You may be familiar with direct air capture, or DAC, in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere in an effort to slow the effects of climate change. Now a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) has proposed a scheme for direct ocean capture. Removing CO₂ from the oceans will enable them to continue to do their job of absorbing excess CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Experts mostly agree that combating climate change will take more than halting emissions of climate-warming gases. We must also remove the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have already been emitted, to the tune of gigatons of CO₂ removed each year by 2050 in order to achieve net zero emissions. The oceans contain significantly more CO₂ than the atmosphere and have been acting as an important carbon sink for our planet.

Peter Agbo is a Berkeley Lab staff scientist in the Chemical Sciences Division, with a secondary appointment in the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Division. He was awarded a grant through Berkeley Lab’s Carbon Negative Initiative, which is aiming to develop breakthrough negative emissions technologies, for his ocean capture proposal. His co-investigators on this project are Steven Singer at the Joint BioEnergy Institute and Ruchira Chatterjee, a scientist in the Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging Division of Berkeley Lab.

Q. Can you explain how you envision your technology to work?

What I’m essentially trying to do is convert CO₂ to limestone, and one way to do this is to use seawater. The reason you can do this is because limestone is composed of magnesium, or what’s called magnesium and calcium carbonates. There’s a lot of magnesium and calcium naturally resident in seawater. So if you have free CO₂ floating around in seawater, along with that magnesium and calcium, it will naturally form limestone to a certain extent, but the process is very slow – borderline geologic time scales.

It turns out that the bottleneck in the conversion of CO₂ to these magnesium and calcium carbonates in seawater is a process that is naturally catalyzed by an enzyme called carbonic anhydrase. It’s not important to know the enzyme name; it’s just important to know that when you add carbonic anhydrase to this seawater mixture, you can basically accelerate the conversion of CO₂ to these limestones under suitable conditions.

And so the idea is to scale this up – drawing CO₂ out of the atmosphere into the ocean and ultimately into some limestone product that you could sequester.

Q. Fascinating. So you want to turn carbon dioxide into rock using a process that occurs naturally in seawater, but accelerating it. This sounds almost like science fiction. What are the challenges in getting this to work?

To absorb CO2 from the air quick enough for the technology to work, you have to solve the problem of how to provide enough of this enzyme that you could deploy this process at a meaningful scale. If we were to simply try to supply the enzyme as a pure product, you couldn’t do it in an economically viable way. So the question I’m trying to answer here is, how would you do this? You also have to find ways of stabilizing the pH and mixing in enough air to raise and maintain your CO₂ concentration in water.

The solution that occurred to me was, okay, given that we know carbonic anhydrase is a protein, and proteins are naturally synthesized by biochemical systems, such as bacteria, which we can manipulate, then we could take bacteria and then engineer them to make carbonic anhydrase for us. And you can just keep growing these bacteria as long as you feed them. One problem, though, is that now you’ve shifted the cost burden onto supplying enough food to produce enough bacteria to produce enough enzyme.

One way around this issue would be to use bacteria that can grow using energy and nutrients that are readily available in the natural environment. So this pointed towards photosynthetic bacteria. They can use sunlight as their energy source, and they can also use CO₂ as their carbon source to feed on. And certain photosynthetic bacteria can also use the minerals that naturally occur in seawater essentially as vitamins.

Q. Interesting. So the path to capturing excess CO₂ lays in being able to engineer a microbe?

Potentially one way, yes. What I’ve been working on in this project is to develop a genetically modified bacterium that is photosynthetic and is engineered to produce a lot of carbon anhydrase on its surface. Then, if you were to put it in seawater, where you have a lot of magnesium and calcium, and also CO₂ present, you would see a rapid formation of limestone. That’s the basic idea.

It’s a small project for now, so I decided to focus on getting the engineered organism. Right now, I’m simply trying to develop the primary catalyst system, which are the enzyme-modified bacteria to drive the mineralization. The other non-trivial pieces of this approach – how to appropriately design the reactor to stabilize CO₂ concentrations and pH needed for this scheme to work – are future challenges. But I’ve been using simulations to inform my approaches to those problems.

It’s a fun project because on any given day my co-PIs and I could be doing either physical electrochemistry or gene manipulation in the lab.

Q. How would this look once it’s scaled up? And how much carbon would it be able to sequester?

What I have envisioned is, the bacterium would be grown in a plant-scaled bioreactor. You basically flow seawater into this bioreactor while actively mixing in air, and it processes the seawater, converting it to limestone. Ideally, you probably have some type of downstream centrifugation process to extract the solids, which maybe could be driven by the flow of water itself, which then helps to pull out the limestone carbonates before you then eject the depleted seawater. An alternative that could possibly resolve the pH constraints of mineralization would be to implement this instead as a reversible process, where you also use the enzyme to reconvert the carbon you’ve captured in seawater back to a more concentrated CO₂ stream (carbonic anhydrase behavior is reversible).

