Scientists Engineer Wood to Become Stronger, Capture CO2:
When it comes to battling climate change, carbon dioxide is the biggest enemy of all. A widespread desire to mitigate carbon emissions has pushed scientists, students, and startups alike to build technologies that capture this greenhouse gas, like a carbon-trapping car and an ocean-assisted carbon removal plant. But what if one such technology could capture carbon and improve new infrastructure by strengthening buildings and making them more sustainable to produce?
Scientists at Rice University have developed a method of engineering wood that makes the material stronger and enables it to absorb carbon dioxide. The engineered wood rivals conventionally tougher building materials in strength but emits far less carbon during production. It also traps carbon from its environment, making it an attractive and affordable material for new buildings.
[...] Rahman and his colleagues argue that this engineered wood presents a viable alternative to materials that emit many greenhouse gasses during production, like steel and cement. Not only does the team's process emit far less carbon, but wood is biodegradable, making it a more sustainable material throughout a building's lifetime. Passively capturing carbon throughout the construction process is another bonus. Before the engineered wood can be used in the real world, however, the team will need to test the material for long-term performance and study its commercial viability.
Journal Reference:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2023.101269
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday February 26, @12:55PM (5 children)
A tree.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 26, @12:57PM (4 children)
2 slow 4 us
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday February 26, @12:59PM (3 children)
Bamboo then.
Also, don't underestimate the power of many trees growing for a few years, then yielding a lot of stronger wood all the time - called a forest.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 26, @03:32PM (2 children)
Desalination + this [mit.edu] + fusion. And a few forests [wikipedia.org] if you can find the time.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 26, @06:46PM
Not only that, but wood is biodegradable
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27, @02:39AM
Rain + soda pop + sun.. we got it all, babe
(Score: 4, Touché) by Gaaark on Sunday February 26, @03:51PM (6 children)
1. It captures MORE C02.
2. It's also bio-degradeable.
3. It thus releases MORE CO2.
4. Riiiiiiiight. Got some swamp land for you.
5. PROFIT?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by helel on Sunday February 26, @04:30PM (4 children)
All forms of carbon capture are ultimately temporary, unless we can sink entire forests deep in the crust for millions of years to make more coal. Instead of thinking of carbon capture as a silver bullet to allow us to continue using unsustainable energy sources forever you should instead be thinking of them as a temporary holding capacity to keep the carbon out of the air now. With enough of them we can offset the damage we've already done but doing so will be an ongoing effort.
We've well and truly shot out selves in the foot. Now our option is to bandage it with carbon capture or just sit back and let it bleed out.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday February 26, @05:28PM
And of course we also need to put the gun away! Which we haven't done, because it's still super-profitable to keep shooting ourselves in the foot. The big oil companies have known for decades that climate change would be a ridiculously huge problem, but they owned the rights to trillions of dollars worth of oil in the ground and they're determined to get it all out and burned.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26, @10:16PM
Which sounds to me like more than we need. I'm not sure we're even to the stage where deliberately sequestering CO2 makes sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27, @01:50AM (1 child)
Use more paper and wood (from fast regrowing sources), and landfill whatever you discard instead of recycling?
😉
(Score: 3, Interesting) by istartedi on Monday February 27, @02:06AM
When I was a kid in the 70s we had galvanized steel garbage cans. They came from Wheeling, WV. I always imagined that the whole town's economy was based on making garbage cans. The heaviest can was always the one with the newspaper in it. It was my job to lug them down to the curb. Oh how I hated that can. I was happy when we went to recycling bins. Then we just stopped getting papers at the house. Are... are we going to go back to galvanized cans stuffed with newsprint again? My back won't be able to take it. I'll be the old man who pays some kid to do stuff like that. Come 4th of July they used to turn those cans upside down and put a firecracker under 'em. A really good banger like an M-80 will send that f***er sky-high. Watch your pumpkin. It's a wonder we survived.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27, @02:01AM
Also:
How much CO2 used for this?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 27, @02:09AM
I engineered some wood. If you put your mouth over the end you can capture some CO2 or at least prevent a nasty spill.