Can We Make Oceans Absorb More Carbon Dioxide with a Giant Antacid? (msn.com)
- Reference: 0175825733
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/01/04/0318212/can-we-make-oceans-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide-with-a-giant-antacid
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/science/ecology/how-an-antacid-for-the-ocean-could-cool-the-earth/ar-AA1wTU4h
Climate ventures and philanthropic funders have been spending millions of dollars to find out, [1]reports the Washington Post . "Researchers have been exploring this technology for the last five years, but over the last two months, at least a couple of start-ups have begun operation along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts."
> Planetary, a start-up based in Nova Scotia, removed 138 metric tons of carbon last month for Shopify and Stripe. The start-up Ebb Carbon is running a small site in Washington that can remove up to 100 carbon metric tons per year and committed in October to remove 350,000 metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere over the next decade for Microsoft.
>
> Proponents of the technology say it's one of the most promising forms of carbon removal, which experts say will be necessary to meet climate goals even as the world cuts emissions. But in order for this to make a dent, it will need to be scaled up to remove billions, not hundreds of thousands, of metric tons of carbon per year, Yale associate professor of earth and planetary sciences Matthew Eisaman said... Removing carbon could also help prevent ocean acidification. Although the ocean's chemistry has varied through geologic time, it has become more acidic as it has absorbed more carbon from human-generated emissions, said Andy Jacobson, a geochemist at Northwestern University. The increased acidity makes it difficult for some marine organisms to build their skeletons and shells...
>
> Researchers are still investigating the best strategy to implement the method. Ebb Carbon, for example, takes existing saltwater waste streams from treatment and desalination plants and uses electricity to alkalize it before returning it to the ocean, said Eisaman, who is the start-up's co-founder and chief scientist. Another method is depositing alkaline minerals or solution into the ocean using a ship; others want to enhance the rock weathering that already occurs on the coast...
>
> [2]The growing evidence from early studies in labs and controlled outdoor settings suggest no serious impacts on plankton, which are at the bottom of the food web.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/science/ecology/how-an-antacid-for-the-ocean-could-cool-the-earth/ar-AA1wTU4h
[2] https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/20/4669/2023/
Re: (Score:3)
>> The growing evidence from early studies in labs and controlled outdoor settings suggest no serious impacts on plankton, which are at the bottom of the food web.
> If they're wrong, and the method they use to accomplish this is successful and expanded many times, won't that pretty much doom all life on the planet?
If there is anything to be upset about it is making mention of a "bottom" to a "food web". I remember as a student many years ago how the idea of a "food chain" was outdated since that implied a "top" and "bottom" while in reality it's more a "circle of life" where any apex predator would eventually become food for insects and bacteria, thus creating a "web" that connected itself into something of a sphere than a "chain" that had a top and bottom.
If this is a successful process to remove CO2 from the air t
But it's so big?! (Score:2)
We can't change the sky because it's so huge... we can't be causing global warming... etc. Then it's the sky is so vast it would cost too much to change it so give up....
So the larger oceans with their relatively extreme density is something we can engineer and do so affordably? Even so, if you think the risk to geo-engineering the sky is great, then it's earth shattering to think of messing with the oceans...where our O2 largely comes from.
Also, when we kill everything the remaining life will evolve back
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in general tinkering with the ocean - colossally bad idea. And specifically, trying to titrate the ocean's pH would be a disaster. The ocean, just like our bodies, is very sensitive to pH changes, and you couldn't just change a tiny amount in the whole ocean at once. You would cause huge gradients that might never resolve, destroying whole swaths of ocean. The earth is not a beaker on a stir plate!
Re:But it's so big?! (Score:4, Insightful)
And specifically, trying to titrate the ocean's pH would be a disaster.
Not really. The thing is affecting the ocean pH is a ridiculously infeasible thought. At best you could create small regions where the pH of the water is slightly increased temporarily.
Even if we were to drop all the Calcium carbonate powder the human race has access to; the pH of the ocean will not change, and the alkalized fluid will rapidly diffuse reversing the pH change entirely or almost entirely.
Also, the energy consumed performing the tasks intended to try to alkalize the ocean is likely to result in releasing more CO2 in a greater amount than any increase of dissolved CO2 in ocean water caused by the dumping.
Re: (Score:3)
> Also, the energy consumed performing the tasks intended to try to alkalize the ocean is likely to result in releasing more CO2 in a greater amount than any increase of dissolved CO2 in ocean water caused by the dumping.
Came here to say pretty much this. In general the source of the problem is that, when it comes to global warming, we keep trying to spend our way out of debt instead of sucking it up and tightening our belts several notches.
As long as our economy and our entire way of life are predicated on limitless growth, we'll be continuing to drive hard and fast toward the edge of the cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
Move fast and break things! That's what you get when tech bros are in charge. Who gives a shit if it's the oceans that get broken, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately part of the problem is that we HAVE BEEN tinkiering with the ocean's pH. That we haven't been doing it intentionally doesn't alter the fact that that was what we were doing.
