5 ms·

Hopefully this time we'll be able to geoengineer our way out of it. I would think pumping out tons of ozone is significantly easier than removing atmospheric C

Hopefully this time we'll be able to geoengineer our way out of it. I would think pumping out tons of ozone is significantly easier than removing atmospheric CO2 or, you know, burning less carbon(how absurd, right?).

ben_w 6y ago
Well, there is less ozone in total than CO2 produced per year, but ozone is harmful at ground level: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone.html https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone.html
- klyrs 6y ago
  Electric sparks make ozone, so clearly what we need is nuclear powered tesla-coil zeppelins to produce it in the upper atmosphere.
  - nxpnsv 6y ago
    Not sure it works, but I would pay to see one...
  - vanderZwan 6y ago
    Don't ion drives have ozone as a side-effect? Balloons with solar-powered ion drives might do the trick then - they don't even need to be lighter than air, the ion drive should give it enough thrust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9yYu-ZM1S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9yYu-ZM1S0
    - Gravityloss 6y ago
      But you have to avoid generating nitrogen compounds... And if there's water vapor, also hydrogen to think about. But a solar powered ozone generating ion wind propelled plane perpetually flying high up there certainly sounds cool. It could also act as a communications relay.
      - vanderZwan 6y ago
        > But you have to avoid generating nitrogen compounds What if we reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish.. I mean emitter wire? > The effect is not directly dependent on electrical polarity, as the ions may be positively or negatively charged. Reversing the polarity of the electrodes does not alter the direction of motion, as it also reverses the polarity of the ions to match. Thrust is produced in the same direction, either way. For positive emitter polarity, nitrogen ions are the main charge carriers, while for negative polarity, oxygen ions are the main carriers and ozone production is higher.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft (also, I just used "reverse the polarity" unironically. I can check that off my bucket list)
    - klyrs 6y ago
      > Don't ion drives have ozone as a side-effect? Sure, if you wanna take my suggestion of nuclear-powered shock-zeppelins seriously... (loving the conversation my ridiculous idea inspired)
  - kortex 6y ago
    Actually spark gaps are less efficient than corona discharge. Usually ozone generator just apply high electric field to plates and run air/oxygen through it. Now I'm curious what the energy efficiency of this process is. I wonder if the rarefaction at that altitude makes it easier or more challenging.
adrianN 6y ago
Anybody can make Ozone, but how do you propose getting it high enough in the atmosphere?
- airstrike 6y ago
  Quick, get Elon on the phone!
  - rrmm 6y ago
    High-altitude planes dispensing ozone chemtrails!
    - gpm 6y ago
      Balloons I think... planes require more power to keep up and their horizontal mobility isn't needed for this purpose.
- jojobas 6y ago
  1) Advance solar cell technology a little bit more 2) Make a Solar Impulse kind of planes that basically deposit excess power in sparkgaps 3) Ozone I suspect the ozone layer is not our biggest problem with the warming though.
  - namibj 6y ago
    Oh, we can already build planes that use high-efficiency propellers (with efficient and lightweight gear-less axial flux motors) and soar above the clouds 24/7, using height instead of batteries and ultra-light back-ground solar cells laminated into a giant flying wing (or at least much more wing than fuselage, because the motors should be distributed to reduce demands on wing stiffness). A weight of less than 2.5kg/m^2 in the wing should be feasible with large, monolithic carbon fiber sections, joined by narrow engine segments. Overall it should be possible to stay below a wing loading of 5kg/m^2, so a 100m span, 1m chord 500kg plane gets about 18h out of 10km height, see https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2601411-Is-wing-loading-what-determines-the-minimum-sink-rate-of-a-glider https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2601411-Is-wi... .
rrmm 6y ago
> I would think pumping out tons of ozone is significantly easier than removing atmospheric CO2 or, you know, burning less carbon(how absurd, right?). That reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they bring in a serious of increasingly more absurd animals to deal with a small invasive species they find. https://youtu.be/3f5viRoaZNw?t=87 https://youtu.be/3f5viRoaZNw?t=87
dTal 6y ago
"...thus solving the problem once and for all!" "But-" "ONCE AND FOR ALL!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg
lvs 6y ago
We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us who scorched the sky.
- rrmm 6y ago
  In our defense we thought it would stop the bullet time camera effects.

