3 ms·
I think it says its a catalyst, for some chlorine reaction. So its not out of the question 300 tons (per year) could effect ozone concentrations.
by gmm1990 2y ago
I think it says its a catalyst, for some chlorine reaction. So its not out of the question 300 tons (per year) could effect ozone concentrations.
- marcosdumay 2y agoThere's absolutely no estimation of the impact. Your 300 tons of activated chlorine per year idea is as baseless as the GP's 300 tons of ozone, but the GP is aware that his number is a complete invention. Any exercise in making numbers out of nothing is completely useless. (Besides, is chlorine activation really a bottleneck in ozone depletion? AFAIK it gets activated by UV light quite quickly.)
- gmm1990 2y agoGP never implied the amount of ozone just the amount of aluminum oxide. All I know is catalysts can speed up reactions by orders of magnitude. CFCs actually created a hole in the ozone layer so its not like human activities haven't accidentally created problems before. Probably something that at least needs to be ruled out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- oasisbob 2y agoCorrect. That's the same way I read that comment. More fundamentally, chemical catalysts by definition are not consumed by the reactions they catalyze. Think: a cheese grater. It doesn't react with the cheese, so a few ounces of grater could make hundreds of pounds of grilled cheese. A hypothetical 300 tons of catalyst is not limited stoichiometrically to how much substrate it would affect.