6 ms·

This doesn't seem practical. https://pyrofarms.com/blogs/pyrofarms-blue-light-special/algae-is-our-main-ally-for-combatting-climate-change https://pyrofarms.co

by chasil 4y ago

This doesn't seem practical. https://pyrofarms.com/blogs/pyrofarms-blue-light-special/algae-is-our-main-ally-for-combatting-climate-change https://pyrofarms.com/blogs/pyrofarms-blue-light-special/alg... "When used in bioreactors, algae is 400 times more efficient than a tree at removing CO2 from the atmosphere."

rcme 4y ago
How is the CO2 sequestered? That is conspicuously missing from that marketing blog post.
- chasil 4y ago
  In nature, the dying algae fall to the sea floor, and sequester the carbon there. An easy stimulant to this process is to dump powdered iron into an algal bloom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
  - mikepurvis 4y ago
    I'd be interested to know more about the carbon cost of production for the powdered iron. I assume you could use scrap metal for this purpose, but scrap metal is already pretty recyclable as I understand it.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      I don't think pure iron would work because it's not soluble - what people use are iron sulfates which are minerals that occur naturally.
      - chmod775 4y ago
        Ferrous sulphate is available below $100 / ton and seems to already be used in large quantities for wastewater treatment. Doesn't seem hard to source if the same stuff will work for algae.
        mikepurvis 4y ago
        Okay neat— the WP page for it mentions it being produced at least in part as a byproduct of steel production: "In the finishing of steel prior to plating or coating, the steel sheet or rod is passed through pickling baths of sulfuric acid. This treatment produces large quantities of iron(II) sulfate as a by-product." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28II%29_sulfate#Production_and_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28II%29_sulfate#Productio... So I guess that explains why it's so inexpensive, but of course as with many such things (natural gas from oil production, whey from yogurt/cheese production, etc), once there's a robust market for the "byproduct", it can result in changing the original economics.
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    However, you run the risk of advantaging algae that produce high levels of toxin. Even non-toxic algae starts to do this when concentrated. Since iron fertilization only works far offshore, a lot of our industry has to hope that bloom doesn’t enter the food chain.
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
>When used in bioreactors* When used in a sealed climate-controlled chamber that produces the ideal conditions on land for an aquatic plant specie. IIRC it's ridiculously expensive to scale algae bioreactors, while trees grow and maintain themselves. I wish algae was easier to scale because it does have great potential.
- chasil 4y ago
  Why don't we just scale them in the oceans?
  - psadri 4y ago
    That might disturb the ocean ecosystem.
    - chasil 4y ago
      And these trees don't?
      - FourHand451 4y ago
        I think the larger point is that there isn't a simple, obvious, "Why don't we just do XYZ?" solution to the problems being discussed here.
      - psadri 4y ago
        I agree anything we do at scale will affect the ecosystem. However, restoring an ecosystem to a previous state seems less risky than changing oceans to a new state.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    [dead]
  - schainks 4y ago
    Maintaining things sitting in the ocean is still expensive. You can’t send robots out, you must send humans. Oil rigs are worthwhile just because they can be turned on/off relatively easily depending on market conditions and when they are on, they mint so much money that expensive humans are a rounding error.
stinos 4y ago
It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale (e.g. [1]) and even if they weren't we'd need a lot of them (e.g. [2]). To the point one starts to wonder whether these so-called 'climate trees' (a term commonly used by some groups in my area) isn't just a product of lobby groups and/or people who don't know a lot about biology or ecosystems. A tree is of course a perfect 'climate excuse': easy to plant a tree, easy to think you're doing something for the climate. Now, the part about needing a lot of them is also true for these bioreactors. Still doesn't seem super practical. Nor is the storage or use of all that captured carbon? I mean in theory this is great, but practically it's a bit hard to tell if this is doable technologically. On the other hand there are things which are (purely technically) easier to achieve and more efficient, like wetlands and peatlands (and that also goes for peat forrests, so yes trees) e.g. [3] The numbers are so huge that trying to make sure they don't degrade or aren't converted into farmland or sucked dry and trying to (re)create them by introducing or restoring wetlands to their original form, this seems like something which is actually worth it. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do, I'm aware such land isn't super popular nor practically useful, and maybe I'm missing something else, but it really looks like if you have the choice to either go plant trees somewhere or somehow try to protect peatland, the latter wins when it comes to sequestration. [1] https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.pdf https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.p... [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-... [3] https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl...
- quiet_cool 4y ago
  [dead]
- thinkcontext 4y ago
  > It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale I'd say this is losing the forest for the trees. An individual tree doesn't matter, what matters is a durable ecosystem. Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. Thousands of tons of carbon will remain in the plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms and soil as long as the forest stands though the individuals will die. It could be there 10 years or 10,000 years, depends on how long the ecosystem is maintained.

