New idea; Use Nukes to cool Earth down

[HawkII]

Elon Musk once said 'We can use Nukes to Warm Mars up' If we extrapolate from that, we can also use Nukes to cool Earth down.

Neutron bombs were intended to detonate at ground level to destroy all humans nearby whilst keeping Buildings mostly unscathed. The difference here is that we could detonate them in the sky instead.

The fiery blast radius would be a few hundred metres. The high energy Neutron radius would be 1000-2000 metres.

High energy Neutron collisions with Carbondioxide would make radioactive Carbondioxide. This newly radioactive compound would Betadecay into single Atoms


Earth's Atmosphere

• 78.08% Nitrogen
• 20.95% Oxygen
• 0.93% Argon
• 0.03%  Carbondioxide
• 0.0018% Neon
• 0.0005% Helium
•  0.0001% Krypton
• 0.00001% Xenon

As you can see, Carbondioxide is the only natural compound in the Atmosphere

Excess Carbondioxide causes Global warming

On the Periodic table

• Carbon has 6 Protons
• Nitrogen has 7 Protons
• Oxygen has 8 Protons

I have read that high amounts of Radioactive Carbondioxide would be non lethal to Humans

 

The floor is open to criticism and room for improvement.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, HawkII said:

Elon Musk once said 'We can use Nukes to Warm Mars up' If we extrapolate from that, we can also use Nukes to cool Earth down.

Neutron bombs were intended to detonate at ground level to destroy all humans nearby whilst keeping Buildings mostly unscathed. The difference here is that we could detonate them in the sky instead.

The fiery blast radius would be a few hundred metres. The high energy Neutron radius would be 1000-2000 metres.

High energy Neutron collisions with Carbondioxide would make radioactive Carbondioxide. This newly radioactive compound would Betadecay into single Atoms


Earth's Atmosphere

• 78.08% Nitrogen
• 20.95% Oxygen
• 0.93% Argon
• 0.03%  Carbondioxide
• 0.0018% Neon
• 0.0005% Helium
•  0.0001% Krypton
• 0.00001% Xenon

As you can see, Carbondioxide is the only natural compound in the Atmosphere

Excess Carbondioxide causes Global warming

On the Periodic table

• Carbon has 6 Protons
• Nitrogen has 7 Protons
• Oxygen has 8 Protons

I have read that high amounts of Radioactive Carbondioxide would be non lethal to Humans

 

The floor is open to criticism and room for improvement.

I presume your idea is to generate C14, which decays to N14 by β-emission.

I'm not an expert on this but I'm not sure you can readily convert C12 to C14 by neutron bombardment. Have you checked whether there is a pathway for that? (C13 is stable, I gather, so even if you could produce that it would not help.) 

[HawkII]

I came upon this webpage as I was looking into the topic

 

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/65809/what-happens-to-a-radioactive-carbon-dioxide-molecule-when-its-carbon-14-atom-de  cays

 

Out of all the Carbon  Isotopes, I believe Carbon-14 is the highest number.

 

All the Carbon in the Carbon dioxide will become the highest number isotope due to sheer amount of high energy Neutrons from the Blast radius

 

Edit:- Carbon dating in Trees is when the Carbon turns into Nitrogen due to Neutron bombardment from cosmic rays

Edited May 28, 2023 by HawkII

[exchemist]

12 minutes ago, HawkII said:

I came upon this webpage as I was looking into the topic

 

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/65809/what-happens-to-a-radioactive-carbon-dioxide-molecule-when-its-carbon-14-atom-de  cays

 

Out of all the Carbon  Isotopes, I believe Carbon-14 is the highest number.

 

All the Carbon in the Carbon dioxide will become the highest number isotope due to sheer amount of high energy Neutrons from the Blast radius

 

Edit:- Carbon dating in Trees is when the Carbon turns into Nitrogen due to Neutron bombardment from cosmic rays

That does not address my query, which was about how you imagine you would generate C14, as opposed to what it decays into, which is indeed well-known.

I can't find anything to suggest that irradiating C12 with neutrons will produce C14, as you seem to think it may. Where do you get that idea from? 

