Comments by "Gaza is not Amalek" (@Ass_of_Amalek) on "Business Insider"
channel.
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@valoronions well so far it's just an idea with apparently a couple of people working on it. it can only become a sensation if it's proven to be feasible at scale. there certainly are complex problems to solve, such as how to deposit (maybe bury, but that would balloon the energy requirement) the seaweed in such a way and in the right locations that it ends up staying there basically forever, or most of its carbon content does in some form. it may also be difficult to assess the amount of methane still produced by any anaerobic partial decomposition involved in the process - too much methane production has the potential of making the whole endeavour worse for the climatethanburning thestuff wouldhave been (making and burying biochar instead would then be ideal, as that only releases part of the carbon).
but in principle, if much digging is not required, using sargassum sounds like a promising way to dramatically reduce energy requirements relative to most other carbon sequestration methods. it also seems very likely, based on its likely ease of mechanical handling because it's this uniform floating stuff, that it would require little work input to give the sargassum a carbon sequestration rate far greater than that of any fully natural ecosystem - it takes very particular circumstances for ecosystems to heavily sequester carbon by producing biomass that largely fails to decompose, such as fossil coal generation of the carboniferous caused by microorganisms not yet having evolved to digest lignin in wood, or bodies of water that were stagnant with an exceptionally salty layer at the bottom that prevented decomposition of falling biomass, or peat bogs which slowly grow thick layers of dead peat moss that is partially preserved by oxygen exclusion (and humic acid, I think). if the unusually large sargassum growth is the result of human-caused excessive fertilisation of the ocean, then removing the stuff from the nutrient circulation would likely be beneficial for the ocean ecosystem also. the decay of excessive biomas can damage aquatic ecosystems by depleting oxygen.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4