ALT: a man wearing a harvard sweatshirt looks to the side

The existence of massive, elliptical galaxies in the early universe has puzzled astronomers for two decades. An international team led by Nikolaus Sulzenauer and Axel Weiß from the Max Planck Institut...

James Webb Space Telescope found unusual chemical signatures in galaxy GS 3073, leading to discovery of monster stars soon after the Big Bang.

The political and media classes that once venerated Mandelson and are now cutting him adrift are the same ones that spent five years destroying Corbyn

Shared via Copilot

Letters: The suffragettes aimed to kill no one, writes June Purvis, while Helen Keating pays tribute to Dame Ethel Smyth

It's a promising concept with real potential, especially for problematic wild blooms like Sargassum, but it's not a simple "set it and forget it" solution. The core idea—harvesting floating seaweed (macroalgae) that has already absorbed CO₂ via photosynthesis, processing it to sink, and sequestering the carbon on the deep seafloor—aligns with established ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) research. It leverages "free" solar-powered growth and could provide co-benefits like beach cleanup. However, it faces uncertainties around net carbon removal, ecological risks, verification, and scalability. Energy-wise, the process is feasible with green energy and does not require more than renewables can reasonably supply. Why the Carbon Sequestration Part Works in Theory Seaweeds like Sargassum (the main "bloom" species in question) or kelp fix carbon rapidly through photosynthesis. Sinking the biomass quickly to depths >1,000–3,000 m can keep much of that carbon out of contact with the atmosphere for centuries (or longer if buried in sediments), as cold, high-pressure, low-oxygen conditions slow decay. For wild Sargassum blooms (a major nuisance in the Caribbean/Atlantic that washes ashore and releases CO₂ and methane as it rots), offshore harvesting before beaching prevents those emissions and turns a problem into sequestration. Some natural export to depth already occurs, but intentional rapid sinking increases the durable fraction. Models and proposals (e.g., from researchers at Lamont-Doherty and companies like SOS Carbon or Seafields) show this pathway can work, with estimates that purposeful sinking could enhance deep-ocean carbon storage. Densification (baling, compressing, or puncturing gas bladders) is straightforward mechanically—Sargassum floats due to air pockets, so processing makes it negatively buoyant so it sinks on its own. This is low-tech and low-energy compared to other CDR methods. Energy Feasibility: Low Input, High Leverage from "Free" Biology The energy demand is mainly for: Harvesting — Factory ships or specialized vessels with nets/conveyors to collect floating mats. Densification/processing — Onboard compression or baling. Transport/sinking — Moving to deep water and releasing. This is far less energy-intensive than direct air capture (which needs 1–2+ GJ per ton CO₂) or many chemical CDR approaches. The heavy lifting (carbon fixation) is done by sunlight and the seaweed itself. Small-to-medium harvesting boats (e.g., CleanCat-style vessels) can collect 500–1,000+ m³ of Sargassum per day using a few hundred horsepower outboards. Larger factory ships scale this up. Techno-economic studies of ship-based Sargassum collection (for fuel or other uses) show it drastically cuts costs compared to land-based alternatives, implying reasonable energy use per ton of biomass. Densification is mechanical (pumps, presses, conveyors) and can run on shipboard power. Current operations often use diesel, but this is decarbonizable: offshore wind, wave energy, hydrogen, ammonia, or even biomass-derived fuels from the seaweed itself could power the fleet. One NREL-linked analysis found that U.S. offshore renewable resources alone could theoretically support marine CDR removing up to 10 billion tons of CO₂ per year—orders of magnitude more than realistic deployment of this method. Net energy/carbon balance is favorable. Seaweed biomass has significant energy content (roughly 8 MJ/kg dry weight in some species). Even accounting for collection/processing, the "return" from solar-driven growth is high. Current farmed seaweed operations can be net emitters due to fossil-dependent supply chains, but wild-bloom harvesting skips much of the farming infrastructure and can be made net-positive with green power. For scale: optimistic models for farmed seaweed sinking put costs at ~$480–540 per tCO₂ in the best ocean areas for gigaton-scale removal (requiring large but feasible ocean areas). Wild harvesting is cheaper on the growth side. Green energy supply is not the bottleneck—logistics, permitting, and verification are. Important Caveats and Risks This is not proven at climate-relevant scales (hundreds of megatons to gigatons CO₂/yr). Key open questions include: Net additional removal — How much of the sunk carbon is truly "extra" (vs. what would have sunk naturally or been offset by ecosystem shifts)? Air-sea CO₂ uptake must be verified; models show competition with phytoplankton can reduce atmospheric drawdown. Permanence — Deep-sea storage can last centuries, but some carbon leaks back via circulation, dissolution, or consumption by organisms. Rapid sinking helps, but decay still releases some dissolved organic carbon. Ecological impacts — Large-scale sinking could deplete deep-ocean oxygen (creating hypoxia zones) and acidify local waters as biomass remineralizes. Removing Sargassum affects habitats for turtles, fish, and other species. Farming versions risk shading, nutrient shifts, or entanglement. Scale and logistics — Sargassum biomass is massive in peak years but variable. Gigaton removal would need enormous fleets and infrastructure—feasible regionally for bloom management, harder globally. Verification and accounting — Tracking the fate of carbon in the open ocean is extremely difficult; robust monitoring (eDNA, sensors, models) is still in early stages. Research frameworks from Ocean Visions, National Academies, and others call for controlled field trials to answer these before large deployment. Some scientists are skeptical about durability and side effects at scale. Bottom Line Yes, a good idea worth pursuing—particularly for turning harmful *Sargassum* blooms into a CDR asset. It uses natural biology efficiently, addresses a real environmental problem, and the energy requirements are modest and fully compatible with green energy (offshore renewables are an excellent match). It won't "solve" climate change alone and isn't ready for unchecked rollout, but targeted factory-ship operations in bloom hotspots could deliver verifiable benefits today while research scales up the approach responsibly. Pilot projects (e.g., harvesting + sinking in the Caribbean) are already being explored by researchers and startups. Supporting decarbonized operations and rigorous monitoring would make this a solid addition to the CDR toolkit. If you're interested in specifics (e.g., a particular region or company), more details are available from ongoing studies.

School leavers are being given a golden ticket into one of Britain's most skilled professions

ALT: a man in a green jacket is smiling in front of a stadium

Shed from the surfaces of astrocytes, “zombosomes” flit between cells, carrying proteins linked to disease