Silmandil said:
But only if they’re magic beans.
Yes, my idea would be more like “An environmental clean up device.”
Growing trees is going to take so much time.
I think it’s not just the CO2 problem. It’s part of it.
But if you imagine lots of big “factories” as big as nucliar powerplants, and they would filter the air and cool it down a bit…
Maybe someone has contact with Al Gore?
His opinion would be good to have.
Irishman said: ““So “fire” is not really added to a car engine. A spark is added, which starts the reaction, but the reaction comes from the fuel and the oxygen and runs until the conditions that drive the reaction have changed. This means all the available fuel has been converted and can no longer react. Or that the pressure has changed so the conditions no longer support the reaction. But the key is that fire was a product of the reaction, not an input.””
Thank you for this explanation!
There one thing: It’s not about energy. If it takes some energy to produce cold clean air, so be it.
Coldness won’t have to much influense, I know. The sun shining on earth is more kind of a balance. Influenced by CO2, yes, amongst other things.
Cleaning the air will have a positive effect.
If it takes a lot of power, electricity, so be it.
And by the way, if you would be born in space, eat marbles or beans all day, wouldn’t it be possible to grow as tall as 100 feet?
I think the most meaning response to this question is that the opposite of CONSUMING electricity is GENERATING electricity. Both are commonly done today.
By consuming electricity, we can perform work such as turning a motor. In order to generate electricity we need to supply energy from another source such as the sun, moving water, wind, nuclear reaction, or the burning some kind of fuel.
I haven’t read past this so someone more knowledgeable may already have covered this.
I don’t think the statement that more plants would reduce the amount of CO2 is true. While it can’t hurt to plant more trees, or whatever, it probably won’t help.
Yes, it is true that plants “eat” carbon dioxide and then “excrete” oxygen. So far so good.
But the CO2 being “eaten” doesn’t just go away. As soon as the plant dies what usually happens is that the plant oxidizes and the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. If you want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere you need to remove it from not only the atmosphere but also from the surface of the earth.
This is what happened during the, I think, Pennsylvanian period. There was so much organic material being produced that vast quantities were buried before they could oxidize. Once buried over millions of years it morphed into coal, oil, and gas. Once buried it was effectively removed from the atmosphere until we dug it back up and burned it, thus releasing it back to the atmosphere.
It is all about energy. Where are you going to get all the energy to clean everything up, which will be more than what it took to get everything dirty in the first place? Not only do you need more energy than what was put in to make everything dirty, this fantastic source of energy itself needs to be clean or you are back at the original problem. If you had this clean source of energy then it would be far more efficient just to use it directly for our needs rather than use it to clean up our messes.
But that would only be relevant if the proposed solution is to increase the number of plants on the earth and then let them all die. If the biomass of plants is permanently increased, it seems to me that carbon will be permanently removed from the atmosphere and stored in the living plants. Not to mention that since plants don’t spontaneously combust when they die, it is possible for plant matter to build up without being oxidized (as you yourself mentioned).
Any use of power/electricity will add more heat into the system than it will take out. That’s what we’re trying to explain to you, you don’t get something from nothing. This is akin to opening your freezer door in an effort to cool off a room. It has the opposite affect.
QuestionMark said:
What kind of clean up are you envisioning? Filtering particulate matter (i.e. soot)? Absorbing sulferous compounds? Recapturing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)? Reducing smog? Theoretically those are things that can be done. One way it is being done is to improve filters and cleaning devices on the factory and power plant outputs. Keep the stuff from being put into the air in the first place. Unfortunately, China is not playing by the same rules. I’m not aware of any technology capable of applying to the atmosphere at large, but some of the stuff will settle and fall out of the air on its own. So reducing the output will eventually result in cleaner air. CFCs are a bigger challenge because they are so high up in the atmosphere and they are a catalyst for ozone depletion without being broken down and used up, so they stay around a long time.
If you’re talking about carbon dioxide, then that’s trickier. Plants do absorb carbon dioxide naturally, so increasing vegetation and algae cover would help. Technology is being worked on to make artificial carbon filters - artificial trees. Other techniques are to capture it in the manufacturing process and then find a way to sequester it - lock it in some underground pressure vault.
But trying to make a big air conditioner to cool the Earth is not only not practical (expensive, requiring HUGE facilities all around the World, etc), but it is counter productive. There’s a saying: “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” - TANSTAAFL. You can’t get something for nothing. When it comes to energy, that is 100% true - Conservation of Energy. If you want to cool one place down, you can only do that by heating another place up. Energy must be converted to some other form, but can’t go away. It can only be moved. Air conditioners work by taking the heat from where you don’t want it (your living room) and moving it somewhere you don’t mind it (outside, where it is already hot). Refrigerators do the same thing - take heat from inside the box and pump it into the room.
Furthermore, Entropy sticks its nose in. Entropy says that not only must you move the heat, it creates more heat in the process. You wouldn’t be cooling the Earth - you might could cool local areas (like cities, for instance), but at the cost of heating the Earth overall.
Why? As someone with a certain amount of political and social clout, he has some benefit as a spokesperson or publicist. But he isn’t a climatologist, he isn’t a scientist, and he might be more informed than the average citizen, but he hardly qualifies as an expert.
Not without some serious evolution. It is possible that a human growing from infancy in a free fall environment could grow a bit taller (and also spindlier), but there is a size constraint based upon limitations. A breeding pool with average 6 ft tall folk might could spawn 7 or 8 foot offspring, but there would have to be a radical change to human growth patterns in the DNA to allow a size increase to 100 ft tall.
Bad Astronaut, you are correct, plant matter is a cyclical system. If we dedicate more area to plant growth and maintain that increased area, then individual plants dying off would be replaced by new growth, thus overall trapping some carbon dioxide. However, dead plants do biodegrade, so if they died we’d need something to isolate and preserve the dead plant matter to retain the carbon dioxide.
We can already do that!
Eat some refried beans (burned fuel) , have a couple smokes(smog), and drink some steaming hot tea or coffee (vaporised water)…wait long enough and air and gas will come out the other end!
OMG - what is the opposite of elephants??
No elephants.
Easy! Stnahpele!
Ok… if QuestionMark’s earlier posts weren’t 100% proof of his troll status, this has got to be.
<mod>
MODERATOR WARNING
From the Rules:
The Rules, Learn them, live them, love them…
Don’t do this again, please.
</mod>
100 of who’s feet? Elephant’s feet? Butterfly feet? If that’s 100 feet placed horizontally, then it’s no taller than a single foot. If placed vertically, then it depends upon stacking efficiency and compression due to proximity to black holes.
Evaporation.
Sorry about that.
So what’s the opposite of snowing, sleeting, hailing? What about condensation? What I’m trying to say is that rain is just one of several possible forms of precipitation, and water can form directly on the surface of the Earth from the atmosphere without precipitating.
Mea Culpa… I was trying to be facetious when I posted that question mimicking the OP’s style; but it has fallen flat on its face completely. Was leaning towards not saying anything to save further self-embarrassment and hoping nobody picks it up before I saw the two replies. My apologies to you both and the moderators.
The opposite of electricity is positricity, of course.
That’s ok - actually I confused you with the original poster, otherwise I probably wouldn’t have taken it seriously.
Classical electricity is defined as the flow of *positive *charge, by the way! 
That’s okay. My comments equally apply to the OP. What is the opposite of spaghetti?