21–30 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or worse, multiple faster than algaes and sucking up all the Nitrogen from thr air.
Nitrogen is inert. Even if you could run out of N2 (unlikely), it would have no effect.
If you remove all nitrogen from atmosphere, there WILL be consequences
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or worse, multiple faster than algaes and sucking up all the Nitrogen from thr air.
Nitrogen is inert. Even if you could run out of N2 (unlikely), it would have no effect.
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or worse, multiple faster than algaes and sucking up all the Nitrogen from thr air.
Removing the nitrogen bottleneck would let them capture carbon faster. Given our predicament I'd say we should take all the help we get.
We don't want a Great Decarbonification Event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nitrogen is inert. Even if you could run out of N2 (unlikely), it would have no effect.
That's wrong, the fact that is inert doesn't mean it's useless If you remove all nitrogen from atmosphere, there WILL be consequences
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
This has been going on for 100m years. I doubt we are in any urgent danger.
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
> In this novel originally published in 1923, as denitrifying bacteria inimical to plant growth spreads around the world, toppling civilizations and threatening to wipe out humankind, the British plutocrat Nordenholt sets himself up as the benignant dictator of a ruthlessly efficient, entirely undemocratic, survivalist colony established in Scotland's Clyde Valley.
Using this to reduce the need for fertilizer would be awesome, but the engineer in me has to ask “What could possibly go wrong”. Interstellar showed one scenario. A nitrogen absorbing crop-blight or species out-evolving out food crops and overtaking them. With far more fuel the odds would be in favor of species that can consume nitrogen, and how do you keep those at bay when it happens?
This has been going on for 100m years. I doubt we are in any urgent danger.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
Albert Allen Bartlett
It could cause our starvation well before we could respond effectively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's wrong, the fact that is inert doesn't mean it's useless If you remove all nitrogen from atmosphere, there WILL be consequences
Current planes will not be able to fly since they will lose 70% of lift. They will grow gigantic wings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has been going on for 100m years. I doubt we are in any urgent danger.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." Albert Allen Bartlett If there is even a 0.001% chance of an organism with this artificially tacked on to it getting in to the wild, the experiment is not worth anything to be potentially learned from it. It could cause our starvation well before we could respond effectively.