h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maybe I'm being stupid, but, if the major problem with global warming is the increase is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, is any research being conducted into a cheap (energy-efficient) way of converting CO2 back to carbon (which could be re-used) and free-oxygen?

I realise that plant-life does this very well through photo-synthesis and that reducing the forests doesn't help, but there has to be a reasonably simple solution to the problem.

Surely it's just out there waiting to be 'discovered/realised'

What (other than plants) will 'release' oxygen from CO2?

Is there a known chemical "exchange" which will release oxygen from CO2 by 'capturing' carbon?

Somebody must know.

I suspect that such an approach to the problem would be misguided i.e. not a long term solution

Plants aren't a long term solution either as when they die, they rot and release much of their stored carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide

The problem stems from extracting carbon-rich fossil fuels from the depths and intoducing them to the atmosphere

I think the simplest solution (long term) will involve devloping and using alternative energy sources

On a scale of cost benefit, the plants are probably the best. Don't think we'll find anything better. But there is talk about pumping CO2 into the caverns in the sea bed.

It would take just as much energy to put the CO2 back into the form of petrol and oxygen (for example) as was released in taking the petrol apart in an automobile engine. The released energy includes not only moving the ridiculously heavy automobile along the motorway, but also the unused heat energy generated, both in the engine and in the tyres. It also includes the energy that goes into wearing out the engine, the energy used by the air conditioner -- obviously one could go on and on.

Where would the energy come from for breaking the CO2 back up and reassembling it into its original molecules? Obviously fossil fuels would be a pointless source. Nuclear energy would likely be unpopular. Solar and wind energy would be possibilities, but I suspect absolutely monumental, perhaps planetary plants (hint) would be needed. I would suspect that a crash conversion to solar and wind power together with a huge push for conservation and efficiency would be a more effective way of reducing the load on the forests and phytoplankton.

It's already being done in the North Sea and according to the link since 1996. I think the USaians are doing something similar somewhere.

http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27178

The two most efficient ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere are growing plants, which are only temporary stores as they put the CO2 back when they die, and coral reefs, which convert the CO2 to Calcium Carbonate, which is permanent. Both of the these use sunlight which would be falling on the earth anyway as their source of energy.

Unfortunately, we don't know any ways of encouraging the coral reefs to grow at the moment, but scientists are considering it very carefully.

The Kyoto agreement is the first step in reducing our production of CO2 in the first place. Getting the Americans to sign the Kyoto agreement would be the second step.

Apparently corals grow very well on iron. So old ship wrecks and WWII planes are quite good for them. I imagine we could seed some corals reefs that way.

And we could always make furniture out of the plants, and keep the CO2 in that way.

How about converting trees into paper and storing the paper in books? Government-funded libraries to prevent Global Warming! Cut down a tree today and save the planet.

Xanatic:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1268332.html?menu=

Okay, I meant the old fashioned version of cutting it up and putting the pieces back together. Though this might be a good idea for making park benches.

I have a related question. If we want to get rid of the hole in the ozone layer, why don't we just build a large ozone making machine, and let it drift up. Should be very simple. I know ozone is poisonous, but we'll make some tall chimneys or so. Or it could be placed in some desolate area in Antartica.

The hole in the ozone layer is VERY big.

Well, ozone should be fairly easy to make. High voltage through atmospheric air does it as far as I know. So what do we really have to lose?

The problem with ozone is that we released catalysts into the atmosphere which destroyed ozone without being used up themselves. This meant that they were around to destroy more ozone and so on. So the amount of gas destroyed was far more than we could ever make in a factory.

depends on how one generates all that high voltage electricity I guess...

Coral reefs don't use gaseous carbon dioxide; they use that which has been dissolved in the oceans.

The planet's atmosphere is at an equilibrium CO2 concentration with the oceans - if ice-caps melt, the oceanic CO2 will decrease, and more will be removed from the atmosphere - Le Chateliers principle.

B

Point 2: If you make ozone at ground level and let it drift up, we would all be dead very quickly. Ozone at tropospheric level is the most efficient greenhouse gas known to man.

B

"The hole in the ozone layer is VERY big."

Hasn't it improved, though? I remember the ozone hole was a BIG concern in the late 1980s but self-repairs as long as CFC emissions were drastically cut. Governments promptely banned CFCs and that has been the situation for over a decade. Surely that's made some difference.

No. Ozone is not regenerated. Nor is it in a 'layer'. It is merely a gas dispersed over the lower regions of the ionosphere. It undergoes a complicated set of free radical reactions, which are catalysed to destruction by CFCs. Once the ozone is gone, it's gone. OK, there are plans to replace it artificially, but they are quite expensive and the world's major governments don't care much about the major region of ozone depletion, being as how it is over the southern tip of South America and the Antarctic.

B

Interesting way of dealing with the problem, but it would seem to be delaying an inevitable outcome. (in 20-30 years)

Also interesting to find someone who feels he/she is micturating into the wind with the inevitable result of damp trousers.

Whilst I appreciate the interesting link, it would seem that some others have got the wrong end of the stick in that we need a way of DECREASING the amount of CO2 rather than "hiding" it (and probaby adding to the problems that future generations would face) eg what happens when the 'frozen' methane compounds become unstable and evaporate into the atmosphere?
Plants are great at doing this, but we keep on killing them.

I'm glad that, at my age, I probably will not need to deal with the (potentially) exponential increase in temperatures.

Who needs super-volcanoes or asteroid impact to kill off life as we know it when mankind is doing very well on it's own?

What will mankind (if it survives) use for fuel, assuming that it's needed in a very hot environment as there would (presumably) be very little wood, no easily available coal, no oil and no technology (because of the preceding assumed shortages) to produce/handle nuclear technology.

We can actually produce fuel easily enough from crops that we grow in fields. Things like rapeseed oil can be processed into fuel, as can sugar cane. I know that cars in Brazil run on alcohol created from crops like this. But this does not solve the CO2 problem. For that, we'll have to start (1) burning less fuel to make electricity and (2) driving less cars.

In Seattle, they have special lanes on the motorway which you can only use if there is more than one person in the car. These lanes tend to be very empty and move quickly compared with the other lanes which crawl along. But people insist on driving to work with only one person in the car. Slap a $50 tax on them every time they do that and they'll start using the buses quick enough. What we need is a way of encouraging people to think it is important.