5 ms·

Could we grow this thing artificially in a suitably stratified sea or lake to cause a meaningful drop in the atmospheric CO2 level? If growth is only limited b

by kijin 7y ago

Could we grow this thing artificially in a suitably stratified sea or lake to cause a meaningful drop in the atmospheric CO2 level? If growth is only limited by the availability of phosphorus, well, we already know how to supply phosphorus on an industrial scale.

catwell 7y ago
It's the first question that came to my mind, and as it turns out we're obviously not the first to ask it: http://www.climatefoundation.org/azolla.html http://www.climatefoundation.org/azolla.html
- peterburkimsher 7y ago
  Could azolla be farmed and sold for carbon credits? Would it be possible to do so in international waters, tax-free?
  - RenRav 7y ago
    Yes, it can be sold for carbon credits if sequestered properly. No, it's a fresh water plant.
avip 7y ago
http://theazollafoundation.org/azollas-uses/as-a-co2-sequester/ http://theazollafoundation.org/azollas-uses/as-a-co2-sequest...
christkv 7y ago
I would caution a easy solution as frankly we are but cavemen in the understanding of a complex ecosystem like earths. Attempting what amounts to a terraforming experiment would be a extremely high risk endevour with possibly catastrophic ends.
- jfoster 7y ago
  We're already messing with things in what we think is the opposite direction to what's proposed by kijin. Besides, how can we ever make progress on planetary improvement if we always just shrug and say that we're cave people? We have to try something.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    What we want to be is a feedback controller, which means we can try stuff, but we need to be good at monitoring the changes and reacting to them. I'm less worried about the monitoring parts, thanks to tireless work of scientist and technologists worldwide. We monitor things on the ground, in the sea, and increasingly also from space. I'm worried about reaction time, though. Our institutions, especially political ones, absolutely suck at doing the right thing in a timely manner.
    - jfoster 7y ago
      Good points. I would also just point out that our institutions suck regarding timing mainly because it's against their interests. If you have some way to improve the planet that isn't against special interests, it might not be fast, but will probably be a lot less slow.
- kuu 7y ago
  We're already terraforming Earth, and not only with pollution, but also with fire, cities, transportation, dams...
  - christkv 7y ago
    One thing this article suggests is that this event caused mass extinction itself as the climate change probably wiped out those North Pole turtles. I think that is just the point of unexpected consequences I’m trying to raise. Previous attempts to reverse catastrophic changes to ecological environments have been unmitigated disasters. Just ask Australians about the cane toad or rabbits.
- 7y ago
Sharlin 7y ago
I guess the main problem is the fact that it took 800,000 years to sequester 3000 ppm worth of CO2 out of the atmosphere, or roughly 3 ppb per year on average. And that was when there was a lot more CO2 to sequester than now.
- kijin 7y ago
  We only need to sequester about 140 ppm of CO2 this time. It would still take tens of thousands of years at the natural rate, but we could probably increase the growth rate a hundredfold by carefully selecting high-sequestration cultivars, pumping them full of nutrients, and harvesting them at just the right interval to maintain optimal production. At least it sounds much more promising than the CO2-capturing contraptions I've seen on HN over the years.
nabla9 7y ago
Antarctic and Arctic oceans are very nutrient-rich so phosphorus is not the problem. Iron deficiency is the main limiting factor of plankton growth of algae in those areas. Dumping iron-sulfate into the ocean has tested and it seems to work. https://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028 https://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-ca...
MayeulC 7y ago
An interesting thing to explore would be its potential as a biofuel: connect carbon exhausts from factories (cement, etc) to pools/tubes containing Azolla, maybe with solar concentrators to give it even more sunlight. Pipeline enough of these to generate a continuous (hydro-)carbon output, that can be transported elsewhere, or burnt on-site for electricity generation (and the results backfed to the pools). The idea here would be to effectively create a giant organic solar panel, with its output in the form of (hydro?-)carbons. Ideally burnt on-site (thus they would act as a battery storage), but it could also be exported. If we're not going to end our reliance on hydrocarbons today, it better be non-fossils ones, since the only reason CO2 levels climb is that we burn fuel that was sequestrated until recently. Earnings from fuel/electricity sales could be reinvested to fund this at a bigger scale. It wouldn't surprise me if everything could be ran as a completely closed loop, at least for electricity generation. Of course, the idea isn't new, as a cursory search reveals [1]. I wonder if it could be further enhanced using GMOs such as [2]. [1]: https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/15-algae-biofuels-startups-to-watch.html https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/15-algae... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/re-engineering-photosynthesis-gives-plants-a-40-growth-boost/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/re-engineering-photo...
taneq 7y ago
Maybe we could revisit the idea of re-flooding Lake Eyre? :)

by kijin 7y ago

catwell 7y ago

It's the first question that came to my mind, and as it turns out we're obviously not the first to ask it: http://www.climatefoundation.org/azolla.html http://www.climatefoundation.org/azolla.html

peterburkimsher 7y ago
Could azolla be farmed and sold for carbon credits? Would it be possible to do so in international waters, tax-free?
- RenRav 7y ago
  Yes, it can be sold for carbon credits if sequestered properly. No, it's a fresh water plant.

