Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Plants eventually die (Score:4, Interesting)
That's great but it may be a surprise to some people to learn that cherry sages do eventually die, and decompose and thus re-release that which they have absorbed.
Carbon offset, one of the greatest scams in history. Pay us to plant some trees, which we can later cut down and sell.
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. That's where coal came from. Plants inhale the carbon dioxide in the air, make 'em carbom, die, decompose, get buried in the ground, and 100,000,000 years later become coal and oil.
Parent
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Bill Hicks quote:
I think God put you here to test my faith dude.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
he's purporting that, oil deposits, in the form and structure they are in at this stage, could not be over 10,000 years old. He is saying, that, if the oil deposits where really millions of years old, that there layout, format, and structure within the ground would be fundamentally different
(at least, thats the impression i got from his statement).
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:4, Interesting)
Only in places experiencing significant subsidence (think of the Mississippi delta), where plant materials at the surface will eventually be deeply buried. The fraction of plant material that does ultimately get buried for the long term is minuscule compared to the amount that gets promptly recycled by decay processes, right back into the atmosphere. The chances the scenario you describe is happening at the site of a Toyota plant are small indeed unless it is built on a subsiding swamp.
The part I don't get is "while the gardenia's leaves create water vapour in the air" What? Don't ALL plants produce water vapour in the air?
Planting *any* plant would have the rather minor effects they describe. Getting rid of a lawn and allowing a genuine forest to grow might have a net positive effect, but only to a limited degree (as it grows). It's a fluff piece. The only thing innovative here is their public relations department.
Parent
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:4, Informative)
Today, there is very little chance of this happening, especially at a plant in Japan. In all likelihood these flowers will decompose when they die and release all their nitrogen oxides back to the environment.
Parent
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't the nitrates in the soil act as a fertilizer for plants, as opposed to leaving it floating in the air for humans to breathe in?
Both. Some bacteria make ammonium from nitrogen, which keeps it in the soil. Others dump it in the air as N(2) and N(2)O. Local conditions limit how much gets mineralized into ammonium naturally. If there's enough oxygen around, other bacteria make it into nitrates, which then feed more plants. I reckon if they're planted sparsely, removed regularly (and composted properly), or rotated with nitrate-hungry plants, quite a lot would stay in the dirt. So, yeah, fertilizer and stuff, although some nitrogen is gonna float away no matter what.
Parent
Re:Plants eventually die (Score:4, Funny)
First the Earth cooled...and then the dinosaurs came...but they got too big and fat...so they all died and they turned into oil...and then the Arabs came...and they bought Mercedes Benz's...and Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes...I couldn't believe it...he took her best summer dress out of the closet and put it on and went to town....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless Toyota intends to bury the plants every year then they are not doing anything to help sequester carbon.
Nor are they trying to. So that works out pretty well.
(The plan is to reduce carbon emissions by keeping the area near the plant nice and cool.)
Re:FRAUD ALERT -- Slashdot sucked in again? (Score:5, Informative)
Plants cannot metabolize nitrogen directly.
You are correct. However, the article talks about nitrogen oxides, not molecular nitrogen. The nitrogen in nitrogen oxides is already "fixed" and can be absorbed by many different kinds of plants [wiley.com].
Why do you think you put nitrogen fertilizers to plants, if the atmosphere is > 70% nitrogen?
As you probably know, we'd all be dead if the atmosphere were ~70% nitrogen oxides.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
CO2 isn't warming the planet, because it is incapable of warming the planet in the concertrations we're emitting
Really? Your research supports that claim? If so, you're just about the only climatologist in the world with that opinion. Please link to your papers (and, of course, make sure you make clear who paid for the research). Or do you somehow think that you're more knowledgeable than the people who have the training, the data, and the supercomputers?
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't pretty much every plant with leaves do that? Hence the need for watering...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if they release MORE water, does that mean they increase the dependency on reservoirs and the environmental impacts of dams and water shortages?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. Their heating costs go down bu the amount of water they're using probably goes up. Is it worth sacrificing water conservation for power conservation?
