top | item 36247709

(no title)

rjtc | 2 years ago

Most of the ocean is desert lacking the limiting nutrients of nitrogen, phosphorous and iron. If we can cheaply fertilize large swathes of the ocean with these limiting nutrients in a controlled manner, then this could trigger massive algae blooms that on sinking sequester massive amounts of carbon.

discuss

order

sacnoradhq|2 years ago

It doesn't take an unreasonable amount of iron and the sequestering efficiency is 13k:1 C:Fe on a molar basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

euroderf|2 years ago

Do you mean rather: 1:13k Fe:C

From that Wikipedia item,

"Each iron atom converted at least 13,000 carbon atoms into algae."

ravenstine|2 years ago

Would we have to continually fertilize the ocean? And at whose expense? It'd be great if such an operation could be profitable, but it there's only so much seaweed people can eat.

analog31|2 years ago

Unfortunately, fertilizer presently has a large carbon footprint

ben_w|2 years ago

Many crop fertilisers have that issue, but fertiliser is not only one thing.

One hypothesis is that algae are limited by some single resource which could be gradually dropped out the back of cargo ships as they cross oceans, seeding carbon-absorbing algal blooms as they go.

(I heard about this nearly 20 years ago, so I assume that has either been tested or banned since then…)

fosk|2 years ago

Can’t fertilizer production emission be compartimentalized?

rjtc|2 years ago

it depends on the final balance. As mentioned above the ratio for iron is 13k Carbon atoms sequestered for atom of iron.

Keep in mind the vast majority of agricultural yield growth the last century is giving these limiting nutrients as fertilizer for plants, so it is successful and worthwhile for land based farming atleast.