SipsTea
Will this be able to undo Taylor Swift?
Discussion
Where does it go?
I heard humans are made of carbon, so probably they make babies with it.
What if humans got the ability to photosynthesize? There’s a slug, which can photosynthesize like a plant, can survive without eating for months.
CRISPR me bro!
Well they do seem to want to get us to work for no food, could be a move in that direction.
I don’t want to have to pay a monthly subscription to do photosynthesis
Sure you do. It will come with 3 months free Netflix.
Lmfao make it hbo so I’m forced to watch ads about how I can take 45 meds to give me explosive diarrhea from my photosynthesis diet
Won't work for us, even if we could our skin doesn't have enough surface area to produce the amount of energy we need to keep us going. Our surface area to volume ratio is too small to make it effective.
Edit - A better idea is give humans the ability to digest cellulose via a set of native digestive enzymes (ie we produce them, and we don't have to use bacteria to do it like cows and other grazing animals - which would also get rid of the need for multiple stomachs).
Great, as if I don't expel enough gas, now I'll be able to do it in vaster quantities like a cow.
edit: while we may not have enough surface area (and would likely need to run around in the buff to photosynthesize) to produce enough energy, it would be nice to be able to reduce my food intake that way. One nice big meal a week, I could afford to eat gourmet food for every meal.
Well, if we are modifying and adding digestive enzymes then we might as well add one that allows us to metabolise methane too, also technically we can avoid the methane byproducts by using an enzymes to chop up the cellulose pollimers into the glucose monomers which can be directly absorbed.
I can help with the making babies part
sir, please step away from the tree
Artificial Tree Fugger
Compressed into bricks and burned in coal power plants
Circle of life
Well they better surround that plant with these things.
Efficient recycling of chemicals is the pinnacle of technological breakthroughs. Energy density and stability can be the biggest challenge to new forms of energy storage. Being able to remove the carbon and other chemicals added to the environment from power plants and vehicles as fast as they’re being introduced would be amazing.
I think this is the ultimate plan. We need to be able to offset what we're pumping into atmosphere while we transition.
ironically I don't thinks thats a bad idea. i don't know if u are joking but this system will be net negative in energy but adding in solar will eventually mean we wont actually need to add more carbon and just recycle what we have.
as long as we dont add more carbon, our energy could be met with renewables but it will also have the stability of fossils fuels with cabons bricks being burned
Genuine question, top comment, not a single genuine answer. What a subreddit!
They probably make diamonds out of it tbh https://aetherdiamonds.com/pages/our-process?srsltid=AfmBOooHo5c3cD08DWUR_ZvuDzYIv7mbiQsro6NqIskhPAfdIDhYc8AY
They can sequester it or turn it into fuel.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20121004-fake-trees-to-clean-the-skies
-----------------------
The carbon dioxide from the process can be cooled and stored; however, many scientists are concerned that even if we did remove all our carbon dioxide, there isn't enough space to store it securely in saline aquifers or oil wells. But geologists are coming up with alternatives. For example, peridotite, which is a mixture of serpentine and olivine rock, is a great sucker of carbon dioxide, sealing the absorbed gas as stable magnesium carbonate mineral. In Oman alone, there is a mountain that contains some 30,000 cubic km of peridotite.
Another option could be the basalt rock cliffs, which contain holes – solidified gas bubbles from the basalt's formation from volcanic lava flows millions of years ago. Pumping carbon dioxide into these ancient bubbles causes it to react to form stable limestone – calcium carbonate.
These carbon dioxide absorption processes occur naturally, but on geological timescales. To speed up the reaction, scientists are experimenting with dissolving the gas in water first and then injecting it into the rocks under high pressures.
However, Lackner thinks the gas is too useful to petrify. His idea is to use the carbon dioxide to make liquid fuels for transport vehicles. Carbon dioxide can react with water to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen – a combination known as syngas because it can be readily turned into hydrocarbon fuels such as methanol or diesel. The process requires an energy input, but this could be provided by renewable sources, such as wind energy, Lackner suggests.
Yeah, let's make fuel to burn it again, doesn't sound like the greatest idea
What is a better use in your opinion? The CO2 has to go somewhere, and we need fuel.
Sodas and paintball air guns.
