Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A while ago WUWT wrote about the inexplicable green fascination with technological monstrosities, such as artificial trees, to replace real trees. And of course we already know about the green love of wind turbines and solar farms, which cover vast acreages of the natural landscape with concrete, plastic and steel.
Now greens appear to have gone one better – toxic artificial trees which emit cyanide.
According to Phys.org;
Globally recognised for his work the emerging field of nanoporous materials, Prof Vinu’s research into carbon nitrides has found that they have just the right properties to support the capture and conversion of CO2 molecules.
“Their interesting properties—a semiconducting framework structure and ordered pores—make them exciting candidates for the capture and conversion of CO2 molecules into methanol which can then be used as a source of green energy with the help of sunlight and water,” Prof Vinu said.
“My goal is to develop this unique approach which has the potential to make a huge contribution to cleaning the environment and addressing one of our most significant environmental problems, the mitigation of atmospheric CO2.
“This fascinating material is not only helping in reducing CO2 levels by developing an efficient, low-cost photo electrochemical semiconductor device, but also offers a clean fuel source from the conversion of absorbed CO2 molecules.
Read more: http://phys.org/news/2015-11-global-nanoporous-materials.html
Why do I think carbon nitride based trees could emit cyanide? The reason is cyanide is carbon nitride, with an additional hydrogen atom attached, chemical formula H-C-N. If you expose a carbon nitride nanoporous matrix to ultraviolet and water, its difficult to imagine how you could not produce a quantity of cyanide, as a byproduct of the photochemical deterioration of your carbon nitride matrix.
Perhaps Professor Vinu has a solution, for stabilising the nitride matrix, and keeping the cyanide emissions to an acceptable level. Personally I have my doubts – as China’s environmentally horrific rare Earth mining operation shows, greens often don’t seem to mind environmental damage, when the pollution which causes that damage is produced as a byproduct of doing something “green”.
HCN = Zyklon B
If the material has “just the right properties” to convert CO2 into usable fuel, why not exhibit those properties in a prototype? How hard can it be?
===========
“Through a strong multidisciplinary approach and deep collaboration with industries I am sure we can create tangible benefits… to translate the research into real products.” – Vinu (physorg, not my ellipsis)
===========
Are the materials even real at this point?
The article reads more like a public relations exercise than a press release on a legitimate technical innovation, actually.
==============
Prof Vinu’s discoveries have led to worldwide recognition. His work on this novel material and other materials with future-focussed applications has also earned him recognition by key societies in Japan, Germany, India, Iran and Australia.
These include prestigious awards from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Humboldt Foundation and the Australian Research Council.
UniSA Deputy Vice Chancellor Research and Innovation, Prof Tanya Monro said the appointment of Prof Vinu would set the stage for exciting developments at the Future Industries Institute.
“Prof Vinu is a fantastic complement to the Institute which is focussed [sic] on research that will seed future industries and also provide solutions to emerging challenges,” she said.
“This appointment adds capacity to our strength in materials and energy engineering with a clear pathway to partner engagement and impact.”
============
Bruce Dern starred in a 1972 movie Silent Running where all of the trees on earth had been destroyed and only a few dome fulls of trees were put on a spaceship to preserve species. The movie never said why all of the trees had been destroyed, but the plot was that orders came from earth to destroy those on the space ship. I am beginning to see now a reason for destruction of the ones on earth. The environmentalists had to kill them all to save the planet.
Artificial trees are not designed to replace trees.
They are designed as a stop gap measure
But hey, C02 is trace gas and has no effects. why do you care if its limited to 350 ppm by using artifical trees.
Waaa….?
Planting a sapling is cheaper than manufacturing an artificial tree. London streets were traditionally lined with Plane Trees which are easy to grow and cope well with urban pollution and compacted soils. The saplings cost around £5 each and will grow into mature 35 foot tall trees in under 20 years. They thrive in diverse climates and are commonly planted in Australian cities as well as in many US States from Vermont to Texas.