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas(by volume, mass, and % of warming caused), could one say that this is like opening the fridge to cool the kitchen?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas and because warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the primary positive feedback involves water vapor. This positive feedback does not result in runaway global warming because it is offset by other processes that induce negative feedbacks, which stabilizes average global temperatures. The primary negative feedback is the effec
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I am a bit confused. Plants do perspire and release water vapour but they also usually release heat (they have a metabolism and show on infrared).
It is a bit complicated. ;-)
It's true that plants give off IR radiation. But they also release water vapor, and the evaporation process is endothermic. This cools the plant tissues slightly, and conductance cools the air at the leaf surfaces. There's a lot of energy conversion and transfer going on around a functioning leaf. The "bottom line" of it all is that the air among masses of plant life is usually a few degrees cooler than the outside air, unless the air is cold, when the plants may somewhat warm the air. You can feel this when you walk into a clump of trees, even if you're still in the sunlight. Much of this effect is due to inefficiencies in the plants' techniques for controlling their own internal temperature.
It is interesting that plants can be giving off IR while being cooler than their surroundings. Part of the explanation is that the photosynthetic process involves a lot of frequency shifting. Photons are absorbed at one frequency, electrons bounce the absorbed energy around a bit, and another photon is radiated at a lower energy level. Most of this is significant to the plant's metabolism, but there are inefficiences. Thus, chlorophyll absorbs best in the green/blue part of the spectrum; a quick google found a graph at http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Chlorophyll [statemaster.com]. Note the complexity of the graph, with a lower peak in the red. To increase its absorbency, chloroplasts surround the chlorophyll with frequency-shifting molecules that absorb photons at other frequencies and reradiate the energy as photons that the chlorophyll prefers. But chlorophyll molecules don't intercept all these green/blue(/red) photons, explaining why leaves are greener than the incoming light. The whole process is impressively complex, and we're not very close to fully understanding it all. But much of the accidental reradiation is at low-energy frequencies, in the IR part of the spectrum.
Some interesting research reports a few years ago involved some tiny temperature sensors that could measure the temperature inside leaves. They reported that a wide variety of plants tested, over a wide range of atmospheric conditions, the internal leaf temperatures were close to 21 Celsius. This is somewhat cooler than our body temperature, and generally different from the air. The "higher" plants seem to have evolved some impressive temperature regulation methods, presumably because chemistry is simpler and cheaper if you can control the temperature. So at cooler temperatures, leaves tend to absorb lots of photons that they don't need for photosynthesis, but which function solely to warm the leaf to its operating temperature. The leakage from this process mostly loses low-energy photons, i.e., infrared. At higher temperatures, leaves can both radiate more energetic photons, and also release water vapor, which cools the tissues rapidly. In this case, most of the inefficiency is in heat absorbed from the surrounding warmer air, which is the main reason that clumps of plants are cool. But it's not really that the water was vaporized to cool the air. It was vaporized to cool the internal leaf tissues, and the air cooling is due to poor insulation at the leaf surface. The plants are trying to keep themselves at operating temperature, and cooling of surrounding warmer air is an inefficiency in this process.
Anyway, it's complex. And it's impressive how much control can be done by critters that have no muscles or nervous system and are stuck spending their whole life in one spot. It's almost entirely complex chemistry, including some very sophisticated control of photons and passing energy via electrons along chains of carbon atoms. Understanding what's known of it takes years of study. But you can find a lot of summaries by googling for someth
Parent
All plants transpire (Score:2)
Bad reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bad reporting (Score:5, Informative)
October 6, 2005
Toyota Develops Shrub that Greatly Improves Air Quality
--New Cherry Sage Better Cleanses Air, Reduces "Urban Heat Island Effect"--
http://www2.toyota.co.jp/en/news/05/1006.html [toyota.co.jp]
"TMC started selling its Gardenia plant, known as the "Wald", which has a very high atmospheric-cleansing ability, in October 2003."
The grass mentioned in TFA linked by /. is a breed of "zoysia grass" known as "TM9"
I read about it on page 40 of Toyota's 2009 sustainability report [toyota.co.jp] (8MB PDF) and it has been on sale since 2006.
Nothing in this story is new except for the positive PR that Toyota is getting.
Parent
Nothing can go wrong here! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
cmon, the universe needs a true daiseyworld as a warning to others!