Maybe not as efficient, but way more fun
That’s still using CO2 as fuel :)
You are just propelling a paint ball instead of a person
What? It sounds like a fantastic idea. Use fuel byproduct that causes greenhouse issues to create more fuel that doesn't rely solely on crude oil.
It's quite literally recycling.
*Cotton Eyed Joe Intensifies*
Where does the poop go?
Va-poo-rise
I’m the J-Man!
Carbonates
Never you mind, Citizen. You heard the meme, it removes it. That’s all you need to know, now move along. Heil Daddy.
There is earth capture, placing captured CO2 into drained oil wells.
But there's no profit in that, so it probably won't happen
Most probable answer, and also the most depressing, is the same as for all carbon capture. It is sold to oil companies, who then pump it into the ground in hopes of forcing oil out of the soil that is left after all the easy oil has been extracted.
So it basically cancels out all the benefits while damaging the land even more than all the drills and treating equipment already had.
I am definitely not against stuff like as long as we know the following information:
1) What is the cost and carbon cost of making 1 of these?
2) What are the location vulnerabilities and other vulnerabilities of these?
3) What is the cost, carbon cost and frequency of low maintenance (cleaning, container replacement, etc) 1 of these?
4) What is the cost, carbon cost and frequency of high maintenance (battery replacement, part replacement, etc) of 1 these?
5) What is the cost and carbon cost to despose of old and/or damaged parts?
6) How long does 1 need to operate before it offsets it's own carbon footprint in ideal scenario?
7) How long does 1 need to operate in at 60% - 80% of ideal conditions to offset its own carbon footprint?
Again, I am not against things that make the world better, but after so many failures and scams, we need to start expecting this information up front - especially if they are wanting some sort of governmental funding support.
It sounds really good in paper, but on reality?????
Lots of questions....
Lots of questions isn't inherently a bad thing as long as we have lots of answers. But environmental sciences are so complex I don't even know who to ask honestly
Science pros?
Indeed. Experts. The way people are treating this stuff is as if some rando amateur just cooked up this idea. Liked “you want to cut me up and take out a part of me? Are you crazy? I’m already in pain. Oh, you want to take out my “appendix” because it “burst” and I’m going to “die”? Well, that sounds really good on paper but I have a number of questions.”
Ask you questions, but do it good faith. And listen to the answers. The smart people probably know what they’re talking about.
But will the smart people lie to you if they will be able to make more money by lying?
Dual mech and chem engineering masters here. It’s kinda like fission, always a decade away from being viable. Hydrocarbons are awesome for their oxidative potential. To stabilize that carbon chemically after combustion is a very energy intensive process with no great success stories for sequestration. And to have these things sucking atmo is so so so stupid! They need to be on fissile fuel exhausts like a secondary scrubber tech. You can NEVED buy your way out of a hydrocarbon energy loop without nuke and renewables. But just put that energy on the grid and not remediation.
The thing is, science is testing this shit out, but nobody in the science community is like "we solved global warming". This is usually done by people reporting on sciences. The technology we already have for getting carbon dioxide out of the air (read trees) is top tier. Because there are many such articles it is really grating. Guy below me says that was based on a 15 year old article and the tech went nowhere.
a fellow engineer, eh?
Lol, you got me.
That’s a lot of cost questions, sounds expensive
I once had my 7th grade students research the manufacturing cost/impact of making an "eco cup" aka the tumblers they carry around (One group also did ceramic coffee cups) and compare it to the environmental impact of just throwing away single use plastic cups and bottles.
This was a few years back, and maybe manufacturing processes have gotten more efficient, but although I cannot remember the exact number...it was shockingly high. As in, something like my forgetful middle schoolers would have to keep and not lose that damn thing for something like 2 years.
Long story short...not all that seems "better" is actually better.
Still cheaper to plant 1000 trees
They could do a mix, plant a forrest and place a bunch of these with it. That would be a win win scenario.
Good luck planting a forest in the middle of a desert
It can be done. Would probably still cost less.
A cactus forest?
Nope, there are a lot of trees that can grow in a desert.
Desert fern, sweet acacia, southern live oak, bottle tree, palo blanco, Indian rosewood, olive, Joshua tree, date palm and many more are trees that grow in the desert.
Joshua trees aren’t technically trees…. The name is …. Misleading….
