solid?

Whatever it is, I agree that it's not economical.

Abdul|6.23.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Fuck you, Mr. Joyce "Poems are made by fools like me, But only God can make a tree" Kilmer!

|6.23.09 @ 5:04PM|#

I wonder what kind of carbon debt manufacturing and operating one of these things incurs? Even assuming you could permanently sequester the CO2 it captures, how long would it take to break even?

|6.23.09 @ 6:02PM|#

I'm with RC Dean and throwing the red flag (calling Ron Bailey).

Liquefying CO2 requires compression and refrigeration. Capturing CO2 on a substrate requires lots of material to capture lots of CO2. Chemical reactants need reagents, pumping, storage, heat transfer, etc.

No way this is cost-effective and I question if this is even net negative on sequestration.

|6.23.09 @ 6:36PM|#

If I read it correctly, the collection process reduces power efficiency by 20%, implying that power would cost 25% more.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.24.09 @ 12:34AM|#

What the hell is "liquid carbon dioxide"?

It's some really cold shit, boy.


Remind me again how CO2 is bad. This is just ridiculous--a terrible waste of good brainpower.

Not if it keeps them from dreaming up even worse bullshit.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.24.09 @ 12:37AM|#

Of course there's no way it's energy efficient, or any other-way efficient.

We don't dissociate C from O2 today and burn it, for the same reason we don't dissociate H2 from O and burn it. Takes more energy to overcome the bond than you get back out when burning it.

The only possible measure of efficiency that matters is, will it occupy the Gaia worshippers?

I'm easy, it doesn't even have to work > 100,000 years. I'll settle for five.

God|6.24.09 @ 3:34AM|#

yeah but does it run on nothing but water and sunlight?

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.24.09 @ 4:41AM|#

Dear God:

Don't you know there's a shortage of water here on earth? Why here in the US, we can't even have enough to wash our hands in public rest rooms anymore.

In case you hadn't noticed.

They haven't decreed a shortage of sunlight -- yet.