Re:Nothing can go wrong here! (Score:5, Interesting)
Kudzu is trivial to get rid of. Just let a herd of goats loose. Not only do they eat kudzu, they PREFER it, and will eat it before almost any other human-desirable plants. There are companies that rent out goats specifically for this purpose.
If you think Kudzu is bad, read up on Cogon Grass.
Parent
Re:Nothing can go wrong here! (Score:5, Funny)
What do the goats eat once they've finished the kudzu?
Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert. Then come the sandworms. Nice, you've doomed us all.
Parent
Re:Nothing can go wrong here! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nothing can go wrong here! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask Africa. They eat everything. Then you get desert.
Only if the people involved are too daft to eat the goats (and turn their skins into leather).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that's when we bring in the mountain gorillas.
New tag should be.... (Score:5, Funny)
Availability (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignoring naysayers for now, and assuming this plant is the benefit the article claims: What about me?
Does Toyota plan to release these plants for sale at my local garden store?
Can I get a nice slow-growing lawn that I don't have to mow?
Can I get some extra-cold flower gardens?
Re:Availability (Score:5, Informative)
Ignoring naysayers for now, and assuming this plant is the benefit the article claims: What about me?
Does Toyota plan to release these plants for sale at my local garden store?
Not at your local garden store, but they are for sale through "Toyota Roof Garden Corporation".
AFAICT their sales are entirely out of Japan, so good luck with ordering.
http://www.toyota-roofgarden.co.jp/ [toyota-roofgarden.co.jp]
Parent
Progenitor Virus (Score:2)
Umbrella Corporation (from the Resident Evil series) cultivated some funky flowers in Africa which led to their biological weapon development... zombies, Majini, etc. were the result.
Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?
What could possibly go wrong...? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Feed me, Seymour... :-/
Actually, if the plant eats pets, it'll save the environment!
Perfect Timing! (Score:4, Funny)
Shameless drivel (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a load of shameless and deceptive nonsense; and does make it better that it is wrapped up in florid language, if you will excuse the pun, hur, hur. "Create a new species"? Even highly educated plant breeders haven't been able to do that, but a car manufacturer manages to do it with a gesture and a lorry-load of hype?
For a plant species to work well as carbon-capturer, it ought to grow fast (thus producing large quantities of biomass) and it should break down slowly, so the CO2 isn't released quickly again. Gardenias and sages don't really fit the bill - grasses might, some trees might and green algae, perhaps. But I understand, of course - surrounding the offices with a few hectares of slimy ponds isn't as pretty.
The real mystery is - how on Earth did this make it as far as being mentioned here?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is a load of shameless and deceptive nonsense; and does make it better that it is wrapped up in florid language, if you will excuse the pun, hur, hur. "Create a new species"? Even highly educated plant breeders haven't been able to do that, but a car manufacturer manages to do it with a gesture and a lorry-load of hype?
I'm not so sure that 'species' is so well defined a concept when it comes to plants and hybrids that everyone agrees on what is and isn't a new species. However, I distinctly suspect that 'hybrid' got turned in to 'species' somewhere between the grower's mouth and journalist's article. Science journalists in particular seem to love writing complete bollocks that sometimes even flatly contradicts their only source.
For a plant species to work well as carbon-capturer,
No-one has said anything about them capturing carbon. They were chosen to capture and degrad
They're called Triffids... (Score:3, Funny)
It's a rather radical solution.
In the U.S. ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some company like Monsanto will come up with plants like these (available only from them, of course) and patent the whole idea just so they can make a buck off of saving the planet.
Hypocritical bastards! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If they want to reduce pollution (Score:5, Funny)
Because cars are awesome, hippy.
Parent
Re:If they want to reduce pollution (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If they want to reduce pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Your clever plan has one slight flaw, namely that Toyota is not the only company on the planet making cars. If they stop then people will just buy cars from elsewhere that are probably less environmentally friendly, resulting in more pollution overall.
Environmentalists could do with a lot more pragmatism and a lot less "durr I'm going to vehemently oppose anything short of ceasing all pollution overnight".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The amount of water vapor is also more or less constant. If you try to put more vapor in the atmosphere, it will just rain out somewhere else.