What I’ve calculated for this system, assuming that the protein carbonic anhydrase behaves on the bacterial surface, more or less, the way it does in free solution, would suggest that you would need a plant that has only about a 1-million-liter volume, which is actually quite small. One of those could get you to roughly 1 megaton of CO₂ captured per year. A lot of assumptions are built into that sort of estimate though, and it’s likely to change as work advances.

Erecting 1,000 such facilities globally, which is a small number compared to the 14,000 water treatment facilities in the United States alone, would permit the annual, gigaton-scale capture of atmospheric CO2.

The mRNA vaccines for COVID are doubly flawed. One problem in particular must have been known to the biochemists and the other to the leadership who choose to rely on these vaccines. The first problem is that the dose is uncontrolled; different people produce vastly different amounts of the spike protein from the same injection. The second is that the spike protein itself is the part of the virus that does damage to the human system. Any other part of the virus might have been a better choice for the target presented to the body to stimulate an immune response. Obviously, these problems are worse together than either separately.

Traditional vaccines use a whole, weakened virus or a chemical piece of the virus to give the body a headstart making an immune response to a pathogen that may be coming in the future. The mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna (but not the adenovirus vaccine from J&J) are based on a clever variation. Instead of delivering a protein from the virus, the vaccines deliver mRNA instructions for making this protein.

Every cell in our bodies* (and almost every plant and animal cell) has a nucleus with DNA and ribosomes for manufacturing proteins. The DNA doesn’t have chemical activity of its own, but acts as an information repository. Epigenetic chemical markers point to segments of the DNA that are to be activated. Activation starts with the DNA opening up and a a portion being copied into messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and goes out into the cell looking for a ribosome. The ribosome picks up the mRNA template and reads it, 3 bases at a time, translating the message into instructions for creating a protein. Then the mRNA is degraded so its parts can be recycled.

The mRNA vaccines contain instructions for making the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus associated with COVID. It is housed in a lipid nanoparticle = a tiny bubble of oil that allows it to pass through the cell membrane. (Normally the cell membrane would exclude any naked RNA molecule.) The vaccine mRNA is modified in several ways that make it both more efficient at producing the protein and also resistant to degradation afterward, so it can be used as a template many times.

This is a clever idea, and useful to the manufacturers because there are computer-controlled techniques for generating any desired strand of RNA, whereas manufacturing proteins is much more expensive, and growing viruses (even more so) requires bioreactors and not just chemical reactors. For these reasons, mRNA is a financially attractive experimental platform. But some preliminary research steps are necessary. Does the body respond to a “foreign” protein that is generated in its own cells in the same way that it responds to a wholly foreign invader? We don’t understand the immune system well enough to answer this question theoretically. Experiments to discover the answer were conducted beginning almost 30 years ago, and the results were characterized by the experimenters themselves as promising but not ready for prime time [review, history]

Before 2020, the only human trials were with cancer patients who served as willing subjects because they were already in a life-threatening situation. In desperate circumstances, larger risks of side effects may be justifiable. A vaccine delivered to billions of healthy people should be held to a tighter standard. It’s one thing to maim one in a thousand experimental subjects who are facing no better choices in a battle with cancer; it’s another thing entirely to maim millions of healthy people because billions have taken a vaccine which they were told was “safe and effective”. “Immunization of healthy individuals requires safety standards far beyond those applicable for therapeutic approaches.” [Roesler et al]

First flaw

One problem is that some cells allow the nanoparticles entry, while others don’t. Some people’s bodies see past the trick and degrade the mRNA in short order, while in other bodies, the mRNA lingers for months. In some people, the mRNA remains confined in the shoulder muscle, while in others it finds its way into the bloodstream and distributes to genital organs, liver, heart, and brain.

Normally, DNA translation into mRNA is a one-way street. But there are exceptions. Retroviruses like SARS and HIV rely on reverse transcriptase to make DNA copies of themselves. Retroviruses can insinuate themselves permanently into the host genome. It is known that reverse transcriptase can be found in the healthy human body, maybe as a result of some dormant virus, or perhaps it is part of our normal metabolism. In any case, we now know that the mRNA from a vaccine can sometimes be translated backward into DNA, where it becomes a permanent part of the genome [in vitro, in vivo, blog article]. It can go on generating more mRNA and more spike protein for life. If the reverse transcription occurs in a cell in the ovaries or testes, the DNA may be altered for future generations.

