Is it feasible to "dump" solid Carbon dioxide (dry ice) into space in order to reduce Carbon dioxide on Earth?

Question

Seeing as how we can produce carbon dioxide as a solid (dry ice). We do this by taking Elemental Carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere and chilling it to such a low temperature that it goes from gas to a sold. Can we(the people of the world) produce enough carbon dioxide in the form of dry ice and then load it up on a space ship and then just "dump" it into space? Is this even economically viable? What would some repercussions of this be and if this is possible and is also economically viable could this not also help with global climate change(global warming)?

Answer 1

It's an interesting theory, but there are at least two problems. In order to reduce the level of CO2 in the air by a meaningful amount, literally billions of tons of the gas would need to be removed. Doing so would require a fantastic amount of energy, energy that would need to come from most likely, fossil fuels, thereby creating more CO2. Secondly, to then take all of that solid CO2 and ship it to space would cost a fortune.

It's simply way too expensive, and way too energy intensive.

However, scientists have experiment w/ sequestering CO2 in the ocean, buy pumping the gas into diffusers located deep under water. It sort of works, but the jury is still on on whether or not it harms the oceanic ecosystem.

Answer 2

Well no, it wouldn't even be close to economic.

But that's not the most important issue. The fuel burned in the transport to space of any amount would be stunning compared to the amount shipped off-planet. And so the emissions, leading to far more warming than the carbon dioxide transported out could have. So there'd be no real point.

Any other propulsion method would require power to be generated somehow and even nuclear power (the wonder of the age, no doubt) has an emissions load as the plant had to be built, etc. So did the rocket, etc. So we still come back to the emissions generated far exceeding the benefit. And all HIDEOUSLY expensive.

Answer 3

It is much more simpler than that. What would u think if the plants stopped taking CO2 and giving u back the O2. U will be taking the food out of there mouth. Study photosynthesis on the net. Then go actually measure the CO2 ,don't look at the garbage of 300 ppm ,less than 100ppm find out what is the correct answer. The plants has done a great job.

Answer 4

Dry ice is a name given to carbon dioxide when it is at solid state. It sublimes meaning it doesn't melt, but rather evaporates from solid state to gasous state. The reason for this is because it is below it's own triple point, which is at -56.4 C and 5.11 atmospheres. So if the temperature and pressure is above the carbon dioxide triple point, it will no longer sublime but melt and turn to liquid state. For comparison, water's triple point is at .0098 C and 0.00603 atmospheres. So ice would sublime just like dry ice below it's triple point. Note: Normal Pressure is at 1 atmosphere, which is at sea level. And a triple point is where all three states of matter exist simultaneously.

Answer 5

I think some perspective is needed badly here.

In the last 200 years humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 90 PPM.

PPM stands for Parts Per Million.

That means our contribution over the last 200 years combined is 1/11,000th of the atmosphere.

So, I know that some alarmists refer to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like a chemical company dumping industrial waste into a small stream but it's more like one kid peeing in the pool at the Y. It happens, it's unpleasant to think about, but nobody died.

Answer 6

It always amazes me that people would listen to Al Gore on a subject he has no real training in. He is a politician not a scientist. The earth removes CO2 naturally by deposition in the ocean of limestone, by converting it to oxygen in plants, and various other means. There is absolutely no need to send it to space. It is needed here on earth. Leave it to the politicians to make things like carbon dioxide and warmth into bad things. They are not.

Answer 7

No.
The amount of excess Co2 in the air is on the order of millions of tons.
It takes 75 pounds of fuel to put 1 pound of payload into space. Check out Nasa's site. This is why we can't send radioactive waste to the sun as well.
I might also add that most of the fuel used by Nasa is carbon based.
The best way to cut back on Co2; is to stop burning coal, gas,oil and stop cutting down trees. Or at least slow down!
Every tree is a "bank" collecting Co2. When the tree dies and decomposes, the Co2 gets locked into the Earth's "bank" as oil, coal, and natural gas. This process has been going on for millions of years.
The Earth is a massive "bank" containg billions of tons of Co2 in the form of coal, oil and natural gas.
When we extract the oil, coal and gas, then burn it as fuel, we dump the free Co2 back into the air faster then plants can absorb it.

Answer 8

The same amount of CO2 has been on earth ever since it came into existence. The CO2 plays an important role. We should just do stuff to reduce emissions.

Anyway, do you know how much it costs to ship stuff into space? (quite a bit). And do you know how much CO2 you'd produce to make solid CO2 and to get the solids into space? (Also quite a bit)

All-in-all it probably isn't worth shipping it into space.

Answer 9

First, you would have to move it far enough from the earth to escape its gravitational field, otherwise it would just fall back into the atmosphere. Al Gore says we are putting 70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a day, so image how much energy and fuel you would have to burn to lift it up that high.