OTOH, an "carbon removal" project is going to require stopping the addition of more CO2 to have any effect, because it's a lot cheaper to not add the CO2 in the first place than it is to remove it. So right no these "research projects" are only given prominence in order to decrease the pressure to stop adding more. So cu
More Research Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
> The growing evidence from early studies in labs and controlled outdoor settings suggest no serious impacts on plankton, which are at the bottom of the food web.
"Suggests" is not good enough. We need to know with some high degree of certainty that this will not have a serious impact on plankton before anyone thinks of doing this on a large scale. Removing CO2 at the cost of crashing the marine ecosystem is not a good trade off.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just plankton, but also shellfish and corals. Many plankton have silicate shells, so those likely wouldn't be excessively sensitive to acidity.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean ignore incomplete climate models when billions of dollars of profits are at stake, something that is continued to this day. And "incomplete" here doesn't mean wrong, climate models are not wrong, just not exactly right.
But your post is probably good enough for a paycheck, right comrade AC?
"...not to mention human lives hung in the balance."
What human lives, the ones destroyed by ignoring climate models because they are "incomplete"?
Science is Incomplete (Score:2)
> Why? It was good enough to use incomplete climate models
You wrote your reply relying on devices built using an incomplete model of physics and yet it clearly worked absolutely fine. Just because a model is incomplete does not mean that it is not correct in a wide variety of circumstances. The question here is how well can we trust a model's predictions. For the climate it is clear that humans are having a significant impact in warming the planet and at a rate that is much faster than any natural process. That it is enough for me to indicate that we have to do s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what I think of this idea, but there are certainly potential positive aspects.
The article says it "could also help prevent ocean acidification". The ocean's pH level dropped from 8.15 in 1950 to 8.05 in 2020. Acidification might reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, but also negatively affects marine ecosystems threatening fishing, coral reefs, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
> The article says it "could also help prevent ocean acidification". The ocean's pH level dropped from 8.15 in 1950 to 8.05 in 2020. Acidification might reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, but also negatively affects marine ecosystems threatening fishing, coral reefs, etc...
The lower the pH of the sea drops the more rapid erosion of minerals in the sea becomes.
In the sea is a lot of volcanic rock, some of this rock is something called basalt. Basalt is rich in CaO, the same minerals that make up the shells of shellfish. The concern is that the more CO2 dissolved in the sea means more shellfish have their shells dissolved. There's a lot of basalt in the sea, and more is introduced with every volcanic eruption in or near the sea. There must be some kind of equilibrium in thi
what could possibly go wrong? (Score:3)
Congratulations Shopify. and oh fuck Stripe.
No "serious" impact on plankton? The food that all ocean life consumes... very well thought out... carry on
I bet you want to grow that business. Why don't you sign up Amazon and really make a difference...
Who needs oceans? it's just a bunch of water after all.
just in case /s
Re: what could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
TUM, TUM-TUM-TUM TUMS!
No need for all this nonsense (Score:3)
In the time it will take to see if this is even feasible, let alone the tremendous cost to get to that point, all we need to do is drop an ice cube in the ocean every now and then. Thus [1]solving the problem once and for all [youtube.com].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you say that. I have been working on fee energy devices for many years now. Sure, I am in poverty, but I can exercise my brain, thinking about magnetic fields... and many other things. Being poor is not so bad either, it gives me the opportunity to walk. I write software, and characterize devices, I am where I dreamed I would be as a child. I am doing it. There is some sideway type of thinking that can get free energy, and I am working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness, the fate of the human race is secure. Which is huger, your brain or your leg muscles?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and probably a few other sources don't necessarily release CO2. But I think the energy considerations here are large enough that we wouldn't be able to do it.
Certainly it's going to be cheaper to stop CO2 emissions than it is to remove them from the environment, where' they've become less concentrated.
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, given enough electric power the materials should be recyclable. But it's true that as you need to recycle more materials you need to use more power to do so, especially for those that have become dispersed.
Your estimate of the "source of the power" is probably correct at the current time, unfortunately. That, however, is a political and economic decision, not a technical one. (I agree with you that the politics and economics are such that this would be mainly "lipstick on a pig".)
The carbon capture industry.. (Score:3)
is actively scanning the Merry Melodies archives for ACME ideas on how to make a buck off "solving" global warming..
Yet another: Do anything but protect/conserve (Score:3)
Every month we see here, another battery advancement dream--and another scheme to make no change in our habits to protect the environment, which we are part of.
Re: (Score:2)
The oil companies spread billions of dollars for propaganda every year. They have money coming out of their ears. It is wrong, it is bad, but it is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
As a planet we're not only a million miles from net zero but our rate of the amount of emissions we release is still increasing. Unless you can figure out a way to get the developing world top stop increasing emissions right this second we're going to need tech like this.