Controlling the dosage is an important part of vaccine science. We need enough to stimulate an immune response, but not too much to make us sick. An overactive immune response can lead to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) when the patient is exposed later to the disease itself. ADE creates a cytokine storm with the possibility of fatal complications. A big problem with dosage is inherent with the mRNA vaccine technology. It is not the dosage of the mRNA that is important, but dosage of the protein it creates, and this varies widely from person to person.

Second flaw

For most viruses, the spike protein is simply a way to bind to the cell and knock on the door of the cell membrane, seeking admission into the cell. It is optimized by evolution for binding to the cell. But the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is biologically active in the human body, and its activity is toxic in several ways. This was first reported in the summer of 2020, and in the fall (just as vaccines were being tested), the issue was publicized in the research community. Dr John Patrick Whelan of UCLA submitted documentation to the FDA warning that the spike protein could cause blood clots and could enter the brain. He raised the possibility that the spike protein itself was responsible for the fatality rate of COVID-19. The spike protein causes blood clots and can damage the walls of arteries. It can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neural damage in the brain.

Viruses evolve in a way to maximize their reproduction and their spread from one person to another. The virus has no interest in making you sick, though it might want you to sneeze in order to spread virus particles in the air. When people feel sick from a virus, it is because the virus is replicating rapidly and, hogging the body’s resources; it is not an adaptation of the virus to make you sick. A toxic spike protein is not helpful to the virus. Toxicity of the spike protein is one reason that tips off scientists: this virus looks as though it was engineered for its damage potential in a bioweapons laboratory. Natural evolution would not likely produce a spike protein that is so toxic.

In principle, any part of the virus can be used as an epitope (tag) that warns the immune system what is coming. But all the mainstream vaccines, including the adenovirus vaccine of J&J, use the spike protein as epitope. The epitope was selected early in the design phase of the vaccines, in the winter of 2020.

SPECULATION
We cannot know whether this choice was malicious on the part of some of the people involved. In March of 2020, Dr Fauci (according to FOIAd emails) commissioned a Nature Medicine article to put to bed rumors that COVID had originated in a laboratory. The article was long on rhetoric and contained just one relevant fact: that the virus’s spike protein was not optimized for binding with the human ACE-2 receptor. The article claimed that surely, surely any engineers who were creating an artificial spike protein via genetic engineering would have been motivated to design the spike protein for a perfect fit with human ACE-2. In retrospect, we might ask, how did the authors of the paper (or Fauci himself) know this? And was it a Freudian admission, what Edgar Allan Poe would have called the Imp of the Perverse. In my mind, this incident raises the suspicion that Fauci knew early on that the spike protein had been genetically modified to have other functions than just entry into a cell, and those functions were explicitly pathogenic.

Indeed, we now know that the spike protein causes blood clots, damages the epithelium of arteries, interferes with pregnancy, can suppress the immune system generally, and crosses the blood-brain barrier to create prion-like tangles in the brain.

By December of 2020, the vaccine manufacturers and FDA certainly knew that the spike protein was going to cause problems for vaccinated patients, because Dr Whelan had laid out the evidence in front of them. The generous interpretation of their behavior is that they were dug in too deeply and, for political reasons, could not afford a delay in re-engineering a vaccine based on a different epitope. A less generous interpretation would impute intent to harm.

Synergy

These two problems together are worse than the sum of the parts. Obviously, producing excessive quantities of the spike protein and continuing to generate the spike protein months after vaccination become a much more serious health hazard when we realize how toxic the spike protein is.

————

*Red blood cells are an exception. They have no nucleus.

When it comes to waste (and the disposal thereof), it’s a, figuratively speaking, jungle out there. And, it’s seemingly everywhere: It’s in outer space and in the seas. It’s in the air (in the form of air pollution), produced by living, breathing beings (nasal discharge, earwax, in the context also of evacuated or excreted bodily solids, to name several) and it also comes as a result of a seemingly endless array of production and/or consumption activities. And, there, apparently, is nowhere on the face of the earth that is untouched in some way, shape or form by the stuff, hence the “it’s seemingly everywhere” reference above.

So being there is so much of it, so much waste, that is, and being that a considerable amount of said waste directly or indirectly affects the air we breathe, what better opportunity is there than during Air Quality Awareness Week, this year being observed May 2 through May 6, to draw attention to and focus attention on this thorny issue.

Waste’s two sides: The production and processing of

The production of waste is the easy aspect. Far less so is the waste-processing element. It’s always been this way and it probably always will be.

