[HN Gopher] Amazon funds seaweed farming at offshore wind farm t...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon funds seaweed farming at offshore wind farm to test CO2
capture
Author : Logans_Run
Score : 58 points
Date : 2023-02-17 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (maritime-executive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (maritime-executive.com)
| baron816 wrote:
| There's a type of seaweed you can feed to cows that eliminate
| their methane emissions, right? Something like 30% of water in
| the Western US goes to farming cattle feed. If you managed to
| replace that cattle feed with efficiently grown seaweed, couldn't
| you kill two birds with one stone? Three if you replace that
| farmland with solar farms.
| orev wrote:
| Growing seaweed is significantly more expensive than growing
| cattle feed (i.e. corn), and corn farming is heavily subsidized
| by the US taxpayers. Corn fields also have the advantage that
| they can be very close to the fields where cattle are, so you
| don't need to transport the feed as far as you would from the
| ocean (which would itself emit CO2).
|
| The methane reduction benefits also happen when only a small
| portion of the feed is replaced with seaweed, so it's not the
| whole diet that becomes seaweed.
| myshpa wrote:
| Your comment is funny.
|
| > growing seaweed ... more expensive than growing cattle feed
| ... heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers ... corn fields
| have the advantage ... can be very close to the fields where
| cattle are
|
| a] there's no other food that's worse from the climate and
| environment standpoint than beef & dairy [0][1]
|
| b] transport is usually a tiny fraction of food's carbon
| footprint ... "eat local" is ruse & big ag propaganda [2]
|
| c] seaweed is more expensive than corn because of subsidies?
| so take those subsidies from one of the most destructive
| industries and give it to seaweed. even if it's expensive
| now, it's because we plant corn and not grow seaweed. if more
| people would grow seaweed, the price would go down. there's
| no reason why it should be expensive other than there is more
| demand than supply now.
|
| d] big cost of those corn fields and pastures is
| deforestation and land use change, a factor which is often
| undercounted and overlooked [1]
|
| e] about 70% of seaweed naturally sinks to the bottom of the
| sea ... so even if we wouldn't be able to eat and use it all,
| it still make sense to grow it [3]
|
| [0] https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use [2]
| https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local [3]
| https://phys.org/news/2019-08-seaweed-deep-carbon.html
| myshpa wrote:
| Replace that farmland with forests. Why?
|
| - we've cut those forests to have fields & pastures
|
| - protect biodiversity
|
| - stop extinction of wildlife
|
| - capture co2
|
| - capture water, replenish ground water
|
| - biotic pump effect
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump]
|
| - stop droughts and dust storms
|
| - stop desertification
|
| Why not solar fields?
|
| An area of 254 km x 254 km (64516 km2) would be enough to meet
| the total electricity demand of the world [0]. We use 37 mil.
| km2 for animal agriculture [1].
|
| [0]
| https://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/inst...
| (page 25)
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
| [deleted]
| slt2021 wrote:
| Has anyone evaluated warmer oceans and proliferation of
| zooplankton in capturing carbon?
|
| High CO2 => global warming => warming of the ocean =>
| proliferation of zooplankton => zooplankton captures carbon and
| cools down planet
|
| https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-marine-010...
| oa335 wrote:
| On a related note, Freeman Dyson mentions that an 1/10th of an
| inch per year of topsoil to the Earths area that currently has
| soil, would sequester all the carbon all the carbon we release
| each year.
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=8xFLjUt2leM see around minute 13.
| tuatoru wrote:
| To have more zooplankton, you need more phytoplankton, which
| are constrained by Liebig's Law of the Minimum.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum
| strstr wrote:
| Wouldn't this not be carbon capture if the end product is
| biodegradable? Naively, I'd expect this to be carbon neutral at
| best.
| efsavage wrote:
| I get your point, "biodegradable" is not necessarily indicating
| the end state, but I think it's generally a better idea than
| using previously sequestered carbon like oil (depending on the
| energy needed to produce useful goods, and the source of that
| energy). As a related example, anything made of wood is
| biodegradable, but if you then burn it, you're not really
| capturing any net carbon, although you are sequestering it for
| a period of time.
| shaoonb wrote:
| Is it easier to capture carbon from decomposition than directly
| from the atmosphere? If so that could be how this works.
| flexiflex wrote:
| Why? carbon goes into the seaweed, seaweed gets turned into
| bioplastic which contains that carbon. Bioplastic is used and
| then discarded into a composter. Composter degrades the
| bioplastic, the carbon (and other nutrients) are in the compost
| that is created?
| cjensen wrote:
| Composting does not sequester carbon. Yes it would replace
| mineral carbon, but that is not what sequester means.
| [deleted]
| bequanna wrote:
| Isn't this more a question of how long the carbon is
| "sequestered" before it mostly biodegrades?
|
| How quickly does the seaweed biodegrade? Over weeks, years?
