BBC: Synthetic trees could purify air Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Every time I go to "The Gorge" in Quincy, Washington, for a concert, I travel along a stretch of highway ascending along the Columbia River, and I often think of the vaporators from Star Wars, wondering what the localized effect would be if we started harvesting vapor off the river. Well, close. Now I can imagine cities dotted with these fake trees, and fields of them at the city limits according to the prevailing winds. And, well, what to do with all that carbon? Perhaps the diamond market will see its manufacturing technology revolutionized by an abundance of carbon to work with; diamonds for everyone! Actually, I'm sure they'll just invent some new material to build things with. But it's an interesting future. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
With a hydrogen economy, it could be used to produce sythetic jet fuel, carbon fiber and graphite structures, and other such things.
Paradigm-shaking? I just like the fact that we're on the verge of changing our prevailing paradigms through technology. These things, hydrogen cars, nanotechnology--it might be that I'm a dinosaur and not even 30 yet. But clean air in cities? A coinciding shift in manufacturing technologies? Of course, something tells me that nature abhors a vacuum, even a cancerous one, such that once we clean up the air, people will find even more inspiring ways of messing up the water. Half full? Half empty? How about polluted? I'm not actually that grim, but ... oh, wait. I am. So ... would cleaning up the air on a global scale cause wacky weather patterns of its own, because of the rate of transition? That's my new question for the day. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Test them in Sacramento, Mexico City, and HERE in Houston. The pollution in Houston is disgusting. You can't even begin to visualize it. Well, I am guessing that these are based on the same principles as the mosquito catchers. I dont think that these trees would take all of the CO2 out of the air, right? So, why would there be any problem. We can always just destroy them if problems arise and then go back to polluting. I believe that the saddest aspect of these trees arises out of the mind set that we would rather produce more plastics that pollute the air than just driving at a more economical rate. That is really sad. Just pathetic.... I want to die.
Another problem is that CO2 is not the biggest problem, all the other stuff a gasoline or diesel engine spits out are.
Carbon dioxide is one of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse effect, and it's the largest gas put out by factories and such.
In addition, Andre Quite simply, it's a start. We have to start somewhere. Will the technology be adaptable to sulphur and other elements? Probably. The petrol companies should love this--it means we can keep burning fossil fuels at a ridiculous rate. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Andre Thank ye, sir. Have you ever slept on a boat? A yacht? Something about 10-15 metres long, and in the summer? The quickest way I know to heat up a boat is to close it up at night with people onboard. And fresh air in the morning when you crack open the hatches and find the weather clearing ... I think CO2 is an important greenhouse gas because, unlike water vapor, we have some executive control over how much is in the environment. And, well, in the 1980s, we heard from vegetarians about how much methane beef produced ... seriously Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As to other trees ... I think it's a simple matter of what nature will allow--the technology will be easily adaptable to certain other compounds. Some compounds, however, will elude the fake trees for the simple reason that passive attraction requires conditions too difficult to maintain. I can accept the notion that certain compounds will still be too expensive to adapt to. Imagine changing 5,000 filters citywide on a daily basis .... I'm also willing to bet CO2 was a fairly easy compound to work with in terms of development. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Andre If you placed equal radiative heat sources in the boat under the same conditions save for not emitting carbon dioxide within the environment, the temperature rise would be constant? Given the chance to clean excess CO2 out of the air, you would choose not to? It's not the coming of Jesus Christ or anything, but is it really such a bad idea? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nothing? So the sun is a specific requirement as opposed to a heat source in general? And all of these are good things. However, if we have the technology, why not take progress where it comes? Oh ... that's right, I see by the following: Do you disagree with these ideas regarding CO2? I'll try to dredge up some numbers from Los Angeles or something. CO2 reduction in urban zones will be much more than nothing. The planet, obviously, cycles enough CO2 to produce a thriving and diverse biosystem without human assistance. Reducing the human contribution, I think, will be helpful. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yes, the whole greenhouse idea is based on the idea of the sun has heat source. if a gas would spontaneous produce heat we would be in big trouble, because that can only mean radioactive decay. edit: or combustion
Um .... Spuriousmonkey Um ... okay. I'm sure that means something. Andre Ah, you're one of those. Well, there's nothing I can do about that. I forget that since our human estimates of problems can always be revised we should just believe there's no problem. Your position makes sense, Andre, now that I see you get it from a petulant book flakking for industry. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
WHile no doubt many environmentalists, including people such as Rachel Carson meant well, the enviromental movement has largely become much like the industries you despise.
Radiohead & other stuff Radiohead is the band that recorded the song "Fake Plastic Trees". Andre It was rather harsh, I admit. But here's the thing. I know environmental sciences are flawed at present. I'm aware of tricks like adjusting volcanic eruptions out of temperature data. But there's a crowd out there driven by books like that one that pretty much are begging for more crap in the air and water. We can't stop nature, but we can limit our contribution to her severity. I've grown up around Seattle. I've seen the pollution get worse. Friends of mine from LA still say "What pollution?" but you can tell the difference. Yes, it would be nice to get some other stuff out of the air, but we can certainly stand to do something about the amount of CO2 humans dump into the air. So when you point out a book like that, suddenly it makes sense to me why you see these devices as "nothing". And I know better than to argue with that brand of cynicism. Just like I know better than to run myself over with a Corvette. Nile Queen Not in the usual sense that the term comes up. Industry is an essential part of our human endeavor. However, having seen it before, I can understand the chain of ideas that motivates that "pro-industry" crowd in this debate. It's not like environmentalists have played fair. And, frankly, Greenpeace bugs the hell out of me. I'm a tree-hugger, but not in the Earth First sense. Rather, I spent several years studying the occult, including various animistic witchcrafts. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So if your mad at someone, you could turn them into a toad?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Andre Well, for starters, after Spuriousmonkey made a mess of the question, I'm still waiting for your take: So the sun is a specific requirement as opposed to a heat source in general? In the meantime: Statements like these, harvested from your posts, diminish my respect for your argumentative position. They are myopic and politicized ideas. (1) "Nothing"is a stretch. It's a little like saying God exists; it's not a corner you want to back yourself into. (2) I'm quite sure that if it was easier to build a tree that handles sulphur nitrious phosphorous that the dude would have designed one of those. However, the device equals "nothing", according to Andre, which precludes the possibility of technological development and adaptability. (3) CO2 is very useful. However, can we agree that the Earth demonstrably produces enough CO2 in its natural cycle to foster a diverse and even mystifying biosystem? Or will the Earth be hurt if we reduce the human contribution? (4) The carbon we harvest has to go somewhere. Would you pretend humanity too stupid to find a use for it? But it does bug me when that anti-environment sentiment comes along: What? You did what? Well, I would rather you did this, so what you've done is nothing. Welcome to the party. Have a few drinks and get cheery for once. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Andre Now that I know your version of science, it's even more clear: Any radiative heat source will do. If you can't imagine it outside a global condition, well that's your problem. But that's what I was trying to give you, a microcosmic version of CO2 aiding in heat retention. Any radiative heat source will do. After all, the heat of sunlight is added to the natural heat escaping the Earth. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