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, HawkII said:

High energy Neutron collisions with Carbondioxide would make radioactive Carbondioxide. This newly radioactive compound would Betadecay into single Atoms

Carbon 14 is produced from thermal neutrons interacting with nitrogen.  During the age of above ground nuke testing it was noted that the amount of C14 in carbon dioxide rose but there was no decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The other thing is the half life of carbon 14 is 5700 years so even if your idea was right it would not be any sort of fix that could be accomplished in the short term.

[TheVat]

Seems like there might be other knock-on effects from detonating nukes in the atmosphere.  Both in atmospheric chemistry and in global diplomacy.  To say nothing of radionuclides getting into soil and water and then into ecosystems.  While neutron bombs are cleaner than conventional thermonuclear weapons, they are not really clean.

[HawkII]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

That does not address my query, which was about how you imagine you would generate C14, as opposed to what it decays into, which is indeed well-known.

I can't find anything to suggest that irradiating C12 with neutrons will produce C14, as you seem to think it may. Where do you get that idea from? 

Quote

If an atom or molecule gains an electron, it becomes negatively charged (an anion), and if it loses an electron, it becomes positively charged (a cation). Energy may be lost or gained in the formation of an ion.

 

 

Quote

 

isotope

 

noun

Chemistry

noun: isotope; plural noun: isotopes

1. each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element.

 

I assume that because there's a maximum room for Neutrons, it would work just like the Electrons

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Carbon 14 is produced from thermal neutrons interacting with nitrogen.  During the age of above ground nuke testing it was noted that the amount of C14 in carbon dioxide rose but there was no decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The other thing is the half life of carbon 14 is 5700 years so even if your idea was right it would not be any sort of fix that could be accomplished in the short term.

Edit:- The 5700 year half life wait would be problematic

Edited May 28, 2023 by HawkII

[TheVat]

24 minutes ago, HawkII said:

assume that because there's a maximum room for Neutrons, it would work just like the Electrons

No.  Ionization is common.  Neutron capture, happening twice to a C12 nucleus, is a low probability event.  Quite rare.

[HawkII]

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

No.  Ionization is common.  Neutron capture, happening twice to a C12 nucleus, is a low probability event.  Quite rare.

In normal circumstances. But a Tsunami of highly charged Neutrons could make it common place.

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

 The other thing is the half life of carbon 14 is 5700 years

The ingredients for a Neutron bomb has isotope Hydrogen atoms. Perhaps they could be entangled to a stash on Earth:

• Hyrdogen A gets Quantumly entangled to Hydrogen B
• Hydrogen A gets put into the Bomb
• Bomb detonates
• Evidence amount of C14 in Carbon dioxide rises
• Hydrogen B then gets zapped repeatedly

Edited May 28, 2023 by HawkII

[swansont]

5 hours ago, HawkII said:

Elon Musk once said 'We can use Nukes to Warm Mars up' If we extrapolate from that, we can also use Nukes to cool Earth down.

Elon has only a bachelor’s in physics and is not an engineer. Take their claims with a large grain of salt.

5 hours ago, HawkII said:

Neutron bombs were intended to detonate at ground level to destroy all humans nearby whilst keeping Buildings mostly unscathed. The difference here is that we could detonate them in the sky instead.

Killing humans would be problematic

5 hours ago, HawkII said:

The fiery blast radius would be a few hundred metres. The high energy Neutron radius would be 1000-2000 metres.

High energy Neutron collisions with Carbondioxide would make radioactive Carbondioxide. This newly radioactive compound would Betadecay into single Atoms

“Carbon dioxide” and “beta decay” are not single words

But, as has been pointed out, no, this would not happen, and even if it did, how would this cool the earth?

Quote

a Tsunami of highly charged Neutrons could make it common place.

neutrons are not charged.

[HawkII]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Elon has only a bachelor’s in physics and is not an engineer. Take their claims with a large grain of salt.

Killing humans would be problematic

“Carbon dioxide” and “beta decay” are not single words

But, as has been pointed out, no, this would not happen, and even if it did, how would this cool the earth?

neutrons are not charged.

IQ trumps education

That's why we would detonate the Neutron bombs in the sky. Make sure no Planes or Insects or Birds are present. Fallow the Fields approach

I know that now

It would cool Earth by disassembling excess Carbon dioxide

I meant Kinetically charged. I should have specified that.

