One of these times, I may yet get around to adding CO2 to a grow. Pretty sure I'd be inclined to go a DIY route. But with only ever but a few plants growing at any given time in both the veg and flower areas...
Someone would have to donate an injection system my way for me to find the costs of running it to ever be worth it. In my mind, more parts means more maintenance. And for sure maintenance = ew...right?
Theres that CO2 Boost stuff going for....ffs....its a $100 bag of grass and some sort of yeasty fungus for a catalyst. 'Up to 90 days' they say. Which prolly means, what...65-70 days worth? Again, not worth it in my mind when theres only a few darlings occupying one's grow space.
Ultimately...under the best of conditions, the routine number put to the advantages of CO2 is '30% higher yield!' that is advertised for most systems.
Well....if I really really really wanted 30% more bud at harvest, I'd get it in the form of planting/cloning 30% more.
Along the lines of how during the space race, NASA spent $3 million developing a pen that writes in the weightlessness of space. Their Russian counterparts in the mean time got it done by using...pencils.
I agree with ya Dr.GreenThumb... ~tokes~... theres aspects of growing where cutting costs by cutting corners equates into being counter productive efforts...injection may look to cost out the ass, and seem complicated...its a cheaper method than a CO2 burner as the months go by and not at all difficult to operate. It's as easy as, opening a valve and letting the hardware due the rest....damn site safer and cooler too!