What Plants/Trees Best Absorb Co2?

I don't know of any research in this area but it's interesting question to think about what tree already has the highest CO2 absorption. CO2 absorption comes from chlorophyll metabolism and chlorophyll is also what makes tree leaves green so think of the most green trees. It would probably have to be an evergreen rather than a deciduous tree which loses its leaves in the winter. Also chlorophyll is what produces the tree's energy so you need a tree which uses lots of energy which could mean fast growing, lots of fruit or simply big, or probably more appropriate tall and skinny so you could pack more into an area. So I'd say a bunch of fir trees or pines would be the best trees to start with.

A tree no, but how about algae. Algae is much more efficient than a tree, unfortunately all a plant does is store CO2 in the form of starch and glucose. It eventually gets back out into the atmosphere when the plant decomposes. That is, if you are into the whole global warming thing. I would look at a technology like this more for space exploration, than a "climate fix."

check this out

http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/04/how_to_make_a_photo_bio_r.html

Adaminchains

True, algae would be much more efficient at slurping up excess CO2 but decomposition of algae is also pretty fast which releases CO2 back into the air. However, there are some companies planning on seeding the oceans with iron or other nutrients to make plankton grow to absorb the CO2 and then when they die they sink to the bottom of the ocean and the CO2 they absorbed gets caught in the sediment on the ocean floor. At least that's the theory, but all scientists don't agree that is actually what happens. But there are serveral small start companies doing this as a service so they can sell the "carbon credits".

A good property to look at to help narrow down the results is how much biomass for a given mass of plant, or unit area of ground coverage, is produced per unit time under the same conditions.

Mind you that these properties will be climate zone specific.

Sugar cane is a fairly efficient plant. And if I recall correctly Kudzu is something you can actually watch grow. Then of course there is the Hibiscus or the Moraceae family of plants.

As to the CO2 re-entering the environment, that may be offset by the commercialization of the organic products derived from the plant. Materials used for architecture or clothing or engineering would help lock the CO2 in for extended periods of time.

The live tree; and the biggest growing live tree. However, all trees drop their leaves so the net co2 conversion in any tree must account for dropped leaf decomposition. Engineering a tree for co2 absorption is a bit of a fallacy. One would need to re-engineer photosynthesis--which operates in like fashion in all green plants.

A more immediate benefit of trees - natural or engineered - as respects the co2 conumdrum, would be their action in local cooling - in preventing and absorbing insolation that reaches the ground (and structures such as habitations on the ground). More shading for living/working spaces, less fuel consumption for cooling; less fuel consumption, less co2 release. This would be especially notable within the megacity urban deserts. This was an effect I observed palpably when commuting on motorcycle from the Baltimore desert (inside the beltway) to the pastoral county suburbs. I always looked forward to passing under and beyond the beltway outbound, as the temperature could be reliably predicted to drop at least 15 degrees within a block or so of the beltway. By re-foresting of urban deserts, I mostly mean trees, and not palms--as is too often the case in places like Calif and Florida, where palms have been introduced but are not indigenous.

BD DOC< you are one of many who believe the utter propaganda put out by vested interests that there is a greenhouse gas effect- there is only a minor effect, then no more effect, no matter how much more so called ghg is produced- why are they doing it?- think money- control(co2 trading, nuclear power stations, etc). I at 1st believed the IGPCC- then looked into it- there is a guy who has proved mathematically the ghg theory is false- go to Open2net, discussion, science& technology.

I tried to find your guy with the math theory and read a bunch of comments but couldn't find anything worth much. I have developed enough mathematical models myself to know that they aren't the real world. We're conducting one big global experiment here and the vast majority of the scientists in the world agree that the argument is over, the human race are significantly contributing to global warming with our emissions of "greenhouse" gases of which CO2 is a major contributor. What's the down side if the majority of scientists are wrong? We spent some money, a few entrepreneurs have gotten rich, (maybe you too, with change comes opportunity, if you don't believe the IGPCC bet against them) and we cleaned up the world. The down side if they're right and we do nothing is all coastal cities go underwater, billions of people get displaced at an unimaginable cost and toll in human misery (witness New Orleans). Unfortunately it may not matter we could be too late to do anything about it anyway, although I for one am encouraged by the mobilization of the private sector to do something and that in itself is not small feat.

whether right or wrong, people could use help reducing their costs for fuel. A system is wending it's way through USPTO that is: 1:Multi-Fuel allowing the user to shop for the most available fuel on a list of nine including hydrogen and natural gas. 2: Use Sunlight wherever possible to fuel their car 3: Use less fuel due the several factors; a: It is not an internal combustion engine, it utilizes the fuel to generate heat, it then moderates the heat into mechanical power. b: The system is 100 to 200 lbs lighter than current engines, therefore less mass to push with said power. c: The system's operating temperature is much lower than the temperatures generated by consuming fuel, therefore fuel burning is not constant but and on/off deal. d: The system stores extra heat, then uses it as required, the amount on wasted energy is greatly diminished due to two factors. d1: Less moving mass=less energy wasted in each cycle. d2: Less friction all moving parts have essential glass on glass type bearing surfaces. The inventor is Wayne D. Pickette, the same guy who brought the micro-computer concept to the World.