Can we add ozone to the ozone layer?

[Elite Engineer]

If the ozone is depleting why not artificially added extra ozone (O3) to the layer to stabilize it? Sounds really fundamwntal, so I know Im wrong, but why?

 

~ee

[Ophiolite]

How are you going to generate the volumes of ozone required?

 

How are you going to pay for the equipment and energy required to generate the ozone?

 

And, especially, how are you going to get it into the upper atmosphere?

[Elite Engineer]

How are you going to generate the volumes of ozone required?

 

How are you going to pay for the equipment and energy required to generate the ozone?

 

And, especially, how are you going to get it into the upper atmosphere?

If we can generate mass quantites of carbon dioxide, why can't we generate large amounts of ozone? The only good synthesis of ozone I know is using the "dielectric barrier discharge" method.

 

Private investors? Government subsidies? Would makes ALOT of jobs.

 

Design aircraft to release the ozone high in the atmosphere.

 

-I'm not saying we would have to produce more ozone than carbon dioxide, just enough to balance out, or slowly retard the depletion of the ozone layer. This is definitely something that needs to be researched.

[John Cuthber]

It would be fantastically expensive.

As you say "This is definitely something that needs to be researched."

Feel free to do the arithmetic.

You need to know the energy needed to make ozone, how much you need, and how much you can expect to pay (wholesale) for electricity.

I'm sure you can find those on-line somewhere.

As you say "This is definitely something that needs to be researched."

 

 

 

Just think how much effort mankind has put into digging coal or drilling for oil.

You would need something similar to make significant amounts of ozone.

And, of course, the energy needed to make the ozone would mean that we would produce even more CO2 and damage the atmosphere even more than we already have..

Of course, the good news is that, since we stopped filling the air with ozone destroying chemicals, the ozone levels are , if not yet increasing, at least dropping more slowly.

[Endy0816]

I've actually heard this exact question asked before. Has almost certainly already been looked at.

[Ophiolite]

If we can generate mass quantites of carbon dioxide, why can't we generate large amounts of ozone?

 

The carbon dioxide is a by-product of the energy that powers our civilisation. If the expense were comparable, or even an order of magnitude less, it would be unaffordable. As John has said, do the calculations.

 

 

Private investors? Government subsidies? Would makes ALOT of jobs.

Investors are looking for a return on their investment. So who pays the private investor for this work?

 

Which 75% of current government spending are you going to abandon in order to pay for this?

 

-I'm not saying we would have to produce more ozone than carbon dioxide, just enough to balance out, or slowly retard the depletion of the ozone layer. This is definitely something that needs to be researched.

So follow John's advice and let us know what you find.

[Sensei]

How are you going to generate the volumes of ozone required?

 

How are you going to pay for the equipment and energy required to generate the ozone?

 

And, especially, how are you going to get it into the upper atmosphere?

 

Whenever I am turning on my Cockcroft-Walton high voltage 40 kV generator I am producing ozone that's immediately detectable (by smelt).

Especially when there is coronal discharge.

The same happens during storm thunderbolt.

 

So, we would need a lot of durable balloons filled by Hydrogen which have solar panels (might be whole surface of balloon?) and turning Sun photons energy to high voltage, and producing ozone for years.

They would be already in atmosphere, and using natural source of energy, so problems of transportation and electricity costs wouldn't exist.

 

Production section of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

 

"Corona discharge method

 

This is the most common type of ozone generator for most industrial and personal uses. While variations of the "hot spark" coronal discharge method of ozone production exist, including medical grade and industrial grade ozone generators, these units usually work by means of a corona discharge tube."

 

Investors are looking for a return on their investment. So who pays the private investor for this work?

 

Which 75% of current government spending are you going to abandon in order to pay for this?

 

That's whole problem - humans won't do anything if nobody will pay them to do it.

That must be changed.

People need to do what is good for all of them, not what is good only for their own wallets.

 

This reminds me Marie Curie-Sklodowska, who gave procedure of production of Radium for free.

And then couldn't afford to buy Uranium ores anymore, after everybody started using it, and price increased to ridiculous high levels.

[John Cuthber]

"Whenever I am turning on my Cockcroft-Walton high voltage 40 kV generator I am producing ozone that's immediately detectable (by smelt)."

OK, so that's a few cubic metres of air in which you raise the ozone levels to the odour threshold of about 100 ppb.

You have made perhaps a few milligrams of ozone in about a minute.

