4 ms·

There is another device that takes sunlight energy and uses it to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's called a tree.

epistasis 9y ago
I wonder if they had thought of that? >Planting trees or preserving existing forests is likely to also be a critical way to absorb CO2. “The best example of carbon dioxide removal technology that we know how to do now is grow more forest and to protect the carbon content of soils,” says Field. also: >“One CO2 collector has the same footprint as a tree,” says Wurzbacher. “It takes 50 tons of CO2 out of the air every year. A corresponding tree would take 50 kilograms of the air every year. It’s a factor of a thousand. So in order to achieve the same, you would need 1,000 times less area than you would require for plants growing.”
- Beltiras 9y ago
  Now compare the EROEI between the two methods. One requires a lot of metal. The other one requires some planned land, a shovel and a seedling bank. I can have trees planted locally for 2$ each. I'd bet heavily that machine costs more than 2000$.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    There's no energy return on devices like this, they are pure energy sinks. I would agree that this machine is likely many multiples of $2000, but you're not counting the cost of the land in your part either (which varies wildly), but that doesn't mean that it's not worth investigating to see if it can be made cost effective.
    - Beltiras 9y ago
      I'm assuming that similar arrangements can be made to what local growing co-ops have made: If you are making land arable in the far future, you should not incur costs for land.
- noonespecial 9y ago
  It's still a big Earth with room enough for both, but given the choice between one carbon-sucking techno-gizmo every km of barren land or 1km of forest lands, I'm going with the trees every time.
Beltiras 9y ago
People that are down-voting this comment don't realize that it is right on the money. I looked into a local options to plant trees to offset my carbon use. There is an outfit planting one tree for roughly 2$. It's a land-reclaim effort making deserts into gardens on very long timescales. I need them to plant 43 trees yearly to offset my current carbon footprint. I'm decided that I will pony up just that for both me and the wife. If everyone did, global warming would not be as scary a prospect. 86$/year. Trees may be low tech, but they sure are a cost-effective measure.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

epistasis 9y ago

I wonder if they had thought of that? >Planting trees or preserving existing forests is likely to also be a critical way to absorb CO2. “The best example of carbon dioxide removal technology that we know how to do now is grow more forest and to protect the carbon content of soils,” says Field. also: >“One CO2 collector has the same footprint as a tree,” says Wurzbacher. “It takes 50 tons of CO2 out of the air every year. A corresponding tree would take 50 kilograms of the air every year. It’s a factor of a thousand. So in order to achieve the same, you would need 1,000 times less area than you would require for plants growing.”

Beltiras 9y ago
Now compare the EROEI between the two methods. One requires a lot of metal. The other one requires some planned land, a shovel and a seedling bank. I can have trees planted locally for 2$ each. I'd bet heavily that machine costs more than 2000$.
- epistasis 9y ago
  There's no energy return on devices like this, they are pure energy sinks. I would agree that this machine is likely many multiples of $2000, but you're not counting the cost of the land in your part either (which varies wildly), but that doesn't mean that it's not worth investigating to see if it can be made cost effective.
  - Beltiras 9y ago
    I'm assuming that similar arrangements can be made to what local growing co-ops have made: If you are making land arable in the far future, you should not incur costs for land.
noonespecial 9y ago
It's still a big Earth with room enough for both, but given the choice between one carbon-sucking techno-gizmo every km of barren land or 1km of forest lands, I'm going with the trees every time.

Beltiras 9y ago

People that are down-voting this comment don't realize that it is right on the money. I looked into a local options to plant trees to offset my carbon use. There is an outfit planting one tree for roughly 2$. It's a land-reclaim effort making deserts into gardens on very long timescales. I need them to plant 43 trees yearly to offset my current carbon footprint. I'm decided that I will pony up just that for both me and the wife. If everyone did, global warming would not be as scary a prospect. 86$/year. Trees may be low tech, but they sure are a cost-effective measure.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]