If it does photosynthesis it should be still valid
I do photosynthesis, Greg, could you milk me?
Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have included it.
Are you sure the desert is able to support that many trees planted closely lol you probably have to space them out and its probably just more efficient to build these in the desert and plant trees where the land can support a bunch of trees
I think you're playing too much minecraft
How ? Talk is big. No soil, No water and you think it is possible ? 😑
ive heard chinas doing some dedesertification using solar panels to produce energy and provide shade for plants to grow
It's not undoable, but a very long term thing. Century long. China started regrowing some deserts since the 60s, some of them are now a hybrid of grasslands and solar panels. In another couple of decades the grasslands will become available for trees.
Such a device would probably be better integrated into a building’s AC system rather than placed outdoors. Still, the concept is cool and could help raise awareness.
Slap one on a skyscraper. The point is, put it where you can’t plant 1000 trees. A forest requires a helluva lot of real estate, and real estate gets pricey.
Redditors really love their glass half empty outlooks, don't they, huh?
They really do. I see this as a victory for carbon capture technology and I hope they continue to develop it
What about the land?
See down there.
Theres a building there
there is a lot of available land
The land would appreciate it
And then wait how many years for those 1000 trees to mature
Trees can’t thrive everywhere, plus in the early stages of their life cycles trees are remarkably bad at storing Carbon Dioxide and often even expel it. They can also require tending, meaning people travelling to the site to check on them. Newly planted forests gan be a greenhouse gas contributor rather than a solution. Plus they don’t yet have the canopy coverage to absorb the heat coming in from the sun. The best environmental solution is to not cut down mature trees that are doing the job well, but that’s unrealistic until we have good alternatives for the products we make from those trees.
Please still plant trees though.
These inventions seem like a good idea just until we get things under control and until our new forests are ready.
true, but trees can't grow everywhere nor at the speed it takes to build one of these.
But they take a long time to grow.
And these can be placed in areas where trees don't grow. It's not bad, especially if we combine both.
This would be good in big cities where there’s little room to plant. Think about the top of buildings in New York
true, but trees are not as effective at fighting the CO2 problem as one might think. they don't magically remove it, they store the Carbon inside themselves and it takes decades to achieve any real results. and once the tree dies it releases all that CO2 back into the air. we gotta find ways to get rid of the CO2 and store or use it
Better produce oxygen
Old school designs for this proposed to capture the carbon by turning into CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) using sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide.
I try looking this one up briefly and stopped after I saw “proprietary resin”. Not sure.
It also says “captures co2 when dry and releases when wet” so not sure what that’s about
I doubt it releases o2. That would be a complicated process possibly involving lithium and/or high amount of energy.
Real plants are still the best at this by far and only really cost water.
Yeah just plant a tree 🌲 and stop flexing
Guess they could plant more trees and put these on top of buildings
I like how you think
Very smart. My first thought was these would be great to have at airports.
If burning a gallon of gas releases 33.7 kWh of energy, recapturing it's carbon and liberating the oxygen requires as least that much.
They're definitely not releasing oxygen
That's just not how chemistry works
Oxygen’s overrated
I don't even need to breathe
Oxygen isn't an urgent issue, there's a shit ton of it hanging around in the atmosphere
Yeah the problem with carbon pollution isn't that it's reducing the amount of oxygen. We have plenty of oxygen, the issue is the greenhouse effect.
And this is a hypothetical extreme, but if they somehow overdo it and we have too little CO2.. you just switch 'em off and let the plants do their thing again.
Yes and no. Without plants oxygen would be absorbed in the environment on a fairly short order
Why tf are these in the desert? Wouldn't it be even more efficient to put them next to the source like outskirts of cities, factories etc?
Very cheap land for the experimental phase of development. Also, any carbon credits in the financial structure probably only specify a nation or state of origin.
Because it isn't real.
As much as I loathe TS, I think we should be blaming big corps for passing their environmental responsibilities on to consumers.
The last time I checked, she wasn't even in the top 50 on the celeb list.
Stop hurting conservative feelings with your pesky facts
Also we should look inward, at the extent to which almost all of us scale our environmental impact to our means. She just has more means. But who among us hasn’t driven a car less than a mile to a place we could have safely walked? How many “air haulers” (jacked up pickups with empty beds) are driven to desk jobs every single day.