by chasil 4y ago

rcme 4y ago

How is the CO2 sequestered? That is conspicuously missing from that marketing blog post.

chasil 4y ago
In nature, the dying algae fall to the sea floor, and sequester the carbon there. An easy stimulant to this process is to dump powdered iron into an algal bloom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
- mikepurvis 4y ago
  I'd be interested to know more about the carbon cost of production for the powdered iron. I assume you could use scrap metal for this purpose, but scrap metal is already pretty recyclable as I understand it.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    I don't think pure iron would work because it's not soluble - what people use are iron sulfates which are minerals that occur naturally.
    - chmod775 4y ago
      Ferrous sulphate is available below $100 / ton and seems to already be used in large quantities for wastewater treatment. Doesn't seem hard to source if the same stuff will work for algae.
      - mikepurvis 4y ago
        Okay neat— the WP page for it mentions it being produced at least in part as a byproduct of steel production: "In the finishing of steel prior to plating or coating, the steel sheet or rod is passed through pickling baths of sulfuric acid. This treatment produces large quantities of iron(II) sulfate as a by-product." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28II%29_sulfate#Production_and_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28II%29_sulfate#Productio... So I guess that explains why it's so inexpensive, but of course as with many such things (natural gas from oil production, whey from yogurt/cheese production, etc), once there's a robust market for the "byproduct", it can result in changing the original economics.
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  However, you run the risk of advantaging algae that produce high levels of toxin. Even non-toxic algae starts to do this when concentrated. Since iron fertilization only works far offshore, a lot of our industry has to hope that bloom doesn’t enter the food chain.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

>When used in bioreactors* When used in a sealed climate-controlled chamber that produces the ideal conditions on land for an aquatic plant specie. IIRC it's ridiculously expensive to scale algae bioreactors, while trees grow and maintain themselves. I wish algae was easier to scale because it does have great potential.

chasil 4y ago
Why don't we just scale them in the oceans?
- psadri 4y ago
  That might disturb the ocean ecosystem.
  - chasil 4y ago
    And these trees don't?
    - FourHand451 4y ago
      I think the larger point is that there isn't a simple, obvious, "Why don't we just do XYZ?" solution to the problems being discussed here.
    - psadri 4y ago
      I agree anything we do at scale will affect the ecosystem. However, restoring an ecosystem to a previous state seems less risky than changing oceans to a new state.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  [dead]
- schainks 4y ago
  Maintaining things sitting in the ocean is still expensive. You can’t send robots out, you must send humans. Oil rigs are worthwhile just because they can be turned on/off relatively easily depending on market conditions and when they are on, they mint so much money that expensive humans are a rounding error.

stinos 4y ago

It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale (e.g. [1]) and even if they weren't we'd need a lot of them (e.g. [2]). To the point one starts to wonder whether these so-called 'climate trees' (a term commonly used by some groups in my area) isn't just a product of lobby groups and/or people who don't know a lot about biology or ecosystems. A tree is of course a perfect 'climate excuse': easy to plant a tree, easy to think you're doing something for the climate. Now, the part about needing a lot of them is also true for these bioreactors. Still doesn't seem super practical. Nor is the storage or use of all that captured carbon? I mean in theory this is great, but practically it's a bit hard to tell if this is doable technologically. On the other hand there are things which are (purely technically) easier to achieve and more efficient, like wetlands and peatlands (and that also goes for peat forrests, so yes trees) e.g. [3] The numbers are so huge that trying to make sure they don't degrade or aren't converted into farmland or sucked dry and trying to (re)create them by introducing or restoring wetlands to their original form, this seems like something which is actually worth it. I'm not saying it's the only thing to do, I'm aware such land isn't super popular nor practically useful, and maybe I'm missing something else, but it really looks like if you have the choice to either go plant trees somewhere or somehow try to protect peatland, the latter wins when it comes to sequestration. [1] https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.pdf https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/31440/1/gcb.15229.p... [2] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-need-offset-our-carbon-emissions https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-... [3] https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-cl...

quiet_cool 4y ago
[dead]
thinkcontext 4y ago
> It seems indeed rather futile to plant trees for carbon sequestration. Depends on the exact situation, but simply put trees are often almost carbon neutral and at a fairly smale timescale I'd say this is losing the forest for the trees. An individual tree doesn't matter, what matters is a durable ecosystem. Say a square kilometer of denuded farmland is converted to forest. Thousands of tons of carbon will remain in the plants, animals, fungi, microorganisms and soil as long as the forest stands though the individuals will die. It could be there 10 years or 10,000 years, depends on how long the ecosystem is maintained.