Forget solar panels, it's time for rooftop slime-tanks
And offshore 'artificial tree' forests. Apparently
Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime
The Institute of Mechanical Engineers has called for the UK to adopt a strategy of "geo-engineering" techniques to extract huge quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The headline ideas are these: CO2-capturing "artificial trees", growing of biofuel algae on rooftops, and the use of reflective building materials to send solar energy back out of the atmosphere before it can cause global warming.
The IMechE report is called Geo-Engineering – Giving us time to act? In the introduction, it states bluntly that plans to reduce carbon emissions aren't working fast enough. It says that this is because of three things. First, green technologies such as efficient solar power "are still a significant way from being ready". Second, there is a lack of technically qualified people in the UK to take plans forward - specifically, it seems there aren't enough nuclear power specialists to build new nuke stations. Thirdly "and maybe most significant, markets around the world are simply not interested. Green energy is expensive".
The IMechE authors suggest that the only way for humanity to gain some breathing space before a disastrous temperature increase is to consider geo-engineering, the use of engineering on a planetary scale to remove CO2 or heat from the atmosphere. They offer three techniques which they say are the most promising ones.
First up is "artificial trees", essentially building- or goalpost-sized structures through which the wind blows. As air passes through them, the "trees" extract CO2 from it for later sequestration.
According to the report:
A unit based on current technology, the size of a standard shipping container, would capture about one tonne of CO2 per day or 365 tonnes annually ... However, it is conceivable that with further research ... a single unit with a larger collector would be able to capture as much as ten times more [in which case] 100,000 units would be sufficient to capture the whole of the UK's current emissions from non-stationary and dispersed sources [eg, those which it wouldn't be practical to capture at the source].
Or in other words, existing technology would require a million "trees" covering at least 15,000 acres of accessible land (or sea) to do a meaningful job, at an estimated fabrication cost (for landbased jobs) of US$20bn - say £12bn. And the trees are only 20 per cent of the cost of this plan - getting the CO2 out of them uses a third or so of the energy generated by burning the fuel in the first place, and then it has to be transported to an old oil or gas field and stuffed into the ground. The IMechE authors suggest that the "trees" actually be planted offshore among windfarms in the North Sea, so having a ready source of clean power and lots of old fossil fields close to hand - but this would increase costs, just as placing windfarms offshore does.
COMMENTS
Missed the point.
GM Algae modified to produce high carbon is being funded and investigated by the old petrochemical companies for a better bio-diesel.. anybody who’s seen the oil floating on a duck pond can see it’s viable in theory.
If you stick GM Algae slime pools on top of your house.. you’ll have the makings of moonshine bio-diesel and dual anger of petrochemical & government revenue collection.. even if the technology works.. the money says you’re not getting it.
Given that this is a UK site.. mixing in Dover chalk with road surfaces should be on the climate-change agenda, so we can sell the stuff around the world..
..but the best solution is grass/turf on roofs.. its carbon positive and creates nice nesting sites for all the birds dislodged by the mega-runways at Heathrow.
How complicated do it need to be?
What's wrong with using Nature naturally to do all the recycling for free ie Simply Plant Real Trees which would also benefit animals, including the human variety, and also bear fruit and seeds to plant more trees and feed the animals.
It aint rocket science,is it, to expect CO2 to rise whenever you chop down verdant forests, which are global lungs.
Even Paris should know that.
Perhaps I'm missing something here...
...but wouldn't ACTUAL FUCKING TREES be simpler than artificial tree-like carbon sequestration plants? Easier to produce too as they, quite literally, grow on trees. Whilst I understand that their are practicality issues raised (i.e. where are you going to *put* all these trees? Eh? Eh?)., it's still not as bloody stupid as ANY of the above ideas.
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime
SaaS data loss: The problem you didn’t know you had