Idiocy-better not release than remove... (Score:5, Insightful)
Removing will always be more costly and problematic than not putting CO2 into atmosphere in the first place...
Not mentioning potential unforeseen side-effects.
Also so far, almost all CO2-removal and storage is a scam or so costly it does not make sense...
Re: (Score:2)
If I was not posting on this topic, I would vote you up.
The "growing evidence"? (Score:2)
"The growing evidence from early studies in labs and controlled outdoor settings suggest no serious impacts on plankton, which are at the bottom of the food web."
How is the one cited study "growing evidence"? They looked at "six species representing several globally important phytoplankton species" and did not claim any conclusions outside those specific species. You'd think regarding something of such monumental importance, the term "growing evidence" would be more appropriately used.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall, there is some type of a rock that is plentiful in the earth. It bonds with CO2 and will grab it and precipitate to the bottom of the ocean. We can extract that, spread it on the oceans. Then it may mitigate the problems with global warming. I am thinking more simply though, get off of your fat asses, walk a bit, be a simple person, and the problem won't be there to be mitigated.
Yes (Score:2)
With enough material and time you can change the chemistry of the ocean. We've already proven it through the atmosphere.
What will be the carbon footprint of (Score:2)
Making billions of tonnes of this "antacid"?
Terrible is my bet.
It is agreed then, global change exists. (Score:2)
The POTUS on Jan 20 does not think that global change exists. It is not a problem. Being in denial is convenient. All posters on this thread seems to think it does exist.
Do you mean "enhanced weathering"? (Score:2)
I've heard ideas like this before but the parties involved called it "enhanced weathering", often specifically in reference to some kind of mechanical extraction of basalt for one use or another.
It took me a bit to remember the guy's name but as I recall the first time I heard of this idea was from something I read from Dr. Darryl Siemer something like a decade ago. He's written some academic papers, and at least one book, advocating for the mining of basalt to sequester carbon. Basalt is a mineral that c
Re: (Score:2)
> The sea is an international resource and so dumping anything into the sea could bring international outrage and sanctions.
Third world country plastic.
No outrage/sanctions yet?
Re: (Score:2)
> Third world country plastic.
> No outrage/sanctions yet?
Ah, but you see only wealthy White Jewish/Christian heterosexual males can do wrong, everyone else are only pawns to their schemes. In the Third World are poor people with dark skin, and not of Judeo-Christian faith, which means they have little to no ability to act of their own free will. I'd work in some way to add females and homosexuals into this equation but in this part of the world it is typical to see females kept in the home and homosexuals are killed.
I'm being only half serious but there is a lo
Can We? (Score:2)
No. We can't.
Also we shouldn't attempt it. We'll screw something up.
Using an electrochemical process on the waste streams of ocean water processing plants, such as bipolar membrane electrodialysis (BMED) to increase alkalinity is a real band-aid solution if I ever saw one. You temporarily reduce ocean acidity, then more CO2 dissolves and your find a new equilibrium.
But without a buffer or without a long-term process to chemically react with the dissolved CO2 and lay down calcium carbonate deposits, you're j
once we have a few extra planets... (Score:2)
When we have some extra planets to screw around with, we definitely can use one to experiment on. But we get just the one, and doing planet-scale science to try to unfuck ourselves is ridiculous. We will figure out if it was a bad idea only after something goes horribly wrong.
Oh sure (Score:2)
Sure, let's tinker with the ocean's chemistry, what could possibly go wrong?
So release sediment trapped by dams? (Score:2)
Over 1 billion metric tons of sediment is trapped behind the world's dams every year. We don't need climate startups to grind rock and ship it out to sea, we just need to change our dams so that some water flows from the bottom of each lake.
350,000 metric tons of carbon? (Score:2)
That'll put a dent in the 36.6 billion tons of carbon we put into the atmosphere in 2023 alone.
Re: 350,000 metric tons of carbon? (Score:2)
From TFS:
But in order for this to make a dent, it will need to be scaled up to remove billions, not hundreds of thousands, of metric tons of carbon per year, Yale associate professor of earth and planetary sciences Matthew Eisaman said...
Re: (Score:2)
TFS is wrong as Berkyjay points out -- it's tens of billions of tons, not billions. And that's just to break even with current yearly emissions. We're going to do that how?
Re: (Score:2)
> the 36.6 billion tons of carbon we put into the atmosphere in 2023
According to the IEA; "CO2 emissions reached a new record high of 37.4 Gt in 2023".
3.67 tons of carbon dioxide has one ton of carbon. So the fraction of actual carbon is about 10 billion tons. Still quite a large amount.
[1]https://www.iea.org/reports/co... [iea.org]
[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/emissions-grew-in-2023-but-clean-energy-is-limiting-the-growth
Re: (Score:2)
Thx for the clarification