3 ms·
When asking about our ability to geiengineer, remember that we are the once that caused this problem in the first place, and without even trying. Having said th
by gizmo686 13y ago
When asking about our ability to geiengineer, remember that we are the once that caused this problem in the first place, and without even trying. Having said that, releasing CO2 is a much easier problem than removing it.
As to your proposal, CO2 would decompose into C2 and O2 (with twice as many O2 molecules). Incidentally, C2 is a strong acid [1]. Additionally, breaking CO2 this way would move it to a higher energy state, and therefore require a net input of energy. (Technically, given what I know, it is possible that there is just a high activation energy to do this, but seeing as CO2 is such a common product of energy releasing reactions, including metabolism, I'm pretty sure it is just a low energy molecule). Also, it took pretty much all of our industrial force to introduce the CO2 in the first place, and there was huge economic incentive.
The more popular ideas in geo-engineering are to let nature do the hard work for us. For example, a common idea is to introduce iron to the ocean. This would increase plankton populations, and the plankton would then use solar power to remove CO2.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_carbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomic_carbon
- amatix 13y ago> For example, a common idea is to introduce iron to the ocean. This would increase plankton populations, and the plankton would then use solar power to remove CO2. I'm wary this leads to a "and now you have TWO problems" situation... presumably oceans full of plankton would do lots of other bad things too? Humans introducing plants/animals to control the populations of other plants/animals has worked spectacularly badly over the course of history (see: New Zealand).
- gus_massa 13y ago> Incidentally, C2 is a strong acid It’s almost impossible to produce a lot of C2 because it reacts with itself and produce some Carbon compound, like an amorphous version of graphite, similar to soot. In this version it can be compressed and buried. (The main problem with this idea is that the decomposition needs a lot of energy.)
- protomyth 13y agoI would hope the long promised use of carbon in chips and synthetic diamonds would find a use for the carbon instead of burying it. I was just wondering since it seems like we are not going to be able to reduce usage and undoing it seems like the only hope.