idea to get rid of pollution

[zakariyadoar]

So photosynthesis can be flipped either way and i was just wondering why we don't find a way to artificially produce chlorophyll so we can put them in missles and shoot them up into clouds to interact with all the co2 in the ozone causing it to change into sugars and water. why can't this take place in a cloud or on a body of water with just outside the plant. or artificially combine porphyrin with a magnesium ion, why wouldn't that work exactly. I'm saying why can't you synthetically produce the catalyst that causes this reaction to occur?

[CharonY]

The first thing you have to know is that photosynthesis is based on two independent processes. The first, involving chlorophyll, creates ATP. however, even this part of the processes involves a number of other cellular structures, including a membrane and a number of enzymes, as the actual energy-yielding step is based on the creation of a proton gradient. Note that during that step no carbon is fixed. Thea actual carbon fixing step is based on the Calvin cycle, which again requires a different set of enzymes in an energy-dependent manner. I.e. it uses up the energy created during the light reaction.

Obviously it would require a very sophisticated system, which we are not able to re-create artificially.And even if we were able to create it, shooting them up in a missile would serve no purpose other than create even more CO2. It is therefore far more efficient (and feasible) to grow plants or bacteria to do it.

Edited May 23, 2016 by CharonY

[EdEarl]

If we millions of people grow green and blue green algae and cyanobacteria, to use for fertilizer and fodder, we might bring down the CO2 quicker than will happen otherwise. Since some cyanobacteria is poisonous, it is necessary to test the stuff used for fodder. Although, some species such as spirulina, which grows in caustic water, can be grown safely enough for human consumption.

[CharonY]

Using plant/bacterial material as feed does not actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere, though. It will have to remain fixed in order to make a net difference.

[EdEarl]

Feed is not totally consumed by an animal; part is waste that goes back into the environment. We are currently cutting many trees that have sequestered much carbon. We need to add to the current levels of biomass to more than replace the carbon released by slash and burn and other biomass reduced by climate change. Carbon sequestration is not our only need. We seem to be headed for a mass extinction, mostly caused by habitat destruction. Using fodder to sustain endangered species might help mitigate the extinction.

 

In addition, people need food and it is better to eat meat grown by people rather than bush meat. It would be best for people to become vegan from an environmental perspective, but there's little chance that will happen. Thus, providing fodder for cattle, sheep, goats, etc., is also necessary.

Edited May 24, 2016 by EdEarl

[CharonY]

Manure does not become fixed. It will be further degraded to CO2 by microorganism. Sequestration happens if it gets removed from the food chain.

[EdEarl]

With abundant nutrients soil microbes multiply, so building thicker top soil more than an inch thick does sequester living carbon. Planting bamboo or another fast growing plant also helps. Although, you are right the processes of life do put CO2 into the air, but they also remove some. We have so much CO2 in the air that it will take a while to get the levels back down, even with everyone helping.

[CharonY]

Soil microbes are not terribly efficient in storing carbon, although there is still some unknown in the below-ground microbial-driven carbon cycle. But as long as there are nutrients to utilzed (such as manure) CO2 will be released. Even worse, manure management often results in release of worse greenhouse gases, such as CH4.

As mentioned earlier, plants are more efficient in storing carbon. Provided that they are managed properly and not fed into the carbon cycle again (e.g. used as fuel or feed).

[EdEarl]

 

Soil microbes are not terribly efficient in storing carbon

Why not? Bacteria and archaea are 50% carbon by weight (Table 1). It seems reasonable that a foot of top soil would have an order of magnitude more carbon than an inch, just from the microbes. Moreover, good soil is better for growing plants, that "are more efficient in storing carbon."

 

Another process can be used to increase carbon in soil, pyrolysis. In nature wildfires convert plants and animals into biochar that becomes part of the soil. One could pyrolyze the photosynthesizing microbes they grow, and add the resulting biochar to their soil. In good conditions, these microbes double their mass several orders of magnitude faster than larger plants, including bamboo. I'm suggesting that we can speed up natural processes to remove CO2 to abate climate change.

 

It seems climate change started along with the industrial revolution, sometime between 1800 and 1900. Let's say we've made a pickle of the climate in about three hundred years. I suspect it will take longer to remedy the situation, and we need to start ASAP. We can use minerals to grow photosynthesizing microbes, use them to build good top soil, and slowly increase the top soil thickness until we have reduced atmospheric CO2 levels. Farm land is being used up by poor farming practices, and being taken for "economic development." We really must change the way we treat the Earth, and IMO we should assist natural processes. It's simple and many people can do it, like planting trees. I know there have been pilot projects to sequester CO2 underground, but there isn't enough of it to make a difference. Sometimes industrial processes don't work well enough and crowd sourcing can help.

[CharonY]

The problem is that generally bacteria are very metabolically active, which especially in the top soil they actively produce methane and CO2. Plants have the benefit of sinking a lot of carbon into slowly degrading molecules such as lignin. Bacteria can act as carbon sinks under certain circumstances, but it depends heavily on the conditions. If bacteria get buried and deprived of oxygen their activity may slow down and less CO2 may be released, though you can also have methanogens becoming active and start emitting methane. In other words, it depends on the balance of the system whether bacteria are a net carbon sink or whether they contribute to the overall cycle.

[studiot]

 

If we millions of people grow green and blue green algae and cyanobacteria

 

 

Which part of their anatomy would they grow them on so we could all become Avatars?

 

[Velocity_Boy]

So photosynthesis can be flipped either way and i was just wondering why we don't find a way to artificially produce chlorophyll so we can put them in missles and shoot them up into clouds to interact with all the co2 in the ozone causing it to change into sugars and water. why can't this take place in a cloud or on a body of water with just outside the plant. or artificially combine porphyrin with a magnesium ion, why wouldn't that work exactly. I'm saying why can't you synthetically produce the catalyst that causes this reaction to occur?

Your hypothesized practice would not be cost effective. Rather, it sounds horrible expensive.

 

Not to mention difficult if not impossible to control?

 

Too, would not the emissions from the fabrication of the rockets, the fuel combustion, the factory emissions, Eemployees cumulative carbon footprints all combine to outweigh any modicum of pollution absorption your Green rockets might provide?

 

Just some thoughts. But I like the way you think! Outside the box, and attempting innovative methods to stem pollution can never be a bad thing!

 

Cheers.