ben_w 6y ago

Well, there is less ozone in total than CO2 produced per year, but ozone is harmful at ground level: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone.html https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/ozone.html

klyrs 6y ago
Electric sparks make ozone, so clearly what we need is nuclear powered tesla-coil zeppelins to produce it in the upper atmosphere.
- nxpnsv 6y ago
  Not sure it works, but I would pay to see one...
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  Don't ion drives have ozone as a side-effect? Balloons with solar-powered ion drives might do the trick then - they don't even need to be lighter than air, the ion drive should give it enough thrust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boB6qu5dcCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9yYu-ZM1S0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9yYu-ZM1S0
  - Gravityloss 6y ago
    But you have to avoid generating nitrogen compounds... And if there's water vapor, also hydrogen to think about. But a solar powered ozone generating ion wind propelled plane perpetually flying high up there certainly sounds cool. It could also act as a communications relay.
    - vanderZwan 6y ago
      > But you have to avoid generating nitrogen compounds What if we reverse the polarity on the main deflector dish.. I mean emitter wire? > The effect is not directly dependent on electrical polarity, as the ions may be positively or negatively charged. Reversing the polarity of the electrodes does not alter the direction of motion, as it also reverses the polarity of the ions to match. Thrust is produced in the same direction, either way. For positive emitter polarity, nitrogen ions are the main charge carriers, while for negative polarity, oxygen ions are the main carriers and ozone production is higher.[citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion-propelled_aircraft (also, I just used "reverse the polarity" unironically. I can check that off my bucket list)
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > Don't ion drives have ozone as a side-effect? Sure, if you wanna take my suggestion of nuclear-powered shock-zeppelins seriously... (loving the conversation my ridiculous idea inspired)
- kortex 6y ago
  Actually spark gaps are less efficient than corona discharge. Usually ozone generator just apply high electric field to plates and run air/oxygen through it. Now I'm curious what the energy efficiency of this process is. I wonder if the rarefaction at that altitude makes it easier or more challenging.

adrianN 6y ago

Anybody can make Ozone, but how do you propose getting it high enough in the atmosphere?

airstrike 6y ago
Quick, get Elon on the phone!
- rrmm 6y ago
  High-altitude planes dispensing ozone chemtrails!
  - gpm 6y ago
    Balloons I think... planes require more power to keep up and their horizontal mobility isn't needed for this purpose.
jojobas 6y ago
1) Advance solar cell technology a little bit more 2) Make a Solar Impulse kind of planes that basically deposit excess power in sparkgaps 3) Ozone I suspect the ozone layer is not our biggest problem with the warming though.
- namibj 6y ago
  Oh, we can already build planes that use high-efficiency propellers (with efficient and lightweight gear-less axial flux motors) and soar above the clouds 24/7, using height instead of batteries and ultra-light back-ground solar cells laminated into a giant flying wing (or at least much more wing than fuselage, because the motors should be distributed to reduce demands on wing stiffness). A weight of less than 2.5kg/m^2 in the wing should be feasible with large, monolithic carbon fiber sections, joined by narrow engine segments. Overall it should be possible to stay below a wing loading of 5kg/m^2, so a 100m span, 1m chord 500kg plane gets about 18h out of 10km height, see https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2601411-Is-wing-loading-what-determines-the-minimum-sink-rate-of-a-glider https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2601411-Is-wi... .

rrmm 6y ago

> I would think pumping out tons of ozone is significantly easier than removing atmospheric CO2 or, you know, burning less carbon(how absurd, right?). That reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they bring in a serious of increasingly more absurd animals to deal with a small invasive species they find. https://youtu.be/3f5viRoaZNw?t=87 https://youtu.be/3f5viRoaZNw?t=87

dTal 6y ago

"...thus solving the problem once and for all!" "But-" "ONCE AND FOR ALL!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg

lvs 6y ago

We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us who scorched the sky.

rrmm 6y ago
In our defense we thought it would stop the bullet time camera effects.