Doesn’t excuse Swift or anyone else. But given her bank account a whole lot of people talking shit would suddenly have reasons for flying private.
Also, Taylor Swift’s jet has never damn near run me off the road on my e-bike then flipped me off while blaring their horn and calling me an asshole for existing.
She mine as well he a corp, she’s a billionaire and is a massive brand. It’s a bit unfair to point this solely at her though when tons of celebs do it as well
Forget the celebrities. Think 3M, Suncor, Greenbrier, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Rio Tinto. Expand your focus.
Probably fake lol. It takes shittons of energy to dismantle co2.
plus what will it do with it? coal dust?
Edit : Apparently there are many ways to do this. All of which ends up at the high resource cost.
It doesn’t say it breaks up CO2. Just that it removes it from the atmosphere. Chemical CO2 scrubbers are already quite common and in use in submarines and spacecraft. Too lazy to Google what these do but just to counter your argument that it isn’t possible and is fake.
It's not fake but it's wildly ineffective.
It's like burning fuel to power boats to collect a bit of garbage from the far ocean. If it's not energy effecient then it's just environmental theatre.
The ocean clean up people could have put a net on a drainpipe.
And the people building these to remove CO2 from the air could have built wind or solar and just burned less CO2 to begin with and it would have been far more effective.
These use a chemical process, can you explain why it isn’t efficient?
There are many closed cycle catalysts that could be used to remove CO2, for example ammonia can be used. The 1000x efficiency can also be true ... if you don't factor in the energy cost of recovering the catalyst for reuse. There are also rare metal solid catalysts, but none that can last more than a few thousands of hours.
The holy grail is one of two :
- a liquid catalyst that can regenerate passively
- a long life solid based catalyst ( for example like the platinum ones found in cars )
We will definitely find a solution, it might take us a few more decades though, people forget it took almost 100 years between the photoelectric effect was explained ( Einstein Nobel Prize) and the first white light LEDs / 20%+ efficiency solar panels ...
I read somewhere that every year we generate the co2 that was sequestered in 500 years during the carboniferous. Planting trees now won't ever cut it.
Sand is fish poop
You are off by the factor 2.000.
We burn the amount of 1 million years sequestered in the carboniferous every year. It‘s such a mind-boggling number.
Trees USE carbon dioxide not remove it. Tf are these people on about, they could've built a forest instead of these ugly vents
Both take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it. Carbon in a tree ends up back in the ground once it dies.
Trees provide a full circle of life for carbon. All life is carbon based.
No. The carbon captured by trees ends up back in the atmosphere when it dies and decays. That’s why sustainable forestry is so good for the environment. When you chop down a tree and build a house with it, that carbon is captured for as long as the house stands. Planting a new tree continues this carbon sequestration process.
So you are saying a tree turns completely into gasses once it dies? Nothing goes into the ground?
Anything that goes into the ground is eventually eaten by insects or decomposed by bacteria or fungi or taken as nutrients of other plants that will eventually decay.
Biological carbon storage needs to be maintained constantly by lifeforms, and that's the biomass. If you want to remove it permanently you need geological storage. It may happen due to natural processes, but it's a slow and inneficient process.
Gapgod thought they had something... but they didn't
In the desert?
Bruv it’s not that black and white hahaha
Yes, actually. There are trees that can grow in the desert.
In a desert? Afforestation is great but far from Just trivially planting trees
Bruh it's fucking fake photoshop
Why the TS hate? Like any number of other billionaires, musicians and corporations account for more pollution than her overall. A successful woman living rent free in your head that much?
I would prefer 1000 trees
I didn’t get the Taylor Swift reference. Someone care to explain? Or was it a „you just have to be there“ joke?
People complain about how she uses her private jet
Despite dozens of celebs flying much more for less reason and never being called out on it.
If only real trees were still a thing... we could just plant them...
Look a little closer at the picture, how many trees do you see? Which trees do you think you could plant thousands of in that particular environment to supplant the mitigation proposed by these units?
Why would the trees have to be planted in the desert ? Plant them where they would grow. We only have one atmosphere and it's doesn't matter where the CO2 is taken out.
This looks very dystopian.
Can somebody educate me and explain why this is related to taylor swift? I dont follow her.
