First Successful Demonstration of CO2 Capture Technology

An anonymous coward writes "Global Research Technologies, LLC (GRT), a technology research and development company, and Klaus Lackner from Columbia University have achieved the successful demonstration of a bold new technology to capture carbon from the air. The "air extraction" prototype has successfully demonstrated that indeed carbon dioxide (CO2) can be captured from the atmosphere. This is GRT's first step toward a commercially viable air capture device."

Uh...

[w3woody]

Don't they call things that absorb CO2 from the air Trees...?

And couldn't we sequester CO2 from the atmosphere by converting trees into an inert substance--such as paper--then burying it into landfills?

I mean--couldn't we get a 'win/win' here by simply outlawing the recycling of paper?

New Technology!

[Mr. Flibble]

Meanwhile, in a competing lab, scientists have unearthed a competing technology, known in ancient times. These "plants" are rumored to absorb CO2, and unbelivably, some of them, it is rumored, are edible.

Re:Requiem for Macintosh

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never gotten laid have you?

Re:The spice must flow.

[Hal_Porter]

I find this idea somewhat concerning. All too often the human race is guilty of doing things because they can, before they learn whether or not they should. I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, but in all honesty, what the hell will we break if we start trying to extract too much carbon from the atmosphere.

I agree! The precautionary principle says that you should change with the natural world unless you know it's safe. Historically, atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising slowly for a hundred years or so. Possibly some of that is caused by humans, but it seems we should stick with the status quo until we have more evidence as to how much, and whether increased CO2 is a good thing, a bad thing or doesn't matter at all.

It's possible that lowering CO2 suddenly might cause the climate to flip into a new stable state, like a new Ice Age. Since the costs of this would be vast, it's very important not to take any measures which could allow it to happen. If irresponsible Europeans persist in sequestering carbon, the US should increase it's carbon emissions to compensate to ensure that the current trends continue.

Don't store it!

[glasspanic]

They should so like, seperate the carbon and oxygen, turn the carbon into diamonds, and then sell the oxygen at an oxygen bar. They they would make like, infinity million dollars!

Re:How much coal to power this?

[Opportunist]

Ohhh... I know, a whole new idea. Make it solar powered!

Dibs on the patent! Nobody's ever invented anything that uses solar power to split CO2!

Re:Uh...

[jimicus]

In Australia we plant non-native pine trees for timber resulting in vast areas of land covered with a pine tree monoculture that is largely devoid of any other lifeforms (even the bugs refuse to live in those forests).

Maybe they don't like the smell of cheap disinfectant.

Re:Uh...

[ErroneousBee]

back of envelope maths:

From TFA (or we could go to the Stern Report):
"A device with an opening of one square meter can extract about 10 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year. If a single device were to measure 10 meters by 10 meters it could extract 1,000 tons each year. On this scale, one million devices would be required to remove one billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. According to the U.K. Treasury's Stern Review on climate change, the world will need to reduce carbon emissions by 11 billion tons by 2025 in order to maintain a concentration of carbon dioxide at twice pre-industrial levels. "

So we need to absorb 11,000,000,000 tonnes per year.

Assume a tree planted today will weigh 50tonnes in 20 years time.
So 1 tree absorbs 50/20 = 2.5tonnes/year.
So we need 11,000,000,000 / 2.5 = 4,400,000,000 or 4 billion trees.

1 tree needs say a square of sides 3 meters, or 9 meters square.

A total land area of 4x9 billion square meters = 36billion square meters = 14,000 square miles, or just over one Belgium in old money.

Seems doable, we don't need Belgium, and the US can chip in a Wales to make up the shortfall.

Re:Uh...

[gerrysteele]

So what about genetically modified trees that consume superstancial amounts of CO2?

Trees that grow high into the sky. Trees that grow so big we can build cities in their overlapping branches.

Trees my friends that bear bounties fruits and sustenance for all mankind alike?

Trees so beautiful they would make a grown man weep in awe.

And these trees I sayeth, they shall become our new friend. Our new master. Our new servant.

All hail our new genetically modified tree overlords.

Re:Uh...

[sentientbeing]

Actally, Ents have been observed in the wild to strip off their own leaves, bleach themselves and climb into recycling chipping machines in paper mills when depressed.

Re:By capturing CO2 you capture C and O2

[yoprst]

The best way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere still is and always will be to not emit it in the first place
Stop breathing now.

Re:This is a money making scam!

[had3z]

You should apply for a middle management job in IT. you are highly qualified for it :)

1. Extract Carbon from the Air.
2. Sell extracted carbon as combustible fuel
3. Profit
4. Return to Step 1

there, fixed it for you

Re:HEMP

[Johnny5000]

All this recycling and tree replanting should be avoided in the first place. We should be planting hemp everywhere.

Sure, hemp may be a great plant to fulfill many of our needs.

However, your plan fails to think of the children, and thus will be doomed to failure.
Why, hemp is sort of like mari-juana. You might as well inject heroin directly into fetuses.

Re:Uh...

[MobyDisk]

So the plan is actually to stick this stuff in barrels and bury it?

Thus, solving the problem once and for all. [youtube.com] Once and for all!

Re:Uh...

[Snarkhunter]

Well, maybe if you hippies stopped bitching about genetic engineering we might have trees that'd DO that!

I for one welcome our self-pulping, mobile arboreal overlords.

Re:Uh...

[Beardo the Bearded]

If we don't put our waste underground, how will the ants have any fuel for their cars 100 million years from now?

That's long term thinking. Won't somebody think of the ant children?

Re:Uh...

[saforrest]

I mean seriously, the entire Idea behind using Biofuels instead of fossil fuels is because the carbon on biofuels are already on the earths surface and there is no net gain. Wouldn't this be the same? placing Co2 back underground were is came from?

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea. After a century of intense oil extraction at great expense and effort, we end up putting it back. The crowning irony would be if the most efficient manner of underground storage was as oil.

It would make things a lot easier in the end if we just, you know, stopped pulling it out of the ground already...