 

Now calculate how much we need to fill the hole in the ozone layer.

 

Well "The total mass of ozone produced per day over the globe is about 400 million metric tons." according to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle

So, if everyone on earth (call it 10^10) had a comparable generator that's about 50 Mg/ min or 72 Gg per day

A tonne is a thousand kilos or a million grams so, if everyone had a generator, we could add 72,000 tonnes per day.

It would add about 0.02% to the overall production.

That's clearly not going to make a lot of difference.

 

So, do you think that providing the equivalent of a CW generator to every man, woman and child on the planet (never mind the fact that most of them have no electricity supply) in order to make an immeasurably small difference is a worthwhile way to spend anyone's money?

Edited June 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[KenBrace]

The ozone layer depletion isn't causing any problems at the moment and won't anytime soon based on the rate it's getting destroyed. By the time it is a problem (if it ever becomes one) it will be a ways in the future and I'm sure we'll have much better technology by then which will allow us to replenish the ozone layer much more easily than we can now.

Edited June 14, 2014 by KenBrace

[Sensei]

So, if everyone on earth (call it 10^10) had a comparable generator that's about 50 Mg/ min or 72 Gg per day

A tonne is a thousand kilos or a million grams so, if everyone had a generator, we could add 72,000 tonnes per day.

 

If I am not mistaken you're calculating per hour output from single ozone generator to be just 0.3 grams.

 

The first one generator (for $200 retail) that I found on net has output... 7 grams per hour (7000mg/hr).

http://www.a2zozone.com/collections/featured-products/products/a7k-air-ozone-generator

 

That's 23 times more than yours calculations.

 

If I would be producing ozone at Earth's surface level, I would try to use electrolysis of water to have high concentration of oxygen 100%. Then make ozone from it. Instead of relying on air oxygen.

Such production can be additional in normal commercial production of Hydrogen in factories.

 

[John Cuthber]

So, for a cost of just 200$ per head for everyone on the planet- that's a total of about a trillion dollars, we could add 238.02 i.e. 0.5% to the ozone layer.

Seriously, do you think that's a good idea?

And, while we were at it, we could use something like a trillion watts of power.

That's about 9 million Kilowatt hours per year

According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption

you would be talking about nearly doubling the world's electricity use or, if you prefer, an electricity bill roughly as big as the US and China put together.

 

Why are you still even thinking about this?

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

Why are you still even thinking about this?

 

The OP knew this was likely not reasonable, but why is there harm in discussing this?

 

Discussion is not only the point of Forums, but can also educate.

 

When is the proper time to discuss this? After the Ozone is 25% gone... 50%....

 

There are a half dozen "speculative" energy technologies in development. Cold Fusion, LENR, Blacklight Power, and more. I am not saying they are real or yet realized, but science is moving in leaps and bounds because of The Internet and someday we will have Cheap, abundant, and clean energy. How will that affect your $trillion energy bill?

 

Environmental repair should be a subject people can think about. Energy seems to be the only issue you have with it.

 

or We could just shoot all the cows and have a burgerfest.

 

I have not looked into it, but how is Ozone produced in nature. Maybe there is a way to nurture the process?

 

Could we aim UV-C radiation skyward and hope it aids nature? This type of thinking (if we are allowed to think and discuss) might eventually come up with a solution.

 

The key to a good Brainstorming Session is to make it clear to your group that no idea or proposal should be considered dumb. Entertain all aspects if only briefly.

 

Someday the Ozone will be 100%. Let's just hope mankind is still here to see it.

 

Maybe the solution is simply to create more oxygen .(Ozone is created from dioxygen)... We could fill our oceans with Algae Farms double the size of the rainforest. This would also remove carbon from our atmosphere (as long as farms are maintained). We could solve Global Warming (if Carbon induced) and fix our Ozone in one go.

 

How much would cost to build an acre of seaweed in a floating lattice? You could ask companies to sponsor enough acres to reduce their carbon footprints in PR or political campaigns. Most of our oceans cannot support surface plants because of nutrients, so selective locations or fertilizing regimes would be required.

 

You could grow the Algae fields over fishing hotspots and help increase our cod and halibut populations. Fish farms with algae can support twice the amount of life, maybe it will help fish grow and also slow fishing a bit.

 

If a country has a drought, you could tow a few hundred thousand acres to them and they can feast on algae burgers (yum). So now we are solving world hunger with the same stone.

 

hmmmm..