They are also fairly long lived with most London trees having been planted in the 18th/19th century. If you want a short term carbon sequestration method then this is it. They have the rather significant side effect of enhancing the urban environment.
Plane Trees in Oz-
(The Conversation.com)
(Poplars and willows grow at amazing rates also here in Illinois.)
Nice attempt at non-sequitor there Steve. A few more tries and you might even manage to perfect the technique.
Nobody said CO2 had no affect, it has almost no affect on the climate. On the other hand more CO2 is good for plants.
If you want to spend your own money on these things, go ahead. But I know you and your type, you will never be satisfied with spending your own money.
If the properties of this stuff are any thing like the mesoporous carbon nitride that ACS Material supplies it does have one or two rather unfortunate properties.
1) Any dust created is highly flammable and potentially explosive.
2) When wet it tends to absorb oxygen so rapidly that its a requirement to test the oxygen levels in buildings where it is stored before entering.
The same explosive hazard does of course occur with sawdust but the O2 absorption thing is bit of a worry as the end result is lots of CO2 and O2 depletion
The simple method of getting fuel from sunlight and CO2 is of course the age old one, plant lots of trees and use coppicing to get a good sustainable crop of wood for fuel and fencing from land not suitable for agriculture.. ‘Green’ activists have of course been trying with a modicum of success to shut down coppicing operations on the grounds that it is ‘ravaging the woods for profit’ not understanding that local farmers have been harvesting this sustainable crop for centuries.
Vinu et foufolle. It’s the “carbon madness”. Riding the climate gravy train doesn’t hurt either.
No no no, we need these artificial trees to limit CO2 and stop plants from taking over the world! Artificial trees we can control, real trees are obviously paid shills for the fossil fuel industry since they perpetuate the conspiracy to make people think CO2 is beneficial to plants….
The results speak for themselves.
To save nature, the “greens” destroy ecosystems, leaving barren concrete and steel landscapes.
Actions.Deny their platitudes.
They fear. Fear nature above all and seem desperate to destroy nature.
The belief that man must control all, is an urban affliction.
Being divorced from reality, nature,weather and seasons seems to have left a vacancy of the mind.
This apparent terror of nature, runs through all the activities of the “Cult of Calamitous Carbon”.
First the fixation on carbon dioxide,’More plant food is evil”.
The denial of natural cycles, so idiotic it hurts, more plant food becomes more plants, completely unavoidable. Life responds.
Then the inanity of the “solutions” which do nothing to address their claimed concerns, yet wreak havoc on wildlife.Wind, Solar are currently useless to address our need for steady affordable electrical supply.
But they do wonderful jobs of degrading the environments they are sited in.
The incoherency of this ideology is beyond parody.
“We must save the planet by killing all life dependent on CO2”
“We must defend your human rights, by stripping you of your legal and civc rights”
“The government is here to help you”.
Environ-Mentalism is very well named.
In fairness to the Greens, this is not a “green” project per se, but simply a case of rent seeking by some academic researcher. The claims of practical use are completely bogus, and the rent seeker is completely aware of it. This practice is widespread in academia.
Apart from “climate change”, another big cash cow is cancer treatment, which is why there is no end of irrelevant “proof of principle” research on killing cancer cells in vitro using the most ridiculously roundabout and expensive contraptions. It would be much easier to just throw the cultured cancer cells down the stairs, of course.
If it weren’t for the greens, there would be no rent to seek in this area.
I saw this a while back, UTEC in Peru has designed billboards that clean the air or produce potable water.
http://www.gizmag.com/utecs-air-purifying-billboard-installed-at-lima/31931/
http://img.gizmag.com/utecair.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=670&q=60&w=930&s=eea6f4d9ff5775b428ab1e06fcb7e5a5
Urban areas are the zones in which natural carbon sinks need this sort of assistance, so I can see some promise in it. Artificial trees, not so much. particularly when you note that trees will grow at several times the rate they do now by the time we get to 1000 ppm (0.1%).
