this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
222 points (99.1% liked)

science

27278 readers
237 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Bacteria grow on ants and fix atmospheric carbon to make a tough armor.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.21.700952v1.full

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago

I agree, but does that really inform proper carbon sequestration to combat climate change? It feels a bit like a stretch to make such a connection so early in a discovery/analysis.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 58 points 3 days ago (8 children)

So they take CO2 from the atmosphere and chemically transform it into solid materials that reduce greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?

Congratulations you have invented plants.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The plants then die and release that CO2

Turning it into a mineral means it won’t just be released

[–] FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca 42 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I think microbes are probably a lot easier, faster, and more cost effective to produce compared to plants. It can survive in harsh conditions and create rock from the C02 at a fast rate according to the article.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, one of the issues with plants is that they don't remove the CO2 from the cycle. It's only a temporary storage, unless you bury them in airtight containers, or do something else to process them. Coal was effectively permanently sequestered. A tree, when it decomposes or burns (also decomposition), the carbon is right back into the environment. Turning it into rock is effectively permanent, unless we decide to release it.

[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

Not only that, but they believe the active enzymes in the microbe can be optimized and engineered, then mixed into a liquid substrate. Becomes an enzyme-based CO2 filter with the byproduct of Calcium Carbonate, which can be used in concrete. The article talks about filling trucks with these and passing the emissions of coal-fired power plants through them.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

That would be an incredible innovation. You don't have to stop at coal either, it's just the dirtiest. Nat gas, trash, oil, wood and anything else burned on a huge scale could be curbed.

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Yep, you could even pepper the interstate highways of America with them and just let them passively eat the CO2 particles that cars are putting out.

[–] YoureHotCupCake@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What about all the farting that cows do?

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That's methane. And it's mostly from their poop, not farting.

It's a disaster. And that industru is also a major cause of deforestation.

We have to stop buying meat.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

IIRC, most of its from their mouth actually. They're ruminants, meaning they're fermenting their food in their multiple stomachs. This is where most of the Methane is produced, and the pressure is released through their mouths.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it's mostly their poop.

The "cow farts" and "cow burps" phrasing is used to downplay the seriousness of the issue.

Global animal agriculture produces enormous quantities of cow poop, which produces enormous quantities of methane, which is one of the biggest causes of the climate catastrophe.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

This says otherwise.

Anyway, yeah, I agree. It's all a distraction. I don't know how sayings it's poop helps. The problem is cattle farming produces a ton of methane. The details don't really matter.

[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

The trouble with cow farts is the methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas that eventually turns back into CO2 in the atmosphere anyway. Concentrated methane sources tend to either be captured for use as fuel, or flared with a burning flame to reduce the greenhouse effect (at which point carbon sequestering might work). Less concentrated sources, like livestock farts, can't really be dealr with in the same way.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sparkyshocks@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Read the article. They're hoping to mass manufacture the enzymes involved, which have the following advantages over carbon capture through plant life:

  • Can work in much harsher environments, with higher operating temperatures, pressures, and acidity.
  • Captures the carbon in calcium carbonate, which is more stable in retaining the carbon compared to decomposing plant matter.
  • Works much faster than plants do
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sounds like you want a peat bog

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It takes approximately a thousand years to form a meter of a peat bog. We don't have this much time unfortunately.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Right. Destroy all the coal plants yesterday and ban burning carbon

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (13 children)

Weeks instead of years. Could be big for assisting in the fight against climate change.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Plants eventually decompose, releasing the CO2. Rock generally doesn't have that problem

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Plants eventually decompose

On the scale of hundreds of years, thousands for some trees, tens of thousands plus if you sink fast growing trees deep in a cold sea. It is a thoroughly proven technology. If deployed at scale likely good enough to get us over the the hump to a renewables based technology without frying the Earth.

The problem is it's not actually profitable (pretty cheap though) like the tech in OP's article with patents and income streams (but only for fossil fuel energy generation). You'd think survival would be adequate motivation, but no.

More power to the people making this tech, everything is welcome, but if they're going to lock it behind patents for 20 years it's unlikely to be what is needed now.

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If they could create a plant that fits on a truck and can remove a ton of carbon a day then they’d have another crazy invention on their hands, this just does it and creates rock … damn.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Plants solid material is only temporary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago (5 children)

So reading through they think it can be used to eventually make huge filters they can use for coal plants and stuff like that.

If true this could be like whatever it was they found in Project Hail Mary that ends up saving the human race.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Ironically, it could be like the astroohage if it somehow spread on its own. The sun is dimming, so it's getting cooler, and fast. To counter this, they actually release a bunch of greenhouse gasses to keep things warm.

I wish the movie included this, because it makes it more clear it's all about climate change, and that the world needs to work together to solve the problem. Huge sacrifices need to be made, but we have to do it.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The thing they found in Project Hail Mary also happened to be the thing that was killing the human race.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait the stuff at the end?

He had a breach in his ship but fixed it and went back and saved Rocky and sent the samples of whatever it was that was eating the stuff that was destroying humans.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Spoilers:

spoilerAn interstellar microbe feeding on stars (astrophage) was the danger to humanity. They figured out it breeds on planets. But the distant planet they found had different alien microbial life that just happened to be very good at feeding on the interstellar star eaters that had chosen to breed there.

So they took samples, cultured the microbe-eating-microbes, and left to take them home. But the human guy figured out they broke containment and ate some fuel his starship uses, that Rocky’s starship happened to be made of, so he used his remaining fuel to change course and warn Rocky.

So… the CO2 eater analogy actually makes some sense. If we’re lucky this could lead to major geoengineering breakthrough, like the movie microbes did (though I wouldn’t get my hopes up).

In this case, the parasite is humanity. Or emissions-heavy industry. Or oil executives. Something like that.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I sure hope so. I work in electricity generation (not coal) and I see this being potentially massive for all fuel types. Depending on if/how it can be scaled. Combined cycle was huge for emissions reduction. But this could be a completely new level if we can reduce to zero/near zero and have a useful byproduct.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

I'm glad we don't have to worry or change anything. I was stressing there. So much relief!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 27 points 3 days ago (2 children)

"that essentially eat carbon dioxide gas (CO2) and turn it into rock at an incredibly fast rate."

ETA to new construction method in 3-2-1...

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago

I have a feeling “incredibly fast” is a relative term, and not a sign of this being used for construction. If they could convert it quickly enough to use for construction, wouldn’t it essentially kill off its own habitat in no time flat?

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

"Twenty years from now..."

[–] veeesix@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wonder if it could be feasible to take the CO2 emissions from incinerated landfill.

[–] Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Empty the landfills, burn the waste, generate electricity and eat all the carbon emissions. No idea if it's feasible in the future but it sure would be an incredible advancement.

load more comments
view more: next ›