 

Yes. Discussion is the key. I am not saying my ideas are the best, but at least they are ideas and that's a beginning.

Edited June 14, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

 

 

When is the proper time to discuss this? After the Ozone is 25% gone... 50%....

 

Do you realise that, because of work already done, that's not gong to happen?

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

Do you realise that, because of work already done, that's not gong to happen?

 

 

 

If you are going to state facts you should back them up. I have read many predictions about ozone depletion, but yours is the most optimistic and unsubstantiated.

 

Work already done? Like what; realizing it wasn't hairspray doing the damage?

[John Cuthber]

OK, Here's the evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#mediaviewer/File:Min_ozone.jpg

The depletion has stopped and there's a slight (as yet) upwards trend.

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

First my objection was to your idea of anti-discussion. I have no concerns over the ozone, but not talking about the problems won't make them vanish.

 

Your link was to a chart covering Antarctica and covers up until about 2012. There was record ozone loss in spring of 2011 in the Arctic.

 

So your chart is saying what? Ozone hole is shifting locations?

 

This article agrees it shifts, so you are in good company.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131212-ozone-hole-antarctica-recovery-2070/

 

The scientists still expect the ozone hole to show some signs of healing by 2025.

 

 

 

 

 

This could turn into a Global Warming debate. I can site articles like this that say Ozone repair is tentative for 2070, and you can site articles that say almost anything else.

 

My point in my thread was arguing your statement

Why are you still even thinking about this?

 

 

when you even admit we could affect repair but it would be too costly.

 

Plus the repair by 2070 is conditional that we do not harm it further.

 

Proactive or inactive...??? Either way it does not hurt to discuss global issues.

[John Cuthber]

@ John C,

 

First my objection was to your idea of anti-discussion. I have no concerns over the ozone, but not talking about the problems won't make them vanish.

 

OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer?

If, after some consideration, we realise that such shouting won't ever help, should we carry on discussing it, or should we turn our attention to other matters- possibly other solutions (like axing CFC use), or possibly other uses to which you could productively dedicate a trillion dollars?

 

By the same token, why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?

 

As I said,

"Why are you still even thinking about this?".

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss the ozone hole and the issues that arise from it.

I'm saying we shouldn't waste time on an idea that a few moments with a calculator will confirm is a pipe dream.

Edited June 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

we shouldn't waste time on an idea that a few moments with a calculator will confirm is a pipe dream

 

 

First... Your calculator is already making mistakes.

or a cost of just 200$ per head for everyone on the planet- that's a total of about a trillion dollars

 

 

Who would pocket the extra 400+ Billion dollars from that estimate.

 

Why stop at a Trillion dollars though. Why not build a thousands of space shuttles that can create Ozone at that level. I'm sure we can spend hundreds of Trillions if we get imaginative enough.

 

The point in discussing is maybe there is someone listening that can cut your Trillion Dollar Estimate in half Maybe there are better Ozone machines than the one in your proposal. Maybe we don't need Space Shuttles to deliver them.

 

It is the easiest thing in the world to think of reasons you can't do something.

Edited June 14, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

@ John C,

 

 

First... Your calculator is already making mistakes.

 

Who would pocket the extra 400+ Billion dollars from that estimate.

 

Why stop at a Trillion dollars though. Why not build a thousands of space shuttles that can create Ozone at that level. I'm sure we can spend hundreds of Trillions if we get imaginative enough.

 

The point in discussing is maybe there is someone listening that can cut your Trillion Dollar Estimate in half Maybe there are better Ozone machines than the one in your proposal. Maybe we don't need Space Shuttles to deliver them.

 

It is the easiest thing in the world to think of reasons you can't do something.

What 400 bn?

Are you talking about the difference between 7.2 bn people multiplied by 200$ and a trillion dollars?

I invite you to look up the meaning of the word "about".

With numbers that big, it's the order of magnitude that makes the difference, not the second significant figure.

 

Anyway, you may remember that I originally said

"Feel free to do the arithmetic.

You need to know the energy needed to make ozone, how much you need, and how much you can expect to pay (wholesale) for electricity.

I'm sure you can find those on-line somewhere."

I said that so that anyone who could be bothered could calculate the lower bound to the cost.

There's no way to reduce the cost of producing ozone below the cost of producing the energy to produce that ozone.

And that energy cost is of roughly the same order as the whole world's electricity bill.

We simply don't have the resources so it's not possible.

