Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Bite me.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

ozone smozone

launch satalites equiped with huge umbrellas
  [vote for,

launch satellites with huge plastic (or what ever) shields that can unfold once the satalite is in high orbit. They block a certain percentage of the light that reaches earth and counter the effects of global warming. Just blow them up in a few hundred years once their work is done and the ozone has recovered a bit more
q2cannonfodder, Nov 06 2003

Environmental Indicators: Ozone Depletion http://www.epa.gov/.../indicat/index.html
A lot of information with some great links. [Klaatu, Oct 17 2004]

Ozone Science: The Facts http://www.epa.gov/...cience/sc_fact.html
"One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream." [Klaatu, Oct 17 2004]


       [q2] - welcome to the HB. Sp - satellite. An appropriately ambitious idea. No reason you could not put solar panels on there big boys to generate some energy while you are at it.
bungston, Nov 06 2003

       You won't need to blow them up - orbital decay would lead to them burning up in the atmosphere long before that.   

       However, I think this is much more likely to be used as a weapon of war or terraforming - think of the impact of dramatically lowering temperatures.
DrCurry, Nov 06 2003

       It would be a pretty rubish weapon. It would take ages to kill anyone and the UN would probably slap sanctions all over anyone who tried it.
RobertKidney, Nov 06 2003

       It doesn't have to kill anyone to be a weapon. Reducing the sunlight falling on the earth, or particular parts of it, would have an immediate economic impact - witness the mini ice ages wrought by various volcanic eruptions.
DrCurry, Nov 06 2003

       I'm dreaming of a white Christmas. And Valentine's Day... and Memorial Day... and Independence Day... and Labor Day...   

       And it's 'satellite.'
RayfordSteele, Nov 06 2003

       [Burns] - you would have to use the energy up there, where it was generated. None of this rubbish beaming it down or whatever. Ideas: superpowered radiostation (possible augmenting and retransmitting a signal sent up from the ground?), or cyclotron generating valuable elements.
bungston, Nov 06 2003

       Damn dyslexia, anyway I dunno about generating valuable elements, I mean even if they could turn lead into gold the transportation costs alone might (sorry would) offset any profits, though there's more expensive things out there than gold I know. How ever if they were designed like the blinds in a conservatory you could retract them a bit if it got too cold. I suppose you might need an awful lot of satellites though. The weapon idea has kinda been done I think, if i recall russia has(or maybe wanted to launch) a huge mirror that could be used to light up a large area so they could see what they were bombing better or whatever.
q2cannonfodder, Nov 07 2003

       Have you considered forwarding your idea to the Association of Earth-Based CFC Manufacturers?
dobtabulous, Nov 07 2003

       //the ozone has recovered a bit more// Is that possible? I thought the holes were there permanently.
Mistress Bling, Nov 07 2003

       Actually, in my innocence and ignorance, [Bling], I've always wondered why you can't collect the ozone from car exhaust engines everyone complains about, stick it in a tank in a plane or a rocket or something, and launch it up over the poles to be released. I'm sure there are quite good reasons, I just don't know them.
darksasami, Nov 07 2003

       Ozone at the Earth's surface is very reactive and never makes it very far upward.   

       The layer naturally replenishes itself supposedly, but it takes a very long time. Unfortunately longer than it takes for us to destroy it.   

       How science knows these things (a. we're destroying it, and b. it replenishes itself) has never been satisfactorily explained to me. I remain dubious on both counts.
waugsqueke, Nov 07 2003

       [waugsqueke] - as far as destroying it goes, the equation's pretty straightforward to state, and to test. I forget exactly, but it's something like:
CFC + O3 + sunlight => CFC + 02
benjamin, Nov 07 2003

Klaatu, Nov 07 2003

       [darksasami], the reason you can't do that is because it's too expensive. Nevermind the expense of treating people with skin cancer, and the cost in lost productivity - logic does not rule on this planet.   

       If you've got a few hundred million dollars you don't need, though, I'm sure you're more than welcome to try your idea.
shapu, May 25 2004


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle