4 ms·

This writeup neither answers the essential question "where does the carbon wind up?", nor does it link to any more-clear original source or paper about the desc

by gojomo 2y ago

This writeup neither answers the essential question "where does the carbon wind up?", nor does it link to any more-clear original source or paper about the described research that could answer that question. That leaves it so incomplete about its topic that the link should be replaced with a better one if possible.

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Given how little carbon there is in any practically accessible volume of air, a major obstacle in any atmosphere scrubbing project, it probably doesn't matter. This is likely better understood as a power source that absorbs a bit of CO2 rather than a CO2 scrubber that produces a bit of electricity.
- gojomo 2y ago
  Probably true, which is another knock against the article's professionalism. But even if the capture negligible, the negative-sign is still interesting - it's teased in the headline! And when a headline teases something, it owes us an explanation of where the carbon goes, a key part of the story to anyone with a middle-school-level understanding of 'carbon'. Barring nuclear reactions or alchemical magic, it's impossible that "its only byproduct is water". The carbon has to collect somewhere. Science journalism like this makes its readers dumber.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    May not only be the journalists at fault. The scientists (and their university) have a vested interest in hyping up the potential in their work.
evandrofisico 2y ago
As it is usual with ALL plants, the carbon is usually used to build plant matter. So the algae in the cells are certainly reproducing, which brings the question of algae growth management. This system can not operate as a closed loop cell, it must continually have water cycled in and excess algae cycled out.
- gojomo 2y ago
  Agreed that's the likely explanation. My objection is that the article elides this, and is false on its facial claim that "its only byproduct is water".
jszymborski 2y ago
Well it ends up as algae cell body mass, which in turn makes more algae, which makes more electricity etc... The problem isn't where the C goes, it's the dismal efficiency

by gojomo 2y ago

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Given how little carbon there is in any practically accessible volume of air, a major obstacle in any atmosphere scrubbing project, it probably doesn't matter. This is likely better understood as a power source that absorbs a bit of CO2 rather than a CO2 scrubber that produces a bit of electricity.

gojomo 2y ago
Probably true, which is another knock against the article's professionalism. But even if the capture negligible, the negative-sign is still interesting - it's teased in the headline! And when a headline teases something, it owes us an explanation of where the carbon goes, a key part of the story to anyone with a middle-school-level understanding of 'carbon'. Barring nuclear reactions or alchemical magic, it's impossible that "its only byproduct is water". The carbon has to collect somewhere. Science journalism like this makes its readers dumber.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  May not only be the journalists at fault. The scientists (and their university) have a vested interest in hyping up the potential in their work.

evandrofisico 2y ago

As it is usual with ALL plants, the carbon is usually used to build plant matter. So the algae in the cells are certainly reproducing, which brings the question of algae growth management. This system can not operate as a closed loop cell, it must continually have water cycled in and excess algae cycled out.

gojomo 2y ago
Agreed that's the likely explanation. My objection is that the article elides this, and is false on its facial claim that "its only byproduct is water".

jszymborski 2y ago

Well it ends up as algae cell body mass, which in turn makes more algae, which makes more electricity etc... The problem isn't where the C goes, it's the dismal efficiency