Technology to reverse climate change

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

duncan61 wrote:
Your going to need a long cable amongst other things.The air is very thin in the troposphere so you may struggle to find much CO2

duncan61 wrote:
Good catch I meant stratosphere.

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

jayley wrote:
All good points. Thanks. From your comments I gather that the weight of the 100 mile-long cable is one of the obstacles to making this thing work. How about power over optics? Still too heavy? Hummm. We really need this to work.

jayley wrote:
Power over optics? Donno but it's done; look it up.

jayley wrote:
Science says CO2 (and methane etc) in the upper atmosphere causes the hothouse effect.

jayley wrote:
That we are suffering from that effect is beyond question in my mind.

jayley wrote:
Our attempts to ameliorate that so far is by reducing emissions.

jayley wrote:
Economics and politics gets in the way of that.

jayley wrote:
Surely, I say to myself, there has to be a way to reverse the build up by breaking the molecule apart (in the upper atmos). I don't know how; but I hope some bright soul does. I just want to push the concept. Thanks.

jayley wrote:Power over optics? Donno but it's done; look it up.[/qote]
So you believe everything you read on the internet. That would certainly explain your hair-brained ideas.

[quote]jayley wrote:Science says CO2 (and methane etc) in the upper atmosphere causes the hothouse effect.

jayley wrote: That we are suffering from that effect is beyond question in my mind.

jayley wrote:Our attempts to ameliorate that so far is by reducing emissions.

jayley wrote:Economics and politics gets in the way of that.

jayley wrote: Surely, I say to myself, there has to be a way to reverse the build up

jayley wrote:
It's ok you do not sign on to the possibility; no doubt you will have a lot of company. My hope, however, is that radical ideas like this one will stir more workable ideas to do the same thing. Don't tell me why it won't work; tell me how to do it so it will work. Thanks.

jayley wrote:It's ok you do not sign on to the possibility;

jayley wrote: My hope, however, is that radical ideas like this one will stir more workable ideas to do the same thing.

jayley wrote: Don't tell me why it won't work; t

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
All good points. Thanks. From your comments I gather that the weight of the 100 mile-long cable is one of the obstacles to making this thing work. How about power over optics? Still too heavy? Hummm. We really need this to work.

How do you transmit power over optics?

Why do you need this to work?

Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power

duncan61 wrote:Ibdm are you not allowing for the shade effect.We are going to keep this device between us and the sun so in the daytime it is night time and in the night time it will be night time.All life on the planet will die and we will be a frozen rock hurtling through space and we will all be broke and happy

jayley wrote:The cable is not intended to go to the ground,

jayley wrote: "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning), s

jayley wrote: The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion)

jayley wrote: I'm not married to this particular concept;

jayley wrote:I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work.

jayley wrote: We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels

jayley wrote:The clock is ticking.

jayley wrote:One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

jayley wrote:
The cable is not intended to go to the ground, "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning), still an imposing distance. The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion) where the CO2 molecule is broken apart and the carbon eventually falls to the ground. I'm not married to this particular concept; I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work. We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels (a program which is still mired in political and economic sands). The clock is ticking. Thanks for your input.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power

This can serve as a viable solution for low power applications, e.g. a drone ... on a tether.

However, I have to laugh at the idea of placing a solar-cell-laden satellite into orbit to gather sunlight to send it down to earth via fiber optic cable when one can just place those same solar cells on the ground and collect the exact same sunlight which doesn't need any help making it all the way to earth's surface.

.

duncan61 wrote:
Ibdm are you not allowing for the shade effect.We are going to keep this device between us and the sun so in the daytime it is night time and in the night time it will be night time.All life on the planet will die and we will be a frozen rock hurtling through space and we will all be broke and happy

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

jayley wrote:
The cable is not intended to go to the ground, "only" to the thickest CO2 accumulation in the upper atmosphere (requiring a cable length of about 100 miles by my reckoning),

jayley wrote:
still an imposing distance.

jayley wrote:
The cable feeds an aeronautical platform (flying on electrical propulsion)

jayley wrote:
where the CO2 molecule is broken apart and the carbon eventually falls to the ground.

jayley wrote:
I'm not married to this particular concept; I only wanted to put it out there to see if we could build on it and make something that will work.

jayley wrote:
We do need an alternate to reducing use of fossil fuels

jayley wrote:
(a program which is still mired in political and economic sands).

jayley wrote:
The clock is ticking. Thanks for your input.

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

duncan61 wrote:
Perhaps we could trap the extra heat and use it to make hot air balloons so cooling the planet and scooping up nasty carbon all at the same time

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:tiny drone flies on fiber-optic power

This can serve as a viable solution for low power applications, e.g. a drone ... on a tether.

However, I have to laugh at the idea of placing a solar-cell-laden satellite into orbit to gather sunlight to send it down to earth via fiber optic cable when one can just place those same solar cells on the ground and collect the exact same sunlight which doesn't need any help making it all the way to earth's surface.

.

Maybe the CO2 on the ground isn't a risk, but the CO2 high in the atmosphere is a risk.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

Maybe the CO2 on the ground isn't a risk, but the CO2 high in the atmosphere is a risk.

Why? What is the risk?

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jayley wrote:
One other thing. The lower reaches of the cable could be supported with balloons.

Too much drag. That will actually but additional strain on a cable that is not possible to build.

You ever see those balloons attached to power lines? Those are just markers for pilots so they don't crash into them.

James___ wrote:

jayley wrote:
Ok, so maybe this won't work as outlined, but perhaps it would serve to build interest in something like it.
Let's say we install X number of square miles of solar panels in orbit and use that energy to break apart CO2 in the upper atmosphere (it takes the same energy to do that that was given up when the elements combined in combustion). The energy from the orbiting solar panels would be fed down through cables to the CO2 conversion apparatus, which flies as an airplane flies.

They've actually considered something like that out in space where the satellites roam. There's also reflecting mirrors, etc. With satellites we're kind of getting into the Tesla coil and wireless transmission of electricity.
Now that there are companies like Space X, etc., the cost of launching such arrays might allow for it to be financially feasible. The one serious issue might be with focusing the energy into a beam and that would require laser technology and then we're into the Star Wars military program. You know, everyone would have a Death Ray pointing down at the Earth. Will probably happen one day and if so, they might just shoot each other out of the sky. Kind of like a nuclear arms race. No one is willing to use one but then they are a deterrent if only 1 country had one.
What might be more to everyone's liking is increasing the ozone layer so it would refract more solar radiation. It's possible that as the density of the ozone layer increases that it would be able to reflect outside of the UV spectrum.
Since we're discussing oxygen ions, maybe O4 or O5 if possible or a molecule that would have similar characteristics. If so then CO2 might be a source for the raw material to synthesize new molecules.

jayley wrote:
I like your humor (that was humor wasn't it?). As far as shading the planet it should not happen to any appreciable extent because the solar cells do not need to be closely adjoined so as to create an umbrella effect and also because their area is so insignificant re the sphere of their position in space. I wouldn't worry about that. The real problems here as I see it are the weight and structural stability of the cable and whether the atmosphere at the thickest layer of CO2 can support a flying platform. As to the first their may be some hope for PoF (power over fiber) tech, which is being developed as we speak. But even if it becomes available would it, or any cable, be feasible? As to the promise of an airplane platform at the height where it could do most good that needs to be researched.
Thanks for the interest. Can we get serious about this?