Edited May 29, 2023 by HawkII

[exchemist]

6 minutes ago, HawkII said:

IQ trumps education

That's why we would detonate the Neutron bombs in the sky. Make sure no Planes or Insects or Birds are present. Fallow the Fields approach

I know that now

It would cool Earth by disassembling excess Carbon dioxide

I meant Kinetically charged. I should have specified that.

Except it would not, as has been explained to you. Very little, if any C14 would be produced and the subsequent decay into N14 would take thousands of years. 

"Kinetically charged" is meaningless, by the way. What do you mean by kinetic charge, and what is it that you think would be "kinetically charged"?   

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, HawkII said:

IQ trumps education

IQ is meaningless without the required education and research

[swansont]

2 hours ago, HawkII said:

IQ trumps education

Musk doesn’t appear to be all that bright. He’s an example of the myth that getting rich is a result of being smart, which ignores other factors (like being lucky, being given large advantages, and being sociopathic)

 

2 hours ago, HawkII said:

I know that now

It would cool Earth by disassembling excess Carbon dioxide

Except it wouldn’t disassemble CO2

2 hours ago, HawkII said:

I meant Kinetically charged. I should have specified that.

Now you need to explain what “kinetically charged” means.

[mistermack]

Of course, it's going to be hard to cool the atmosphere, by releasing huge amounts of heat in the atmosphere. 

That's like saving the rain forest from drought, by burning down the rain forest. 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Of course, it's going to be hard to cool the atmosphere, by releasing huge amounts of heat in the atmosphere. 

That's like saving the rain forest from drought, by burning down the rain forest. 

Not huge, though. Total solar power incident on the earth is in excess of 10^17 watts. A 1 Megaton bomb is about 4 x 10^15 joules, which is the solar energy we get in a few tens of milliseconds.

[mistermack]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not huge, though. Total solar power incident on the earth is in excess of 10^17 watts. A 1 Megaton bomb is about 4 x 10^15 joules, which is the solar energy we get in a few tens of milliseconds.

 But how many neutron bombs would it take to make a significant dent in the CO2 level of the atmosphere? The OP quoted only 1 to 2 km radius for high energy neutrons. And CO2 is very thinly dispersed in the air, so it's doubtful if there would be a high-efficiency of conversion of CO2. 

So it's likely it would take a huge number of bombs, to make a noticeable difference to the CO2 level, even if it did work. I think it's likely that the heat released would outweigh the effect of any CO2 reduction. 

                        

 

 

[Mordred]

I can think of several far more practical ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The methodology I read that seems far more practical and safer to boot is to use long tunes attached to a flotation device with a one way flap. This pumps nutrients from the sea floor enhancing algea growth in the immediate region. Algea like plants filter co2 and return oxygen to the atmosphere.

 The added advantage is that it also aids in fish production.

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, HawkII said:

we can also use Nukes to cool Earth down

We can use nukes + railguns:

There may be another way to "save"/cool the Earth: large sheets of reflective materials on orbit around the Earth, both for shading & cooling the hot regions (including storm cells) and for heating the cold regions (by reflecting sun light). Besides tempering the climate, electric energy can be saved (less power used for cooling/heating) and produced (solar panels on Earth using the reflected - and focused - light from orbit). No fusion reactors needed ... Just railguns and/or nukes to launch the materials on orbit and astronauts/robots to deploy the sheets. Not easy but doable.

[CharonY]

55 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I can think of several far more practical ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The methodology I read that seems far more practical and safer to boot is to use long tunes attached to a flotation device with a one way flap. This pumps nutrients from the sea floor enhancing algea growth in the immediate region. Algea like plants filter co2 and return oxygen to the atmosphere.

 The added advantage is that it also aids in fish production.

We have two threads with this idea, but there are a couple of issues and the math is rather meh on the net benefit. But one important bit is that the biomass needs to be long-term sequestered in order to be removed from the atmosphere. If there is more biomass turnover (e.g. fish or repeated cycle of biomass to active zones) then CO2 will be released again. While it might not be a net release per se, it can reduce the capacity of the ocean to sequester CO2 (which is dependent on the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface).