I wonder how much carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere through the construction of these things.
To eventually control oxygen production. No ty , nature is best and free
Just plant a damn tree. Its not that hard.
Trees don’t seem to grow very well in the environment they’re illustrating. Also, trees aren’t as efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
And how long does it take to offset their own carbon footprint, including maintenance?
Big Tree HATES this one simple trick!
Ahh daily portion of slop.
This is 100% ai
Why what's wrong with Taylor Swift?
Can't we undo your dad?
Yes, but does it produce O2 in return???
This is cool but trees do a lot more than just clean the air. I hope we continue to fight deforestation
4.5k people on Reddit are stupid enough to believe this. Who would've thought?
Mechanical sequestration is always an energy losing process unless hooked up to green energy or parasited onto fossil fuel plants. Neither of which has been proven ultimately effective
How much waste did it generate to be built, and how much waste and resources are needed to power it?
Why do they always insist on placing green energy (solar, artificial trees) in open fields? Place it along highways and build solar panel roofing over parking lots. Turn ugly spots into green energy havens.
China & India chugged out pollutants like it's going out of fashion; you'll take it out on celebrities because you are powerless to stop these nations...
Why do people cry about taylor swift when all the billionaires are creating so much pollution..
She is the source of happiness for so many people.. But bro wants to hate on her who didn't do anything wrong. Shame tbh..
What does this have to do with Taylor Swift? I hope you get the help you need.
Removes one and produces 2 ?
And the environmental cost of making one? Trees are free by the way
I understand you’re probably not an arborist, but trees don’t grow very well in the desert.
That’s why we have to conserve what we already have and reforest where we have deforested. Not easy but with the will, possible. If there aren’t any trees in the deserts, there is probably a reason why
Passively and 1000x faster doesn’t make sense
its impossible. trees are more than 0.1% energy efficient co2 extractors
that's cool but, who's paying for this? where do the materials come from and what's that environmental impact? When are they going to start? Will this eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels? Can we plant trees in the meantime? and why did we let it get to this point to begin with?
Lmao, so we are just speedrunning killing the human race , nice. Who needs food anyway.
But does it produce oxygen....
My pet peeve is that these articles never mention how much carbon it takes to produce one of these filters
Great, what about the microplastics in my balls.
The earth desperately needs more carbon though.
Vegetation is already in steep decline.
Carbon feeds plants. Plants emit oxygen that all life depends on.
but at one milion the cost of a tree i assume?
Whew. Just in time.
Honestly, if you make the middle section or even the lower section have artificial branches and leaves you could help the wild life out as well? I wouldn't replace all trees with this, but in places these do get put that would be nice I think.
Does it make oxygen, you know, the reason why we need trees....
Capitalism at its finest
Doubt that these things are real. Since i see so many of these "miracle" inventions. But we have already had carbon capture projects for a long time so even if it is real it still wouldnt mean much
Oh good. Now we can get rid of trees. Just what we needed.
Where’s the shade? Where do i climb the branches or hang my hammock?
I’m sure there’s some math in the background like:
Carbon cost to build: 500,000 trees
Energy to run: 500 trees per day
Also trees convert to oxygen which is a nice bonus. This might not.
Taking away the lifeforce of real trees and plants - carbon dioxide.
Just plant real trees.
cheaper to just plant 1000 trees, also in maintenance
That’s cool, but like… can we still have real trees anyway?
Imagine if we had trees.
Yes and then what do we do with it after we collect it?
Does it also do the 100 other things that real trees do?
Trees are still better because they're guaranteed to be solar powered.
What’s the carbon footprint and how many birds does it kill?
I have a crazy suggestion guys. Why not forbid private jets and do this regardless?
Don't think so. She's still breathing
Unless this converts it to oxygen, I don't see this as a good thing. Plants need it.
I bet it costs more money than trees. Has a procurement and manufacturing process that creates a lot of carbon and does not produce oxygen like trees do.
Let's call them Saylor Twift Trees.
You are asking the impossible
Just plant trees ffs
There are more trees in the U.S. than 100 years ago, and lots more carbon in the atmosphere. Can yo show your math?
Yeh, trees=photosynthesis
How about just planting more trees lmao
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our Reddit Chat!
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.