What is Digg?89 Comments
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -2/+48Too bad you are also locking up the O2 that would usually be emitted by real trees and trees don't require electricity to run either.
Trees also don't cost $30,000 to build, and are autonomous, requiring no maintenance... FFS just plant 30,000 dollars worth of trees and call it a day.
Now if they actually genetically engineered a tree to grow 1000 times faster that normal trees... that would be bad ass and would be too effective. - apathy9, on 07/15/2009, -2/+47It would seem to me the first question to ask is... Why not just plant 1,000 trees?
- SnuKs, on 07/15/2009, -1/+28I smell a new excuse to further rape the rain forests
- internetisscary, on 07/15/2009, -1/+26Now this is why I like science. SUPER TREES!
- elnerdo, on 07/15/2009, -1/+22These things are not at all similar to trees in any way whatsoever.
Stupid headline. - IgorUnchained, on 07/15/2009, -1/+21Trees also give off oxygen, which humans breathe. Does the new thing do that too?
2 acres of Hemp, with a two-crop grow season can make 2,000 gallons of biodiesel and will take in more carbon dioxide (while giving off more oxygen) than 2 acres of trees.
But yeah...if you want to build stuff that wont help nearly as much, go for it. Yay science! - Kumah, on 07/15/2009, -0/+12Congratulations. You built a carbon vacuum. Not a synthetic tree.
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -0/+10So why are they calling them synthetic trees?
- Langford, on 07/15/2009, -0/+10"After being trapped in a chamber, the carbon would be compressed and stored in liquid form for sequestration."
Is this liquid as useful to man and animal as the wood trees produce? We don't really need a new type of toxic waste.
"Each synthetic tree would cost about $30,000 to build, with most of the cost due to the technology used to release the carbon dioxide from the sorbent. In addition, since the device requires energy to operate..."
So we have to build one of these for every 20 cars on the road, and pay to keep them running? As impressive as the technology might seem on the surface, a tree only requires a sunny spot to live in the dirt. - hoisonsauce, on 07/15/2009, -1/+10Can the fake trees produce breathable oxygen?
- ZeaLitY, on 07/15/2009, -4/+12i like turtles
- BryanG412, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8Right, because regular trees aren't doing a good enough job.
- HavocXphere, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7Because its the easiest way of explaining carbon capture to idiots.
Also, "Box with carbon capture feature" doesn't impress venture companies. - cleber, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6There is O2 in CO2. Plans consume N CO2 and emits a bunch of M CO2.
Chemical majors can give you the exact quantities of N and M there. - omgwtflawl, on 07/15/2009, -3/+9"A synthetic tree could collect carbon coming from small, distributed sources, which is usually very difficult to collect. "
I have a sneaking suspicion that sentence makes no sense. - Maelok, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6"because they perform the same function."
No, not completely. - brucealmighty, on 07/15/2009, -1/+7For 30 grand you can spread around a heluva lot of tree seeds. Not all of them have to flourish and the maintenance should be nil for those that do....and they will probably be more trouble free and last longer than any manmade devices. Just seems like this idea has a long ways to go before the net returns look justified vs. the costs.
- OrangeTide, on 07/15/2009, -2/+8not sure it's cheaper. the amount of land it takes and paying someone to plant them and take care of them could easily exceed $30,000. That said I would still prefer the trees.
- Zalian, on 07/15/2009, -1/+6It was about time. Now its just a matter of planting these everywhere.
- Gumphlumph, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5Did some guys from Boston university already build something like this?
- boozedrinker, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5Perfect, now we just need a tree that produces bacon.
- ennuisquared, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5"The device looks less like a tree and more like a small building..."
I guess it was either "synthetic tree" or "carbon-devouring mini-edifice". - sporkman, on 07/15/2009, -1/+6God damn you people are stupid. It's for areas that are populated too densely to have 1,000 trees.
- hongkongjapie, on 07/15/2009, -1/+6I hope you just forgot the /s but i'm afraid i'm being optimistic...
