4 ms·

Is it possible to vent the CO2 into space?

mplewis 4y ago
No.
sam-s 4y ago
Everything is possible. Feasible is a different issue. It is hugely expensive (give CO2 escape velocity) and wasteful (CO2 is a valuable substance, containing 2 important elements).
gonzo41 4y ago
Short answer is no. CO2 is sitting at about 400ppm( parts per million(. So take a million things, say golf balls, and paint 400 of them red. The rest white. Put them in a container, then search for the red balls. The goal is to get at least ~150 to 200 before you have to look at the next batch. There's not really a quick way to do that. Green house gas is such a hard problem because it's a dispersed problem. This is where we need to stop removing plant life from the earth, and start seriously considering a little bit of CRISPR to tweak plants to grow fast and absorb as much co2 as possible. It'd also be great if we started iron seeding the southern ocean to kick that ecosystem into gear as we really need evertying to start sequestering carbon.
- criddell 4y ago
  I don't think this is a great explanation. I could build a machine that would get rid of 200 red balls (out of a million) in 30 minutes. It's a linearly parallelizable problem, so with enough machines, I could make it go as quickly as you'd like.
  - shagie 4y ago
    As you are doing this, you need energy. You either need it from a source that doesn't generate red balls and thus is sufficiently dense energy to be useful, or leave the density of red balls after you've identified 200 to be remove lower than it was before you started.
  - Knufferlbert 4y ago
    Don't know, seems like a good explanation. We have a number of machines that can take CO2 out, the "enough machines" is the problem. - they either require space (forests or whatever) - are hard to produce in sufficient numbers (materials, production capabilities) - are expensive to run (like energy input, maintenance), in particular don't generate new red balls while removing them. - disposal cost (where the machine becomes the carbon, like trees, cutting them down and doing something with that) Once we got it out, on a "pile of carbon", the problem becomes much easier.
  - imoverclocked 4y ago
    Maybe we could use a massively scalable set of machinery that uses sunlight to produce energy and sequester carbon. Seems like the machinery could be nature inspired… or maybe just natural. Plants could just be the answer we are all reaching for here.
    - criddell 4y ago
      You want to find an answer? I believe the solution (if any is to be found) is going to be a combination of dozens of different actions. So grow plants and build machines and dump iron in the ocean and cut down on oil use and move people away from coasts around the equator and come up with some type of global basic income and build nuclear reactors and windmills and geothermal and move to electric cars and redesign cities to reduce the need for cars and come up with a plan for colonizing the stars and embrace GMOs to reduced the impact of agriculture and encourage people to eat less meat and so on.
      - shagie 4y ago
        One of my favorite channels on YouTube is Kurzgesagt and they recently (looking at date, well, last year - still recent in the scale of things) had a video on global warming - Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc There's also Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - https://youtu.be/EhAemz1v7dQ https://youtu.be/EhAemz1v7dQ Is It Too Late To Stop Climate Change? Well, it's Complicated. - https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo
- shagie 4y ago
  On that gene editing... (background on C3 vs C4 plants) https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075750/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.715391/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.71539... https://innovativegenomics.org/projects/improving-photosynthesis-in-crop-plants/ https://innovativegenomics.org/projects/improving-photosynth... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/can-we-hack-plant-dna-to-suck-up-more-carbon-emissions https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/can-w...
- fatherzine 4y ago
  "start seriously considering a little bit of CRISPR" We should consider taking a collective pause to think things through. Our extensive technology use is pushing ecosystems out of balance at planet scale. Perhaps the solution is NOT more technology, with inherently unknown longterm consequences.
  - worldsayshi 4y ago
    Unless we quickly get much better at this at some point not long from now we are going to end up in a situation where such reckless solutions might be the only options we have left.
  - quixoticelixer- 4y ago
    It actually is more technology. Our extensive techonology use it not pushing ecosystems out of balance. It's our massive land use changes and requirements for land that are.
whiddershins 4y ago
Carbon is necessary for all life. It might be in the wrong place (atmosphere) but we definitely want it on the earth, not in outer space.
shagie 4y ago
The earth is constantly 'venting' gas to space. This is known as atmospheric escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape The earth is currently losing 3kg/s hydrogen and 50g/s of helium because that's what is in the upper atmosphere where a molecule can gain sufficient velocity to escape the orbit. The issue with CO2 is that it is a heavier gas and so takes more energy to escape and is also more likely to fall. Left on its own over a sufficiently long time period, you'll end up with an atmosphere that is mostly rarefied carbon dioxide (see Mars). Ejecting CO2 from ground level to the upper atmosphere and beyond in the quantities that are talked about when dealing with carbon sequestration (tons - not kilograms or grams) would be very energy intensive and using current technologies (we don't have surplus non-carbon based energy) would mean that we are adding to the total amount of carbon instead of reducing it.
- shagie 4y ago
  (since the 3kg/s and tons was bothering me...) 3kg/s is 95kt/year. The United States emits about 4,900,000kt/year of CO2. Just wanted to get those rates on the same scale.

