Synthetic Tree Soaks Up Carbon 1000x Faster Than the Real Thing

"Lackner says the captured CO2 could be used to create the used for jet engines and cars, the two most common carbon emitters. In other cases, the CO2 could be used to enhance current produce production."

What does this even mean? Bad editing is my guess.

I guess, it should be great to combine these CO2-suckers with the Dutch concept of solar trees, http://www.stichtingmilieunet.nl/andersbekekenblog/?p=3710

Milieunet Foundation is a non-profit organisation focused on awareness and change of behaviour by means of communication about waste, energy, sustainability, nature, environment, climate, human rights and international development cooperation.

"used to create the used" -- what's not clear about that?

I made the fix; thanks.

At 30 billion metric tons of annual man-made CO2 worldwide, that would require on the order of 330,000 of these trees. At $30,000 per tree, that's about 10 billion dollars, a proverbial drop in the bucket in Obamaland. There would, however, be transportation costs to deploy them, likely adding another several thousand per unit.

How much oil do you need to create the plastics needed to build them? Or is it recycled plastic?

The real question is this: Is any of this really necessary in the first place when global average temperature has been on the decline for the last 10 years despite record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That just doesn't add up, does it?

Well if they come up with a use for the carbon, 90000 tons a year is a heck of a lot for a single 30k instillation. This could be some sort of productive appliance rather than just an environmental bandaid. If someone was willing to buy the output for just a cent a pound... in one year that's 1.8 million dollars, minus the cost of running it. That's... just crazy, I'm sure some of those numbers must be off...

It sounds like they've perfected perpetual motion!

"Lackner says the captured CO2 could be used to create fuel for jet engines and cars." C02 is not a fuel source, it is a by-product of fuel consumption. Chemically speaking, there's simply no energy left to be extracted. Perhaps he was thinking of methane. Methane is another waste product that is a more potent green-house gas, which is already being collected and used to produce electricity

Dear Mr. Klaus Lackner,

I cannot delay any longer; it is imperative that I communicate with you!

I come to you under the most unprecedented circumstance. Our world is
dying and time will not allow any further delay.

Together we hold the key to slow down and reverse Global Warming. I
will be a man and admit that I cannot do it alone. I need your help and I want to work together with you to solve this crisis.

Together we hold a key to the puzzle through the technology you have developed.

I too have developed some technology. For the past 10 years, I have been designing and developing conceptual solar designs, with similar applications. I have been developing this solution which now is ready to be presented. I would like an opportunity to present this to you. My intentions are to create a non-completive business relationship agreement and an exclusive partnership. For ten years, I've developed the design of this solution, but the solar technology was not available until NOW. I with my company, Xolargy, am proud to be a part of this solution. Together we hold the key.

I am a problem solver. And I strongly believe that a movement of combined collaboration of new Technology posses a viable solution to today's global economic and climate problems. The solar industry is just one component as potential solution. And this effort has unprecedented and untapped economic rewards which is secondary to the global climate and biological benefit to the world and mankind.. The issue is not only facing the nation, but the entire world; the entire Human Race. The solution is right at our finger tips.

I fear time is running out. This is why this proposal to meet at your earliest convenience. This request merits at least a couple of hours of your time. It is our destiny.

I ask for your audience, in a private meeting, to discuss a mutual relationship or a simple network opportunity. I propose a meeting to collectively share thoughts and hopefully solve this world crisis.

I humbly request a meeting.

I can be reached at: 510-385-1830.
--
Xolargy- The Solar Revolution.

www.xolargy.com
1-877-XOLARGY
"We dont have to wrap the Earth in foil."

When I first glanced at this I assumed that like real trees the structure would convert CO2 into C and 02 - that would really be useful at this 1000 times tree rate.
Why does it need to be a tree like structure? What do you do with the compressed liquid CO2? To create fuel you'd have to put more energy into the system.
If the CO2 can be easily controlled in this way then why not put the structure where we're producing most CO2 - in the chimneys of fossil fuel burning power stations? Basically this is a CO2 collector/comressor rather than a tree - the tree structure is just marketing. It doesn't need to be tree shaped.

hmm just like a store ad or a website that sells a product if you have to ask how much it will cost ...then it costs way too much

synthetic trees lack one thing real trees do: provide oxygen.

we shouldnt use synthetic trees to replace traditional trees just because they absorb co2 better.

they use c02 scrubbers in space shuttles, why did it take them this long to build one for earth?

Before we spend trillions of dollars on fake trees and cap and trade garbage can one of the "scientists" answer a simple question?
How are you predicting weather and temps 20 and 50 years in the future but no one can tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW?

It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...

Strange to call these great CO2 absorbers trees.

Doesn't look like a tree. It's just a building. See picture
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10272020-54.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=GreenTech

Milieunet Foundation is a non-profit organisation focused on awareness and change of behaviour by means of communication about waste, energy, sustainability, nature, environment, climate, human rights and international development cooperation.

To Klaus Lackner: (who will not read this anyway)

"In an interview with CNN, Lackner said the synthetic tree is "several hundred times better at collecting CO2" than windmill generators.

When did windmill generators start collecting CO2?

He could have gone much further and said "Billions of Times!"

Seems like everyone rather than learning from the professor is ending up with more questions than answers. I think the professor needs a professor in communication skills and a good marketing consultant.

Collecting CO2 is a waste of time. At the rate of collection from one tree that is actually not a tree but was mentioned as a "Scrubber" which is all that is being "Re-Invented" due to the need to feed people's "Hope" which can be turned into profit for Klaus and his "Partners" who will get free money from taxation and payment in advance.