avip 7y ago

http://theazollafoundation.org/azollas-uses/as-a-co2-sequester/ http://theazollafoundation.org/azollas-uses/as-a-co2-sequest...

christkv 7y ago

I would caution a easy solution as frankly we are but cavemen in the understanding of a complex ecosystem like earths. Attempting what amounts to a terraforming experiment would be a extremely high risk endevour with possibly catastrophic ends.

jfoster 7y ago
We're already messing with things in what we think is the opposite direction to what's proposed by kijin. Besides, how can we ever make progress on planetary improvement if we always just shrug and say that we're cave people? We have to try something.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  What we want to be is a feedback controller, which means we can try stuff, but we need to be good at monitoring the changes and reacting to them. I'm less worried about the monitoring parts, thanks to tireless work of scientist and technologists worldwide. We monitor things on the ground, in the sea, and increasingly also from space. I'm worried about reaction time, though. Our institutions, especially political ones, absolutely suck at doing the right thing in a timely manner.
  - jfoster 7y ago
    Good points. I would also just point out that our institutions suck regarding timing mainly because it's against their interests. If you have some way to improve the planet that isn't against special interests, it might not be fast, but will probably be a lot less slow.
kuu 7y ago
We're already terraforming Earth, and not only with pollution, but also with fire, cities, transportation, dams...
- christkv 7y ago
  One thing this article suggests is that this event caused mass extinction itself as the climate change probably wiped out those North Pole turtles. I think that is just the point of unexpected consequences I’m trying to raise. Previous attempts to reverse catastrophic changes to ecological environments have been unmitigated disasters. Just ask Australians about the cane toad or rabbits.
7y ago

Sharlin 7y ago

I guess the main problem is the fact that it took 800,000 years to sequester 3000 ppm worth of CO2 out of the atmosphere, or roughly 3 ppb per year on average. And that was when there was a lot more CO2 to sequester than now.

kijin 7y ago
We only need to sequester about 140 ppm of CO2 this time. It would still take tens of thousands of years at the natural rate, but we could probably increase the growth rate a hundredfold by carefully selecting high-sequestration cultivars, pumping them full of nutrients, and harvesting them at just the right interval to maintain optimal production. At least it sounds much more promising than the CO2-capturing contraptions I've seen on HN over the years.

nabla9 7y ago

Antarctic and Arctic oceans are very nutrient-rich so phosphorus is not the problem. Iron deficiency is the main limiting factor of plankton growth of algae in those areas. Dumping iron-sulfate into the ocean has tested and it seems to work. https://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-carbon-1.11028 https://www.nature.com/news/dumping-iron-at-sea-does-sink-ca...

MayeulC 7y ago

An interesting thing to explore would be its potential as a biofuel: connect carbon exhausts from factories (cement, etc) to pools/tubes containing Azolla, maybe with solar concentrators to give it even more sunlight. Pipeline enough of these to generate a continuous (hydro-)carbon output, that can be transported elsewhere, or burnt on-site for electricity generation (and the results backfed to the pools). The idea here would be to effectively create a giant organic solar panel, with its output in the form of (hydro?-)carbons. Ideally burnt on-site (thus they would act as a battery storage), but it could also be exported. If we're not going to end our reliance on hydrocarbons today, it better be non-fossils ones, since the only reason CO2 levels climb is that we burn fuel that was sequestrated until recently. Earnings from fuel/electricity sales could be reinvested to fund this at a bigger scale. It wouldn't surprise me if everything could be ran as a completely closed loop, at least for electricity generation. Of course, the idea isn't new, as a cursory search reveals [1]. I wonder if it could be further enhanced using GMOs such as [2]. [1]: https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/15-algae-biofuels-startups-to-watch.html https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/15-algae... [2]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/re-engineering-photosynthesis-gives-plants-a-40-growth-boost/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/re-engineering-photo...

taneq 7y ago

Maybe we could revisit the idea of re-flooding Lake Eyre? :)