Well, upon reading it again, there is no CO2 absorption, only particulate and bacteria removal. The billboard is rather misleading. Perhaps the technology in the artificial trees could be mated with the UTEC filtration and fitted into building HVAC systems or outdoor signage in extremely dense urban areas, to ease the buildup of all pollutants, both real and imagined.
I keep thinking they’ve reached their limit… but they never do. They just go deeper into craziness. Now this joker wants cyanide fake trees to replace real ones? What, everywhere? Maybe he/they want to make sure everything out there is killed off. And there’s grant money for this? Sheesh!
Wanna see green’s heads explode? Perfect lab grown wood, now that is an artificial tree I can support especially if it is powered by coal.
Methanol – far more toxic than fossil fuels – oxidizes in air or the human liver to formaldehyde (a carcinogen and respiratory sensitizer) – when used as a source of energy the carbon returns to the air as CO2 with 100% efficiency. This does not reduce the CO2 footprint – it just repositions it.
When you are a Warmista, there is no idea too stupid to contemplate as a solution to the fatuous belief in a climate proposal that is so stupid that it defies all rational thought. Why plant nice living trees that are useful on all levels and are benefiting magnificently now from all the nice extra CO2 when you could destroy the surface of the Earth and all life with carbon nitride based artificial trees which would emit hydrogen cyanide (H-C-N).
As long as they have a hole for the spotted owl to nest in, what’s not to love?
(Now, where did I put that “sarc tag”?)
It is not unprecedented, but always ironic, to find extremists destroying what they profess to care deeply about.
You think the Emerald Ash Borer is bad? You ain’t seen nuttin’ ’til you see what infests these artificial trees! They chomp through the aluminum with titanium teeth and wash it down with a sip of cyanide ;o)
PS. I think they might actually be Borg orchards, but I don’t wish to alarm anyone.
Why does artificial rhyme with superficial? A coincidence?
Hey, it’s Thursday so lighten up before the weekend starts.
John
What could be worse than Artificial Trees?
————
I’m an artificial lumberjack and I’m okay
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down artificial trees, I eat my lunch,
I go to the lavat’ry
On Wednesdays I go shoppin’
And have artificial buttered scones for tea
I certainly won’t trust robot trees. I don’t even trust real trees. I think they are up to something, and it bodes us no good.
I think people are actually bonkers.
This is like building robots that eat food so humans and animals can’t have it, because, umm, err…
If you want to get rid of CO2 and produce alcohol, why not just grow potatoes? Lot cheaper.
This whole scheme sounds like something out of C.S. Lewis’ “Out of the Silent Planet” trilogy; something made up by NICE.
I’m afraid Mr. Worral has simply swung and missed on the chemistry here. The carbon nitride being referred to is not composed of discrete CN units or functional groups, but it is rather a polymer that is essentially graphite with some carbons swapped for nitrogens. So-called graphitic carbon nitrides (or at least the type contemplated here) are actually quite stable and have a bond structure NOT related to cyanide- network of 3-4 single bonds per atom vs a nearly ionic CN triple bond.
To say that carbon nitrides will outgas significant amounts of cyanide is like fretting over the graphite in your pencil causing a fire by outgassing ethane, because hey ‘graphite is C-C and C-C plus H is H6C2’– it just doesn’t work that way. Nor will Mr. Worral’s gold jewelry turn into gold III oxide because Au + atmospheric O2 = gold oxide. He probably shouldn’t worry about the water in his glass turning it into a pile of wet silicic acids either.
Lest someone accuse me of it, let me explicitly state the whole artificial tree thing is a hare-brained solution to a non-problem.
Rather, I’d like to reaffirm Michael Palmer’s comment above:
“In fairness to the Greens, this is not a “green” project per se, but simply a case of rent seeking by some academic researcher. The claims of practical use are completely bogus, and the rent seeker is completely aware of it. This practice is widespread in academia.”
Follow the (potential) money…
I think these things have been around for a long time.
Where do you think aluminum foliage comes from?