I have a question. How much money has Klaus invested out of his own pocket? Don't get me wrong. I love technology as much as any of us who create wonderful CO2 every time we consume anything as everything from driving cars, eating processed foods, to flushing the toilet, and yes even just drinking water produces CO2's. But in the end or should I say that now or when everyone begins... that the beginning to the ending of CO2 production starts with energy that leaves as little CO2 as production as possible. Collecting CO2 will never be able to catch up to the growth in energy consumption that the world is realizing every day as more is being "Burned" and humans produce more CO2 the more there are things to argue about and that too increases exponentially.

I suggest everyone calm down first. Yes, take that deep breath and SLOWLY exhale. Yes, now I am just kidding.

But so must anyone who thinks that CO2 buildings rather than windmills are a beginning to point where effort should be applied must seriously be in "Jest" or "Ingesting" too much CO2 as that can have severe mental consequences.

I greatly appreciate any and all effort towards the world's problems so I should hope that the little this will do can do something as anything will help a world that is already way too late. The "Human Energy Problem" is far greater than the "Energy, CO2, Oil, etc... Problems".

The "Human Energy Problem" is how very long it takes for a few humans to take an idea and put the idea to "Use" in the world as there is no real time to explore possibilities unless it is by someone called a professor. Communication is the "KEY". And solar is a waste of time. AND I CAN PROVE THAT!

But until humans learn to work together again as very very long ago and stop considering the financial benefit to society as if that solves anything anymore then just take a good look around and at the millions of great inventions and ideas over just the last hundred years and tell me why the world is so far "UP THE MAN MADE CREEK".

I have real solutions too. 50 to 200 times more powerful than wind turbines. No splitting atoms. No perpetual energy fantasies, no burning fuel, and a "By-Product" is Oxygen.

I just have found no one who can put down their opinions long enough to ask how. As yes it would take time to see what I see.

Robonvac.

I can see it now. years from now scientists will be trying to convince us to pollute to help keep the carbon levels up and keep us from going into an ice age.

http://prosportnutrition.net/?a=633808700294218750

This doesn't tell us much. How does it work? What does it have to do with the Austraian tree? What does it do with the CO2 in the end? What does it look like? Is there any reason it has to look like a tree?

Could it look like wallpaper, or like an office cubicle? What incentives would the buyer have? Does it do anything to save money or increase production of anything?

Hi all.
This technology is NOT exactly new NOW. It has been in the scientific journals I receive (I'm a scientist/uni prof.)
First off, some of these comments a few of you made really make you sound very stupid.....no dudes, not ALL of the comments, so don't go doing the "only on the internet" thing because I wrote this. If you don't mouth off to people that way in real life, don't do it here, you'll just make people regard you as an ass.
Anyway, the reason these, which are about 5 years old now, haven't went any further, is the same as the nuclear issue.....what to do with the waste.
Other than that, there is NOTHING wrong with the technology.
In fact, on a cost/benefit basis, it totally rocks.....unless it turns out the the ongoing maintenance and expenses cause it to become a problem.
At 30k, it HAS to be the best polution solution on the planet.....but with 6 salaries or so,(24/7 employee coverage), benefits, insurance, replacement costs depending on the the life of the materials which actually collect the CO2 could end up being an issue.
Think about having a row of these going across the country, 50 miles apart east to west, and these rows being 100 miles apart north and south. That's say, 800 units@ 90k tons each.
Let's call it a billion tons. Geez, couldn't hurt too much, right?
Damn, if we just weren't bleeding financially from wars, foreign aid projects with societies with welfare mentalities, and bailing out banks and car manufacturers, we mght be able to afford it.
As far as what to do with carbon....maybe we could work on getting the cost of carbon composites down, and developing the way to break up the constituents, so we can replace metals in many ways, as they can be made to be 8 times the strength of steel, or, the same strength but 1/8 the weight. Plant food, inert environments for keeping oxidation down...hey, the list goes on.
However, all the other things mentioned are pretty much mindless supposition.

Hi all.
This technology is NOT exactly new NOW. It has been in the scientific journals I receive (I'm a scientist/uni prof.)
First off, some of these comments a few of you made really make you sound very stupid.....no dudes, not ALL of the comments, so don't go doing the "only on the internet" thing because I wrote this. If you don't mouth off to people that way in real life, don't do it here, you'll just make people regard you as an ass.
Anyway, the reason these, which are about 5 years old now, haven't went any further, is the same as the nuclear issue.....what to do with the waste.
Other than that, there is NOTHING wrong with the technology.
In fact, on a cost/benefit basis, it totally rocks.....unless it turns out the the ongoing maintenance and expenses cause it to become a problem.
At 30k, it HAS to be the best polution solution on the planet.....but with 6 salaries or so,(24/7 employee coverage), benefits, insurance, replacement costs depending on the the life of the materials which actually collect the CO2 could end up being an issue.
Think about having a row of these going across the country, 50 miles apart east to west, and these rows being 100 miles apart north and south. That's say, 800 units@ 90k tons each.
Let's call it a billion tons. Geez, couldn't hurt too much, right?
Damn, if we just weren't bleeding financially from wars, foreign aid projects with societies with welfare mentalities, and bailing out banks and car manufacturers, we mght be able to afford it.
As far as what to do with carbon....maybe we could work on getting the cost of carbon composites down, and developing the way to break up the constituents, so we can replace metals in many ways, as they can be made to be 8 times the strength of steel, or, the same strength but 1/8 the weight. Plant food, inert environments for keeping oxidation down...hey, the list goes on.
However, all the other things mentioned are pretty much mindless supposition.