- Maelok, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5A *true* synthetic tree would convert this carbon dioxide to be used to produce oxygen. Dugg anyway for science.
- Alabaster1234, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Both of which will create more pollution than turning oil into gasoline.
Ethanol being of any value is a horrible corn lobby myth. - vdog, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4 Real trees turn carbon into fruit and wood, while providing homes for a wide variety of animals.
They are also great to walk amongst, sit under or climb, and have been proven to lower stress.
When synthetic trees can do that, then I'll be impressed. - xieodeluxed, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5Cheaper, too.
- kmurray8621, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4They must be beautiful during foliage season.
- HavocXphere, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Right now oxygen levels are not the problem.
- MrSmith34, on 07/16/2009, -0/+31) how many trees do I need to kill in order to get the materials to build one of these?
$30k sounds like I can grow a lot of trees.
2) occupies more space then a tree
3) trees look nicer
4) not as much shade
5) what to do after it fills up with carbon? what do you do with it after?
...I'm not saying its bad, just not well thought out yet. - digggggggggg, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3"The device looks less like a tree and more like a small building"
That's because IT IS A SMALL BUILDING. Even a retarded kid can put the star shaped block in the star shaped hole and the square shaped block in the square hole. The very term "synthetic tree" seems offensive to anyone who has a sense of sight. - rkritzer, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Great, an expensive technology that gives us an excuse to not cut back on CO2 emissions.
- SpaceParanoids, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Sure it does.
CO2 coming out of a coal power plant is a large, central source. It's relatively easy to collect the emissions before they go out into the atmosphere.
Cars, on the other hand, are small, distributed sources of carbon. In order to sequester the emissions, you would need a totally different strategy. - Entroper, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3If you take Alabaster1234's suggestion, it ends up in ethanol. Which powers cars, turns into more CO2, and then turns into more hemp, closing the loop.
- thenewmadmax, on 07/15/2009, -1/+4That 2 acres of hemp will also produce more ethanol then 2 acres of corn.
- Langford, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3But carbon dioxide concentrated and dissolved into a liquid stands to potentially be a horrific acid.
- Disgod, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3Why not do both?
- jsauter, on 07/15/2009, -1/+4Would only need about 13 million or so of these to offset all the passenger vehicles in the USA.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Now if only they could make it turn that carbon into a usable material like trees.
- Drakenking, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3I think these trees are doing it wrong.
- meh2, on 07/15/2009, -3/+5Stupid scientists. Don't they know that the earth is just getting warmer because God is hugging us closer?
- Ramenboy005, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2who cares if they invented it...its not like it will ever be put to practical use
- johnomaz, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Wow, a whole 20 cars...that would be great if they lined these things up as center dividers on the freeways.
- Auraness, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2*****. We've awakened the Ents.
- lowdose, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2But they don't look like trees. They don't have those cool looking green things hanging of them. Synthetic trees suck. I am sure you can put a star on top like all the other trees but it's just not the same. Can you make paper with synthetic trees? I didn't think so. These are lame, and they look like boxes not trees!
- HavocXphere, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Fixing symptoms instead of underlying causes.
- jhails, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Well I guess we don't need to bother saving trees now. Fire up the saw mills and start clearing the remaining rainforest cause we have synthetic trees!
- SpaceParanoids, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2"Trees also give off oxygen, which humans breathe. Does the new thing do that too?"
I imagine that removing the oxygen from the CO2 would take an enormous amount of energy with current technology.
Besides, oxygen is about 20% of our atmosphere. CO2 is under 0.04%. In other words, you could blanket the globe with these machines and aerobic organisms (the ones who use oxygen) would not be affected whatsoever.
"2 acres of Hemp... will take in more carbon dioxide (while giving off more oxygen) than 2 acres of trees."
So what happens to the hemp after it's harvested? Can it be permanently sequestered? Where does all the carbon in those plants end up, ultimately? -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is