Photosynthesis converts CO2 into sugars, can we industrialize this process?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential to industrialize photosynthesis to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, addressing the challenges of understanding the complete process and managing the resulting carbon waste. While agriculture is a form of industrialized photosynthesis, the conversation highlights the importance of utilizing biomass, such as hardwood, to sequester carbon effectively. Cutting down rainforests can be beneficial if the wood is used sustainably rather than burned, which would release CO2 back into the atmosphere. The participants explore calculations regarding the amount of wood needed to offset global CO2 emissions and the implications of using this wood for construction versus disposal. The concept of artificial leaves as a technological solution to CO2 conversion is also mentioned, indicating ongoing research in this area.
JDoolin
Gold Member
Messages
723
Reaction score
9
CO2 appears to create global warming, but is there a way to get rid of the CO2? Could we somehow industrialize the photosynthesis process to get rid of large amounts of CO2?

What sorts of issues prevent this solution?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We don't necessarily know every step of photosynthesis?
 
Assuming this was possible, the O2 would go into the atmosphere, but where you put all the "waste" carbon, and what would you do with it (burning it would just get you back to where you started).
 
JDoolin said:
CO2 appears to create global warming, but is there a way to get rid of the CO2? Could we somehow industrialize the photosynthesis process to get rid of large amounts of CO2?
Sure, all agriculture is industrialized photosynthesis. In order to fix the CO2, the only thing that you would have to do is to pull the biomass out of the environment. I recommend hardwood furniture and log homes for the purpose. The harder and denser the wood the better. It takes a lot of CO2 to make and, provided you don't burn it, it sequesters the carbon away from the environment for a very long time.

From a CO2 balance perspective cutting down a rainforest is actually not a bad thing. What is bad is burning the hardwood instead of using it and then not letting the forest re-grow.
 
Last edited:
I don't know exactly how well I can trust the numbers on the internet, but after a short search it sounds like burning 1 gallon of gasoline produces about 19.4 pounds of Carbon Dioxide, while burning 1 pound of wood produces about 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Does the latter statistic work in reverse; such that a growing tree will suck about 1.5 pounds of carbon-dioxide out of the air for each pound of hardwood it puts on?

I wonder how many acres of forests we would have to grow (and not burn) to balance the amount of carbon dioxide we produce.

A very rough calculation follows

Worldwide use of oil: 84 million barrels/year *42 gallons/barrel * 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon = 70 billion pounds of CO2

divide by 1.5, absorbed by growing 46 billion pounds of wood.

= 23 million tons of wood grown and not burned.

I'm not sure how that converts into cubic meters... One web-site estimated the worldwide harvest of wood to be around 3.5 billion cubic meters (3/4 of which is used for fuel.)

...or how it would convert into acres, or land-fills. I wonder if we could find use for 23 million tons of hardwood as furniture and houses per year, or if we would bury it. What happens if bugs get into it? Would they convert it right back into CO2?
 
I heard a report on NPR's Science Friday yesterday about an artificial leaf.

It appears there may be two different versions of it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191042.htm" describes a device that converts the fuel into Hydrogen for a fuel cell.

But diagrams http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/energyfutureslab/research/grandchallenges/artificialleaf" [/I] gas is exactly what we ought to be going for.
 

Attachments

  • 69455699.jpg
    69455699.jpg
    57.1 KB · Views: 479
Last edited by a moderator:
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top