Good waste and bad

There is both good and bad waste. The bad type cannot be readily disposed of. The bulk of it goes to the waste heap, otherwise known as the landfill. Some of it, depending on content, substance, must be handled extremely carefully or delicately, as would be the case with nuclear power-plant waste. If the waste is of a type that can be repurposed, reused, renewed or recycled, then by all means, it should be designated for and directed to one of these four processes for further handling provided the provisions for doing such exists. Would that it could, that’s the kind of waste that’s good.

Okay, so now that some of waste’s fundamentals have been covered, the list below, which, by the way, is by no means meant to be exhaustive, does, on the other hand, include several of the more popular methods of controlling, eliminating, reducing waste.

Xeriscaping

Not every homeowner wants nor has a need for a green-grass lawn. Xeriscaping is a process by which the yard is landscaped in a manner that enables soils to remain in place by not eroding, but also allows for pleasing aesthetics incorporating elements like walkways (concrete, decomposed granite, flagstone, paver or otherwise), strategically located appropriate vegetation (ground covers, shrubs and trees), accent features like pebbles (pea gravel), river rocks or boulders as well as items such as outdoor lighting (solar operated, preferably) which, all of it taken together, can do much and go far to not only reduce the amount of waste a typical yard incorporating a green-grass lawn can generate, but in some cases, outright eliminate, waste. Xeriscapes can be just what the doctor ordered for new dwelling-unit yard space as well as used as a suitable substitute for an existing lawn or for lawns already in place.

Through xeriscaping, think of all of the container-loads of grass clippings that can be eliminated, not needing to be sent to the municipal dump, that, and all of the money potentially saved from not having to spend on lawn care equipment like mowers, blowers, edgers and trimmers, and, in addition, in eliminating the need to purchase fuel for said equipment whether it be gasoline or electricity. Xeriscaping the grounds can be an excellent alternative.

Haste makes waste

In our oftentimes hurried lives and being that many of us are pressed for time, on many an occasion corners get cut. That can be a problem because waste can result.

Perhaps there is no better example of this than the one of unnecessary motor-vehicle idling taking place in none other than the fast-food, drive-thru line. Not only in this way does gasoline get burned, air becomes polluted and the money spent on such figuratively goes up in smoke, but many times results in long queues of vehicles with passengers waiting in lines, engines continuously running, and, depending on weather conditions present, necessitating the use of interior heating or air conditioning, which can lead to more fuel being wasted.

In situations such as these, drivers (and passengers) might do well to park the car, turn off the ignition switch, exit the vehicle and walk inside the fast-food eating establishment. In some cases, by doing so, the entire ordering process and the time to purchase the food items could very well be less than the time it takes to do the very same thing by waiting in drive-thru lines.

Special curbside refuse-collection events

Fresno, California has in place what is known as “Operation Cleanup.” The service is offered to households (families or individuals) residing within city limits.

The good thing about this once-a-year special refuse-collection service is that it gives households the opportunity to get rid of discards that do not otherwise qualify for gray (regular trash), blue (recyclables) or green (compostables) bin pickup. There are limits, however, on what can be thrown away having to do with amount, type and size of material to be dispensed with. Large tree stumps or tree trunks and chemicals like pesticides, for example, do not qualify. Special arrangements need to be made regarding disposal of these specific items.

Some items piled up at the curbside, as a matter of fact, never even get picked up by city employees assigned to do the pickup activity on account of this being taken by drivers driving around neighborhoods where said discards have been placed by participating residents. If the so-called spotters spot an item or two or three that they believe is of value to them, they will then help themselves to that item or items. One person’s trash is another person’s treasure? In instances such as these, such would seem to be the case.

Honorable mentions

A few of my all-time favorites:

1. Ambient air-dried laundry. Instead of using the automatic clothes dryer for drying laundry, hanging freshly washed laundry on racks made for such placed around the inside of the home, allows the laundry to dry in the ambient air. Turning on the ceiling fan can help speed up the drying process. If wrinkles are a concern, I find that this tends to not be an issue by drying in the dryer for several minutes only the laundry in question, that is, prior to being ambient-air dried.

2. Cloth versus paper napkin use. I prefer to use a cloth napkin as opposed to paper ones at the dining table. The cotton versions can be washed, dried (see number 1. above) and reused, whereas the paper equivalents that are used in lieu of are, for all intents and purposes, made for one-time use.

3. Light-sensing street lighting. The street lighting that uses light sensors to activate and deactivate said street lights, can both save on electricity use and extend light or lamp life. And, the less utility-supplied electricity consumed by such, the less opportunity there is for air pollution to be released into the atmosphere.

Working together

If each of us were a tad more mindful and wasted less – even if just a little less – both the air and the earth would invariably be in better shape. This is something every one would benefit from by doing, whether on Earh Day (Apr. 22), during Air Quality Awareness Week or all year long.

– Alan Kandel

Copyrighted material.