Possibly stupid idea

[Vrael]

I'm dont know alot about environmental debates and politics but alot of people complain about destryong the ozone (note this idea might have already been suggested i dont really know i just recently thought of it no flaming please be civilized)

why dont we just make more ozone

its made up of chemicals right? and scientists have a rough idea of how much of the ozone is taken up by what chemcial (rough might be an understatment) so why not just make ozone we should fix our problems with pollution but until then we could just make more ozone

couldnt we?

[Altarus]

We probably can not do this for the same reason that we can not do something similar with CO2 effects on global warming. Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air. However, realistically, it would just cost too much.

[Vrael]

At 8/17/06 06:52 PM, Idyes wrote: We probably can not do this for the same reason that we can not do something similar with CO2 effects on global warming. Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air. However, realistically, it would just cost too much.

well if this is something that would help the whole world i dont think money should be involved (money is evil i say still)

[White-hole]

At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: I'm dont know alot about environmental debates and politics but alot of people complain about destryong the ozone (note this idea might have already been suggested i dont really know i just recently thought of it no flaming please be civilized)

why dont we just make more ozone

its made up of chemicals right? and scientists have a rough idea of how much of the ozone is taken up by what chemcial (rough might be an understatment) so why not just make ozone we should fix our problems with pollution but until then we could just make more ozone

couldnt we?

You'd have to pump billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere each year, also the gas is extremly poisonous to humans. Anyway the problem is sorting its self out, apparantly scientists have noted a marked increase in ozone over antartica, which is the worst affected region in the world.

[MrBibz]

Home made o-zone you say? No thanks, I prefer the real thing.

[AdamRice]

We solved the ozone problem by getting rid of cholor fluoro carbons. They are still used in certain applications but there use is controled.

And the ozone layer and global warming are too completely different things.

Ozone is just O3 (3 oxygen atoms). Regular oxygen that we breath is O2.

[Begoner]

Incidentally, speaking of possibly stupid environmental ideas, I have been thinking of possible solutions to global warming. Would it be possible to make an air conditioner that runs of heat energy? If you put one of them in each house, it's bound to decrease global warming at least slightly.

[Davious]

At 8/17/06 07:11 PM, D-Bibz wrote: Home made o-zone you say? No thanks, I prefer the real thing.

Artificial is better than nothing don't ya think? I don't know if that's possible or not, but if it is, it is at least a good number of years off...

[Crusty-Wiwuh]

Laser printers help fix teh O zone :D

[AdamRice]

At 8/17/06 08:46 PM, Davious wrote:

At 8/17/06 07:11 PM, D-Bibz wrote: Home made o-zone you say? No thanks, I prefer the real thing.

Artificial is better than nothing don't ya think? I don't know if that's possible or not, but if it is, it is at least a good number of years off...

Ozone is easy to make, just pass an electric arc through ambient air. Lightening makes ozone, electric motors make ozone, an arc from a DC transformer makes ozone. But it doesn't matter, you would never be able to make enough.

And they already solved the problem. The layer is replenishing itself since we got rid of CFC's.

Ozone is constantly created and destroyed. The O3 absorbs ultraviolet radiation and therefore splits into O2. That is how it protects us from t3h ultraviolet radiation. Now where is my god damn cAdnY?

[Draconias]

At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: why dont we just make more ozone

We do, but down 'ere it's called "smog." Apparently, some people don't like it much.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

We do make plenty of ozone, in the form of smog. The problem is that we can't get it to the upper atmosphere. The atmosphere is layered. The first layer we live in is the troposphere. The higher you get in the troposhere, the colder it gets, that is, until you hit the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, the atmosphere starts heating up again due to energy absorption. Because of this, air can only rise so far, at least in the short term. Thus, any ozone you create gets trapped in the lower atmosphere, where it is poisonous.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 8/17/06 08:45 PM, Begoner wrote: Incidentally, speaking of possibly stupid environmental ideas, I have been thinking of possible solutions to global warming. Would it be possible to make an air conditioner that runs of heat energy? If you put one of them in each house, it's bound to decrease global warming at least slightly.

You need an equal trade of energy. The hot air you're trying to use as a power source just won't cut it. Then if you can figure out how to get enough energy to do any good you've just designed a machine whos sole purpose is to destroy its energy source.

[JudgeDredd]

At 8/17/06 07:06 PM, White_hole wrote:

At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: why dont we just make more ozone

You'd have to pump billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere each year, also the gas is extremly poisonous to humans. Anyway the problem is sorting its self out, apparantly scientists have noted a marked increase in ozone over antartica, which is the worst affected region in the world.