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Capturing CO2 and then what...burying it deep underground?
|
| If you're keeping it above ground, it's just going to biodegrade
| into carbon again real quick. I don't get why people think this
| is a thing. The only exception is lumber, because if you keep it
| dry it can last 100+ years (which is a fairly decent
| sequestration target given our current timelines).
|
| If you're going from capture to release in 5-10 years, I don't
| see the point.
| kulahan wrote:
| Colorado is experimenting with burning this stuff to create
| electricity and "biochar", which they then want to bury in
| defunct-but-uncapped oil wells, keeping it out of the air for
| potentially thousands of years. We could grow all this, then
| burn it, then bury the pollution. Also, it can be used for
| animal feed. A small amount of seaweed added to a cow's diet
| massively reduces the amount of methane they sell. Lots of
| options here, and it would be a waste of money to just... not
| use the seaweed for anything
| nwiswell wrote:
| > A small amount of seaweed added to a cow's diet massively
| reduces the amount of methane they sell.
|
| Beggar thy heifer!
| pomian wrote:
| The biochar can be very useful to add to farm land, prairie
| soil that has become more basic (saltier) especially due to
| lower water tables. Shipping spreading costs a factor.
| rtev wrote:
| This is all just a scam run by Big Cow to get some tasty
| Asian flavors in the trough.
| fredrikholm wrote:
| While this group appears to want to use the seaweed as a
| commodity, often the point of seaweed CO2 capture is to let it
| sink to the bottom of the ocean, where for a number of reasons
| (pressure, temperature, lack of sunlight) degradation takes a
| very long time.
|
| Don't remember the article(s), but a problem was guaranteeing
| that it actually reached the bottom, which it didn't always do
| (thus making it difficult to calculate exact numbers to compare
| with costs).
| AstixAndBelix wrote:
| Can't wait to capture all the CO2 and bury it underground so it
| becomes oil again in millions of years and our descendants can
| too enjoy the wonders of petrol combustion all over again!
| orthecreedence wrote:
| You're joking, but we may be the second or third iteration of
| intelligent species that has gone through this already on
| Earth. Geological timescales are so large that any evidence
| of these species would have come and gone in what is
| effectively the blink of an eye.
|
| Maybe trilobytes drove F350 Superduties.
| DennisP wrote:
| We do have solid evidence of a natural nuclear reactor a
| billion years ago, so probably the trilobites didn't
| achieve nuclear power.
| countvonbalzac wrote:
| What are you talking about? What natural nuclear reactor?
| teraflop wrote:
| I guess you're being sarcastic, but postponing the worst
| effects of climate change from "now" to "millions of years
| from now" would be an enormous win.
| DennisP wrote:
| And with any luck, our descendants millions of years from
| now will be running on fusion power, throughout our solar
| system and around a bunch of nearby stars.
| Logans_Run wrote:
| Why not use it as fertilizer?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaweed_fertiliser
|
| Given the area of the trials (North Sea) I would be hesitant to
| eat it but on plants in place of oil based sources? Would that
| work / be safe?
| di456 wrote:
| Is the salt content low enough? Too much salt can make soil
| infertile.
| ggm wrote:
| Scottish farmers fertilised their fields with seaweed and
| fishguts for centuries. Burnt seaweed ash was also used I
| believe, a by product of chemical extraction (seaweed and
| rhubarb were functionally "industrial" plants, use as food
| followed on. Plants like madder were for dye, rushes and
| flax for their obvious uses in construction and fabric)
| myshpa wrote:
| We could also eat the stuff.
|
| > https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/seaweed-healthy-
| nutriti...