But it does sound saner than using nukes.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

We have two threads with this idea, but there are a couple of issues and the math is rather meh on the net benefit. But one important bit is that the biomass needs to be long-term sequestered in order to be removed from the atmosphere. If there is more biomass turnover (e.g. fish or repeated cycle of biomass to active zones) then CO2 will be released again. While it might not be a net release per se, it can reduce the capacity of the ocean to sequester CO2 (which is dependent on the partial pressure of CO2 at the surface).

But it does sound saner than using nukes.

That's useful info, the other method and not positive on the compound used was a mix of water and sodium bicarbonate (if I recall been a few years ) setup in a water fall type scenario with air pushed through it.

One problem was what to do with the captured CO2 the article years ago suggested placing it in old oil wells lol. 

I do know lithium hydroxide can be used to filter co2.

I was close sodium bicarbonate was one of the byproducts. Used sodium hydroxide.

https://www.eeer.org/upload/eer-21-3-297.pdf

Lol can you imagine telling China or one of the other world major producers. " were going to fire a bunch of nukes to clean your atmosphere "........

Edited May 29, 2023 by Mordred

[CharonY]

47 minutes ago, Mordred said:

That's useful info, the other method and not positive on the compound used was a mix of water and sodium bicarbonate (if I recall been a few years ) setup in a water fall type scenario with air pushed through it.

One problem was what to do with the captured CO2 the article years ago suggested placing it in old oil wells lol. 

There have been a boom for carbon capture technologies for a little while now. The issue I have is that they often ride the "magic bullet" mentality where tech somehow will solve all the problems we have neglected to address for decades or centuries and all without having to put effort in. While their implementation in plants fore example seems to have benefits, I suspect that the promise to effect ratio for implementation at scale is still a bit off.

But the same line easy solutions thinking is what is popular with folks like Musk. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

We can use nukes + railguns:

There may be another way to "save"/cool the Earth: large sheets of reflective materials on orbit around the Earth, both for shading & cooling the hot regions (including storm cells) and for heating the cold regions (by reflecting sun light).

Heating the cold regions doesn’t help solve the global warming problem, it makes it worse.

More stuff in orbit, especially highly reflective stuff, will not be popular with astronomers.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

Besides tempering the climate, electric energy can be saved (less power used for cooling/heating) and produced (solar panels on Earth using the reflected - and focused - light from orbit). No fusion reactors needed ... Just railguns and/or nukes to launch the materials on orbit and astronauts/robots to deploy the sheets.

It always sounds simple when you don’t consider any details whatsoever.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

Not easy but doable.

As evidenced by all the times it has been done?

[Ken Fabian]

Collateral damage would be a serious problem even if it might hypothetically work - except it won't.

Nuking the atmosphere to reduce CO2 is a new one to me. I've encountered use nukes to make a nuclear winter ie set fire to the world and all the smoke and ash will cool things down - but of course a nuclear winter will do a lot more than cool the climate. To be fair the global destruction and year or two of crop failures and livestock deaths along with the reduced economic demand from all that mass murdering and famines will sustain longer term emissions reductions! After the CO2 spike and renewed warming from all the burning subsides of course. Perhaps people in well prepared deep bunkers will be okay - if incapable of recovering an advanced technological society after.

Like that, and with the assumption that nuking the atmosphere would actually reduce  CO2 (except that it won't) the other impacts of nuking the atmosphere are just too horrendous.

Dunno why, but my response to most "just do X"  easy fix shortcuts (that somehow avoid the inconvenience of dealing with the cause ie fossil fuel emissions) is head scratching - "seriously?". I keep coming back to building as much clean energy as our most effective - and cost effective - climate change response.

[genio]

On 5/28/2023 at 3:04 PM, HawkII said:

Excess Carbon dioxide causes Global warming

Excess humans burning an excessive amount of fossil fuels causes global warming. Let's stop blaming molecules.

The number of children being driven to school throughout the day from Monday to Friday is a major issue. All thanks to law and order svu, by making mothers paranoid.

The only way is to reduce burning fossil fuels and the clouds/rain will naturally bring the CO2 back down to earth.