Artificial photosynthesis could offer a climate solution

In 2010 a company called ShiftBoston, hired two designers to develop a synthetic urban tree, which could provide all the functions of a normal tree without the need for water and soil. The Boston Treepods were designed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere through a process called 'humidity swing', and generate clean energy through solar panels and kinetic energy from swings attached to the bottom of the structure. Many carbon capture and storage (CCS) programmes are being trialled, which include seven large scale CCS projects at power plants in the US and Canada, and a project from Optical Bio Microsystem Lab at Concordia University in Montreal, using micro-photosynthetic cell technology that can harness electricity from photosynthesis and respiration of blue algae. As the world becomes obsessed with finding ways to reduce carbon emissions from the atmosphere, researchers are under more pressure to come up with ways to remove CO2. ShiftBoston offers an innovative, artificial solution through the Treepod project, by practically utilising urban spaces, however it currently lacks the funding to become a reality. 

In the fight against climate change, trees are an ally. They suck in carbon dioxide, reducing the harmful greenhouse gases. But there’s a problem: we’re asking them to work overtime.

Trees can’t absorb enough of the carbon dioxide humanity is throwing at them unless we turn every inch of available land into a dense forest, according to Christophe Jospe, chief strategist at Arizona State’s Center for Negative Carbon Emissions.

But what if trees – or machines modelled after them – had superpowers? Artificial trees with otherworldly abilities are a great hope against climate change, since environmental experts say it’s not realistic to expect humanity to release significantly less carbon into the atmosphere. Our best bet might be to capture the excess carbon and store it or convert it into something useful, such as fuel.

Five years ago, a Boston group recruited two designers to develop artificial city trees. The trees they envisioned offered shade and would absorb carbon dioxide. The thinking was to place the trees where soil was too shallow to host traditional trees.

The group delivered great mock-ups, but little else has come from it so far. Finding funding is a challenge.

“You don’t want to be the first person to pay,” said Kimberly Poliquin, the director of ShiftBoston. “Scientists have figures, but you don’t know if that’s going to be the reality.”

Capturing and storing carbon isn’t yet the type of expense local governments and organisations can slide into their budgets. The cost of the technology is dropping, but not to a point where it’s affordable to install “forests” of these systems. Poliquin estimates an upfront cost of $350,000 for an artificial tree, but she expects prices to come down considerably. She hopes to develop a prototype of such a tree in one or two years.

There’s plenty of interest in removing carbon from the air. One method is to capture carbon directly from the smokestacks of power plants. Another method – which the Boston project targeted – is pulling carbon out of the open air, where it isn’t present in as much density. In theory, one square kilometre of artificial trees could remove 4m tons of carbon a year, according to the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, which is developing a technology to work in open spaces.

Find me $100m, and I’ll tell you how to put it to a very aggressive research and development agenda Christophe Jospe

Seven large-scale projects to capture and store carbon at power plants will arrive in 2016 and 20-17. Most are in the US and Canada. But more growth is needed before carbon capture and storage makes an impact on climate change. According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, the 15 large-scale projects operating around the world can capture 28m tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. To keep climate change in check, we’ll need to process 4bn tonnes in 2040 and 6bn in 2050.

The Center for Negative Carbon Emissions is developing technology that it says is 1,000 times as effective as trees, per unit of biomass. The group is located in the desert because its technology responds well to warm, dry air and requires less energy in that environment.

Operating in cooler climates, such as Boston, would add expenses.

Once the technology is fully built out, the group estimates it will be removing carbon dioxide for about $100 a tonne. As is, there’s no resemblance to a tree as scientists – including those at Arizona State – focus on making the carbon-removal process effective and affordable rather than beautiful to look at.

More developments are needed for it to be cost-effective and spread around the world. Since 2007, the Global CCS Institute says, the global investment in carbon capture and storage has been less than $20bn, about one-hundredth of the investment into renewable technologies.

“It needs the likes of Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Tom Steyer to champion early technology efforts to bring the cost down,” Jospe said. “Find me $100m, and I’ll tell you how to put it to a very aggressive research and development agenda, and five years later you can see some exciting technologies that start to show on the market.”

Gates is one of the investors in Carbon Engineering, a Calgary, Alberta, company that is developing industrial-grade technology to capture carbon and make fuels. It’s a promising case, but not yet something ready to substitute for a tree in a city park.

This article appeared in Guardian Weekly, which incorporates material from the Washington Post