My idea of removing co2 from the Atmosphere and making venus more favorable

[ScienceRocks]

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down
Jul 9, 2009

Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.

Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen? - Scientific American


Here is my idea.
1. Set up a network of floating ballons with rope attaching each one within a spider web. This spider web can have futusric "lighter" solar panels on them. This would feed down to
2. The machine hanging out of the bottom of the balloon will constantly be breaking co2 down.

3. My second idea will be a giant solar sails of 10-20 miles wide, far enough away from venus to prevent solar input to reach the atmosphere. Maybe a million miles that will be positioned to always remain within the way.

 

[Mr. H.]

Carbon dioxide isn't harmful.

Go home to your momma, Matthew.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Carbon dioxide isn't harmful.

Go home to your momma, Matthew.

On venus, it is very bad. We want to break the carbon from the o2 so we can have a more favorable atmosphere.

That wasn't a very nice response. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

 

[ScienceRocks]

He makes a strong case for such a thing with humans on it within the atmosphere of venus. Many advantages.

We could do something a long my idea above as we do.

Venus is closer....
"On average, it is 25 million miles (40 million km) away at this point, though it can reach as close as 24 million miles (38 million km)."

A floating space station in the "earth zone" this guy talked about is favorable. 1. Right pressure, 2. right temperature, 3. Many of the resources to make water and oxygen.

 

[westwall]

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down
Jul 9, 2009

Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.

Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen? - Scientific American


Here is my idea.
1. Set up a network of floating ballons with rope attaching each one within a spider web. This spider web can have futusric "lighter" solar panels on them. This would feed down to
2. The machine hanging out of the bottom of the balloon will constantly be breaking co2 down.

3. My second idea will be a giant solar sails of 10-20 miles wide, far enough away from venus to prevent solar input to reach the atmosphere. Maybe a million miles that will be positioned to always remain within the way.

CO2 is not harmful. Not now, not ever.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down
Jul 9, 2009

Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.

Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen? - Scientific American


Here is my idea.
1. Set up a network of floating ballons with rope attaching each one within a spider web. This spider web can have futusric "lighter" solar panels on them. This would feed down to
2. The machine hanging out of the bottom of the balloon will constantly be breaking co2 down.

3. My second idea will be a giant solar sails of 10-20 miles wide, far enough away from venus to prevent solar input to reach the atmosphere. Maybe a million miles that will be positioned to always remain within the way.

CO2 is not harmful. Not now, not ever.

I am talking about Venus. Humans need to break the carbon portion of this to start terraforming it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down
Jul 9, 2009

Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.

Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen? - Scientific American


Here is my idea.
1. Set up a network of floating ballons with rope attaching each one within a spider web. This spider web can have futusric "lighter" solar panels on them. This would feed down to
2. The machine hanging out of the bottom of the balloon will constantly be breaking co2 down.

3. My second idea will be a giant solar sails of 10-20 miles wide, far enough away from venus to prevent solar input to reach the atmosphere. Maybe a million miles that will be positioned to always remain within the way.

My idea's more elegant perhaps: quit chopping down all the fucking trees since they do this naturally.

 

[alang1216]

My solution would be a bio-engineered, photosynthetic, self-replicating organism. If it was small but had lots of surface area it would stay aloft on the winds. We could seed the clouds there and come back in a century or so to a much more hospitable climate. Any native Venetians might object and some technical details are omitted.

 

[mamooth]

Lacking a magnetic field, Venus had its hydrogen blown away by the solar wind, and the lack of hydrogen kills bio-engineering prospects.

So, hydrogen has to added first. A lot of it. One of the small icy moons of Saturn would provide about the right amount. This paper goes into it more.

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/TerraformingVenusQuickly.pdf

 

[alang1216]

There is some hydrogen chloride in the atmosphere. Don't know if it's enough.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?
James E. Miller, a chemical engineer at Sandia National Laboratories, breaks it down
Jul 9, 2009

Instead of sequestering carbon dioxide to reduce its effects on global climate, why don’t we split it into harmless carbon and oxygen?
—J. Henderson, Devon, Pa.

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.

Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen? - Scientific American


Here is my idea.
1. Set up a network of floating ballons with rope attaching each one within a spider web. This spider web can have futusric "lighter" solar panels on them. This would feed down to
2. The machine hanging out of the bottom of the balloon will constantly be breaking co2 down.

3. My second idea will be a giant solar sails of 10-20 miles wide, far enough away from venus to prevent solar input to reach the atmosphere. Maybe a million miles that will be positioned to always remain within the way.

My idea's more elegant perhaps: quit chopping down all the fucking trees since they do this naturally.

Idiot, you can't read? I said Venus.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I said that we should go to Venus as at 50km the Atmosphere has the same gravity, temperature and pressure as the surface of the earth. Maybe as we're doing so we could do something along the lines of my idea.

Another huge advantage is Venus is only 30 million miles from earth compared to 100 million for Mars.