|
| Generally, 1 cup (15 grams) of seaweed provides you with:
| Calories: 45 Protein: 5 grams Fat: 1 gram
| Carbs: 8 grams Fiber: 1 gram Folate: 13% of the
| daily value (DV) Riboflavin: 22% of the DV
| Thiamin: 15% of the DV Copper: 56% of the DV
| Iron: 21% of the DV Magnesium: 17% of the DV
|
| ... seaweed is a great plant source of vitamin B12, a vitamin
| naturally found in meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy. ... seaweed
| is a rich source of antioxidants
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Right, and that's fantastic, but that's not sequestering
| carbon. That's growing food.
| ggm wrote:
| Displacement is useful, albeit mischaracterized.
| Semaphor wrote:
| But we do? It's just really expensive, price per kj wise.
| Especially roasted seaweed, which is delicious.
| david_allison wrote:
| It's great for weight loss - low calorie and filling
| Semaphor wrote:
| I'll have to disagree on the filling, I think I could eat
| kilograms of it ;)
| johndunne wrote:
| The project is to test the feasibility of using seaweed to
| sequester carbon from the atmosphere. If we use the seaweed to,
| for example, create biodegradable plastic, then over time that
| plastic may release the captured carbon back into the
| atmosphere. But if the time is, let's say, 10 years, that's 10
| years carbon is locked out of the atmosphere. Additionally, the
| plastics created this way may be replacing plastic that has a
| net contribution of carbon to the atmosphere in its production.
| And on the scale humanity uses plastics, adjusting our
| behaviour this way, could mean a significant amount of carbon
| being locked out of the atmosphere continuously as more of this
| seaweed plastic is used.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| > And on the scale humanity uses plastics, adjusting our
| behaviour this way, could mean a significant amount of carbon
| being locked out of the atmosphere continuously as more of
| this seaweed plastic is used.
|
| Ok, that makes sense. I guess I was forgetting the scale that
| this could be operated over. If this truly does replace
| plastics continuously then I suppose that would be a huge
| temporary win for sequestration.
| chaps wrote:
| Seaweed put into cattle feed also significantly reduces
| methane release!
| jvanderbot wrote:
| This may also operate like old growth forest, in that it
| will cause an ecosystem to spring up that will capture a
| big amount of carbon just to build itself, then will
| essentially be sequestered until someone cuts it down and
| burns it.
|
| Or we make coal or something from the seaweed and have
| closed cycle fuels.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210302094053.
| h...
| shmoejoe wrote:
| Probably just capturing the extra CO2 that will go back into the
| atmosphere now that they're making us come back into the office
|
| -_____-
| warning26 wrote:
| Commuting can be completely carbon free if you live near the
| office.
| ecshafer wrote:
| You are correct. And personally, if I lived a 10-15 minute
| walk from the office I would go every day. Unfortunately,
| much of the world (and especially the US) is not designed for
| such a lifestyle. Even NYC most likely involves riding a bus
| or subway for 30 minutes or more.
| kurthr wrote:
| Is this based on a special diet? Even walking burns
| calories... I mean a lot less than moving at 60mph, but still
| those groceries had to get to the city center somehow, and
| the fertilizer didn't make itself.
| 8note wrote:
| If you're counting that, the efficiencies of using all the
| electricity to communicate and heat/cool your home because
| you're in it also matter
| kurthr wrote:
| Well, I was responding to a comment only about commuting,
| but yes. Housing costs and the energy (including direct
| construction, for those who made it and profited from it,
| and maintenance/heat etc) used are enormous. It's 30-40%
| of most people's budget both $ and Carbon. If you're
| living in a $1M+ house to avoid $10k worth of annual
| commuting the environmental savings may not be worth it.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Yes, sacrifice your lifestyle, raise no family, give up your
| desires and get back to offices. Hopefully people considering
| tech as a job understand why these companies pay well - it's
| not because they value people's talent it's because they want
| total ownership of them. Sit at your desk, work and be
| contempt. Burn out and shut up. Either avoid such
| corporations or simply avoid tech if you wish for a better
| standard of living. This is not the 80s and an office job is
| not the only good paying career.
| kulahan wrote:
| The best tech companies I worked for all understood the
| importance of employees maintaining a good WLB.
|
| Getting back to the main point, Microsoft uses buses for
| getting employees to work. You can just drive to a pickup
| spot and "carpool" in
| gumballindie wrote:
| Indeed, factories do provide such buses.
| carapace wrote:
| I was just rereading an old but still interesting article about
| something similar yet totally different, the "Green Wave" ocean
| farming project.
|
| https://medium.com/invironment/an-army-of-ocean-farmers-on-t...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11410650
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-17 23:00 UTC)