No.

Everything is possible. Feasible is a different issue. It is hugely expensive (give CO2 escape velocity) and wasteful (CO2 is a valuable substance, containing 2 important elements).

gonzo41 4y ago

Short answer is no. CO2 is sitting at about 400ppm( parts per million(. So take a million things, say golf balls, and paint 400 of them red. The rest white. Put them in a container, then search for the red balls. The goal is to get at least ~150 to 200 before you have to look at the next batch. There's not really a quick way to do that. Green house gas is such a hard problem because it's a dispersed problem. This is where we need to stop removing plant life from the earth, and start seriously considering a little bit of CRISPR to tweak plants to grow fast and absorb as much co2 as possible. It'd also be great if we started iron seeding the southern ocean to kick that ecosystem into gear as we really need evertying to start sequestering carbon.

criddell 4y ago
I don't think this is a great explanation. I could build a machine that would get rid of 200 red balls (out of a million) in 30 minutes. It's a linearly parallelizable problem, so with enough machines, I could make it go as quickly as you'd like.
- shagie 4y ago
  As you are doing this, you need energy. You either need it from a source that doesn't generate red balls and thus is sufficiently dense energy to be useful, or leave the density of red balls after you've identified 200 to be remove lower than it was before you started.
- Knufferlbert 4y ago
  Don't know, seems like a good explanation. We have a number of machines that can take CO2 out, the "enough machines" is the problem. - they either require space (forests or whatever) - are hard to produce in sufficient numbers (materials, production capabilities) - are expensive to run (like energy input, maintenance), in particular don't generate new red balls while removing them. - disposal cost (where the machine becomes the carbon, like trees, cutting them down and doing something with that) Once we got it out, on a "pile of carbon", the problem becomes much easier.
- imoverclocked 4y ago
  Maybe we could use a massively scalable set of machinery that uses sunlight to produce energy and sequester carbon. Seems like the machinery could be nature inspired… or maybe just natural. Plants could just be the answer we are all reaching for here.
  - criddell 4y ago
    You want to find an answer? I believe the solution (if any is to be found) is going to be a combination of dozens of different actions. So grow plants and build machines and dump iron in the ocean and cut down on oil use and move people away from coasts around the equator and come up with some type of global basic income and build nuclear reactors and windmills and geothermal and move to electric cars and redesign cities to reduce the need for cars and come up with a plan for colonizing the stars and embrace GMOs to reduced the impact of agriculture and encourage people to eat less meat and so on.
    - shagie 4y ago
      One of my favorite channels on YouTube is Kurzgesagt and they recently (looking at date, well, last year - still recent in the scale of things) had a video on global warming - Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc There's also Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change? - https://youtu.be/EhAemz1v7dQ https://youtu.be/EhAemz1v7dQ Is It Too Late To Stop Climate Change? Well, it's Complicated. - https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo https://youtu.be/wbR-5mHI6bo
shagie 4y ago
On that gene editing... (background on C3 vs C4 plants) https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075750/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075750/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.715391/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.71539... https://innovativegenomics.org/projects/improving-photosynthesis-in-crop-plants/ https://innovativegenomics.org/projects/improving-photosynth... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/can-we-hack-plant-dna-to-suck-up-more-carbon-emissions https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/can-w...
fatherzine 4y ago
"start seriously considering a little bit of CRISPR" We should consider taking a collective pause to think things through. Our extensive technology use is pushing ecosystems out of balance at planet scale. Perhaps the solution is NOT more technology, with inherently unknown longterm consequences.
- worldsayshi 4y ago
  Unless we quickly get much better at this at some point not long from now we are going to end up in a situation where such reckless solutions might be the only options we have left.
- quixoticelixer- 4y ago
  It actually is more technology. Our extensive techonology use it not pushing ecosystems out of balance. It's our massive land use changes and requirements for land that are.

whiddershins 4y ago

Carbon is necessary for all life. It might be in the wrong place (atmosphere) but we definitely want it on the earth, not in outer space.

shagie 4y ago

The earth is constantly 'venting' gas to space. This is known as atmospheric escape. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape The earth is currently losing 3kg/s hydrogen and 50g/s of helium because that's what is in the upper atmosphere where a molecule can gain sufficient velocity to escape the orbit. The issue with CO2 is that it is a heavier gas and so takes more energy to escape and is also more likely to fall. Left on its own over a sufficiently long time period, you'll end up with an atmosphere that is mostly rarefied carbon dioxide (see Mars). Ejecting CO2 from ground level to the upper atmosphere and beyond in the quantities that are talked about when dealing with carbon sequestration (tons - not kilograms or grams) would be very energy intensive and using current technologies (we don't have surplus non-carbon based energy) would mean that we are adding to the total amount of carbon instead of reducing it.

shagie 4y ago
(since the 3kg/s and tons was bothering me...) 3kg/s is 95kt/year. The United States emits about 4,900,000kt/year of CO2. Just wanted to get those rates on the same scale.