4 ms·

I'm not sure I buy that, but sure, both are important problems. Question, what do we know about the ocean as a carbon sink? Is it's capture rate variable with

I'm not sure I buy that, but sure, both are important problems. Question, what do we know about the ocean as a carbon sink? Is it's capture rate variable with anthing? Is it easier to capture carbon from the ocean than in the air? Could we try to increase the capture rate into the ocean and then extract rapidly from the same area?

R0b0t1 5y ago
It's "easier" to capture from water in chemical terms but harder to actually move the water. I think the economy of moving the weight of water makes this a nonstarter. Also yes, ocean acidification is likely to be the bigger immediate problem. People depend heavily on fish protein and other sealife. That plus poor farming yields will be bad.
- SllX 5y ago
  Mechanical and electrical engineering aren’t going to do you enough good quickly enough. But can you think of any forms of life on the bottom of the food chain that depend on carbon inputs as part of its own metabolic processes in order to reproduce itself? Because if you want a self-sustaining ocean-based carbon capture solution, that’s where I would look.
  - sleepydog 5y ago
    So like a smaller version of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event e.g, instigate some large bloom of plant matter or algae, and engineer/find the right conditions for the matter to sink to the bottom of the ocean without decomposing.
    - SllX 5y ago
      At least the first part. There’s an easy profit motive: increasing the base of the food chain feeds the rest of it, and some of those are products we like to eat. The second part, if you can find a profit motive to compost the ocean floor and actually do it in a profitable way, then it will get done. Else we’re stuck relying on natural processes.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    The problem with GMO life is an organism trying to reproduce plus your goal is inherently less fit than an organism merely trying to reproduce. This really only works at accelerating a reset after a mass die off.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  People also depend on not experiencing frequent, severe hurricanes though.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  I imagine any CO2 capture system that uses ocean water would be placed in the ocean, not have the water pumped into it. CO2 is easier to chemically react when dissolved into water, and its mobility is about the same as on air. So the decision is about engineering something that can survive being immersed on the ocean vs. engineering something that can use atmospheric CO2. I believe there's no general answer, we can only answer that question for specific designs.
Thrymr 5y ago
Indeed, there have been experiments that demonstrate fertilizing some parts of the ocean can increase carbon uptake in plankton blooms [0]. [0] https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with-iron/ https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-w...
curryst 5y ago
There are some feedback effects to acidification, one of which is that plankton will struggle. They absorb a lot of CO2. Someone else pointed out that we can cause blooms. That's basically what you want, because plankton or algae sequester it. I don't know that we can "hack" that without risking damaging the oceans though. They're pretty good at what they do as is. It is a gas exchange though, so heat and pressure have an impact. They're not great for marine life though. Surface area does as well, though it'd be hard to meaningfully change the ocean's surface area. The bigger issue would be containment. The ocean is huge, and a very good CO2 sink. Anything that's going to make a significant dent in the total CO2 absorption of the ocean is going to have to happen over a very large area. Things aren't going to be much better if we sterilize the ocean in the process.

R0b0t1 5y ago

It's "easier" to capture from water in chemical terms but harder to actually move the water. I think the economy of moving the weight of water makes this a nonstarter. Also yes, ocean acidification is likely to be the bigger immediate problem. People depend heavily on fish protein and other sealife. That plus poor farming yields will be bad.

SllX 5y ago
Mechanical and electrical engineering aren’t going to do you enough good quickly enough. But can you think of any forms of life on the bottom of the food chain that depend on carbon inputs as part of its own metabolic processes in order to reproduce itself? Because if you want a self-sustaining ocean-based carbon capture solution, that’s where I would look.
- sleepydog 5y ago
  So like a smaller version of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event e.g, instigate some large bloom of plant matter or algae, and engineer/find the right conditions for the matter to sink to the bottom of the ocean without decomposing.
  - SllX 5y ago
    At least the first part. There’s an easy profit motive: increasing the base of the food chain feeds the rest of it, and some of those are products we like to eat. The second part, if you can find a profit motive to compost the ocean floor and actually do it in a profitable way, then it will get done. Else we’re stuck relying on natural processes.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  The problem with GMO life is an organism trying to reproduce plus your goal is inherently less fit than an organism merely trying to reproduce. This really only works at accelerating a reset after a mass die off.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
People also depend on not experiencing frequent, severe hurricanes though.
marcosdumay 5y ago
I imagine any CO2 capture system that uses ocean water would be placed in the ocean, not have the water pumped into it. CO2 is easier to chemically react when dissolved into water, and its mobility is about the same as on air. So the decision is about engineering something that can survive being immersed on the ocean vs. engineering something that can use atmospheric CO2. I believe there's no general answer, we can only answer that question for specific designs.

Thrymr 5y ago

Indeed, there have been experiments that demonstrate fertilizing some parts of the ocean can increase carbon uptake in plankton blooms [0]. [0] https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with-iron/ https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-w...

curryst 5y ago

There are some feedback effects to acidification, one of which is that plankton will struggle. They absorb a lot of CO2. Someone else pointed out that we can cause blooms. That's basically what you want, because plankton or algae sequester it. I don't know that we can "hack" that without risking damaging the oceans though. They're pretty good at what they do as is. It is a gas exchange though, so heat and pressure have an impact. They're not great for marine life though. Surface area does as well, though it'd be hard to meaningfully change the ocean's surface area. The bigger issue would be containment. The ocean is huge, and a very good CO2 sink. Anything that's going to make a significant dent in the total CO2 absorption of the ocean is going to have to happen over a very large area. Things aren't going to be much better if we sterilize the ocean in the process.