LOL (cough)..

Ozone is created from..? chiefly from Lightning.
-The surest way to increase lightning strikes is to increase storm activity with hot layers (tropical for instance) which create the cloud ion buildup.
- The surest way to increase tropical storms is to heat the planet (global warming).
-The surest way to warm the planet is forest fires and smog. Luckily lightning accounts for about a good proportion of forest fires (catch-22). Problem solved!

..well 1 problem solved at least.

:O|

[Guitarmy]

At 8/17/06 06:52 PM, Idyes wrote: We probably can not do this for the same reason that we can not do something similar with CO2 effects on global warming. Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air. However, realistically, it would just cost too much.

No it doesn't ozone is just O3 we use it in water purifiers to clean water and create no hazerdous byproducts, just oxygen and... OXYGEN! The problem lies in the fact that ozone has a half-life of only 8 minutes, it's created by chemical reactions brought on by the sun in the atmosphere, all the carbon monoxide makes it impossible to do that so it simply dissappears instead of reproducing.

[RedScorpion]

At 8/17/06 06:52 PM, Idyes wrote: We probably can not do this for the same reason that we can not do something similar with CO2 effects on global warming. Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air. However, realistically, it would just cost too much.

Yea... I remember reading this article on this smog-purifier, designed for a city like Los Angeles. Worked by electrolysis or some stuff. Anyway, I guess if they built like 15, 20 of these outside the city, the smog would be virtually eliminated from the air.

But, of course, they'd never do it. Too much money, space, blah blah blah... :\

[AdamRice]

As I have already said, this really is no longer an issue. The ozone layer is slowly replenishing itself due to us no longer using cloro-fluoro-carbons or CFC's.

Although I can't say whether China uses CFC's or may start to use CFC's. I dunno if they have signed the kyoto protocal, assuming that it has stuff in it about ozone.

[Mizox]

don't worry about china, their government has initialized extreamely strict environmental laws, and all china men strictly obey the government

[Rioan]

At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: why dont we just make more ozone
its made up of chemicals right?

It's made up of O3, to be exact.

so why not just make ozone we should fix our problems with pollution but until then we could just make more ozone
couldnt we?

We could, but here's the problem with that:

1.) Making O3 takes up more resources than it helps to save.
For example, if I made 1 pound of ozone, I probably made enough ozone-damaging substances to destroy 2 pounds of ozone.

2.) O3 happens to be a very toxic gas, so making it would take a lot of funding (safety measures). Too expensive.

3.) O3 belongs way the hell up in our atmosphere, how would we get it there? Again, that would take up resources.

The whole idea is just way too inefficient.

[JudgeDredd]

At 8/17/06 06:52 PM, Idyes wrote: Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air.

It's called a FOREST..

[Begoner]

You need an equal trade of energy. The hot air you're trying to use as a power source just won't cut it. Then if you can figure out how to get enough energy to do any good you've just designed a machine whos sole purpose is to destroy its energy source.

What do you mean by "equal trade of energy"? There is an equal trade of energy. Initially, the energy comes from the sun, and is then used to cool the surrounding air. If a machine can run off heat energy, then it is extremely possible to make an air conditioner that also runs off heat energy. I really don't know the amount of energy required to cool air to a reasonable degree, but I doubt that it's more than a few calories for one gram of air. Anyway, if possible, it's bound to make some sort of dent in global warming, at least. Its point would be to "destroy" heat energy -- its energy source is damaging the environment, so it is neutralized.

[Guitarmy]

At 8/18/06 02:45 AM, Rioan wrote:

At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: why dont we just make more ozone
its made up of chemicals right?

It's made up of O3, to be exact.

so why not just make ozone we should fix our problems with pollution but until then we could just make more ozone
couldnt we?

We could, but here's the problem with that:

1.) Making O3 takes up more resources than it helps to save.
For example, if I made 1 pound of ozone, I probably made enough ozone-damaging substances to destroy 2 pounds of ozone.

No, you'd have oxygen. Not 'ozone-damaging substances'

2.) O3 happens to be a very toxic gas, so making it would take a lot of funding (safety measures). Too expensive.

We use ozone generators in water purifiers. Look into it, the problem is that it has a short halflife of 8 minutes.

3.) O3 belongs way the hell up in our atmosphere, how would we get it there? Again, that would take up resources.

You're right there though.