So, as you say "It is the easiest thing in the world to think of reasons you can't do something."

yes, and sometimes that's the point at which you realise you should focus on something else.

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

no way to reduce the cost of producing ozone below the cost of producing the energy to produce that ozone.

 

 

 

So is your ozone recipe the same as everyone's?

 

If I lay a mirror on the ground on a sunny day would that not create ozone without electricity even if on a tiny scale. So already you are assuming things can only be done one way, and that makes your above statement wrong.

 

Also...

 

Energy may become more expensive, but it may also become cheaper and ideas that once seemed ridiculous might then have merit.

 

Try to think of possibilities instead of just being a nay sayer.

Edited June 14, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

"So is your ozone recipe the same as everyone's?"

No, but the energy required by that recipe is.

That's called the conservation of energy.

 

"If I lay a mirror on the ground on a sunny day would that not create ozone without electricity even if on a tiny scale."

No.

By the time the light gets to the ground, almost any radiation that could b absorbed by the air, has been.

 

"Energy may become more expensive, but it may also become cheaper"

Well, I doubt it, but that's the sort of thing we should focus on, rather than things which are currently impossible.

Just think, if you had spent time trying to solve the energy shortage, rather than pointlessly ignoring the conservation of energy as it applies to the cost of ozone production, you might have solved it and the world would be a better place.

[Ophiolite]

Try to think of possibilities instead of just being a nay sayer.

But let's rapidly reject the possibilities that are impractical by several orders of magnitude. To continue investing time and effort in considering them is not just a waste of time and effort it is - metaphorically at least - a criminal, anti-social - waste of time and effort. John has demonstrated effectively and simply that the ideas proposed thus far for replacing the ozone are unworkable. The only sound scientific response to that is to propose a method that is feasible within an order of magnitude or so. Calling people nay-sayers and accusing them of not understanding how brain storming sessions work is not a meaningful response.

[Arete]

On top of the impracticality, it's replacing itself:

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/51619-ozone-layer-is-recovering-says-un

[barfbag]

@ Arete,

 

If you read previous content you would know this is not in contention. Ozone is scheduled to heal by 2070 providing it is not hurt further.

 

@ Ophiolite,

 

How do you know what ideas are practical if you only listen to one? I reject the concept that discussing things are wasteful. I mean; My God how can a few posts by you or others undermine science so harshly.

 

Calling people nay-sayers and accusing them of not understanding how brain storming sessions work is not a meaningful response.

 

 

Neither is telling that poster "Why are you still discussing this?" a polite or intelligent response. Rude begets rude.

(from post 11)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83661-can-we-add-ozone-to-the-ozone-layer/?p=811115

 

Brainstorming is a group discussion where bad ideas are not scorned. John C deliberately scorned the Opening Poster by saying "why are you still discussing this?" as if his word was final. All Hail John?

 

I refuse to think there is only one solution despite your advocacy.

 

You also said what 75% of government spending should be allocated to this, but many industries would happily donate to show their carbon footprint/environmental good is positive, or was your word final also?

 

Cheers

 

@ JohnC,

 

by the time the light gets to the ground, almost any radiation that could b absorbed by the air, has been.

 

 

Even if the mirror was on the south pole?

 

I am not saying it is practical. I am saying that generating it here and transporting it there is not a great solution.

 

@ Everyone,

 

John C claims the only way to repair ozone is to manufacture it and deliver it via some mechanism at a cost of a trillion dollars. I countered that claim by saying simply placing a mirror in the antarctic facing upwards would in fact create a tiny amount of ozone. I am not claiming it is the best solution, but who knows what discussing things might yield.

 

Telling people what they can and cannot discuss is not only rude, but is akin to censorship. I want no part of that club. Ophiolite, and Arete may happily support censorship in this regard, but those are personal choices.

 

I don't think discussions can hurt and sometimes a solution not worthy of one thing can be applied in an unrelated area.

Edited June 16, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

@ Arete,

 

If you read previous content you would know this is not in contention. Ozone is scheduled to heal by 2070 providing it is not hurt further.

And here is where you contested it.

@ John C,

 

 

 

If you are going to state facts you should back them up. I have read many predictions about ozone depletion, but yours is the most optimistic and unsubstantiated.

 

Work already done? Like what; realizing it wasn't hairspray doing the damage?

And nobody was claiming there's only one solution. I just pointed out that making ozone isn't a solution, because it's impractical and the time, money and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

Edited June 16, 2014 by John Cuthber