NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/environm/12747

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ulowell!news.bbn.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone (A few questions I would like answered.)
Date: 15 Nov 1992 19:28:04 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 60
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Dempster) writes:
>If the prospects of a global environmental disaster were to become an
>undisputeable reality, would there be any hope of the human race saving
>itself and the planet from the harmful effects of UV exposure by creating
>a replacement source of ozone in the atmosphere?

Briefly, no.  Less briefly, not bloody likely.

>Problems:
>    1) What amount of ozone molecules are we going to need?

The question is ill-formed.  It's not like there's just a deficit of ozone, and
all we have to do is add the missing amount and the problem's gone.  There are
two reactions of interest for this topic going on in the stratosphere:
    1)  Photodissociation of O2 which then combines with other O2 to form
        O3; and
    2)  Catalytic conversion of O3 back to O2.
Both of these reactions involve tremendous amounts of ozone, and they're going
on all the time.  The reason for ozone depletion is that increased chlorin
levels in the stratosphere have increased the rate of reaction 2, thus leading
to a lower O3/O2 ratio (i.e., less ozone).  So to fix the problem, we'd have to
constantly add O3 to the stratosphere.

>          2) What amount of electrical energy would be required to
>       create this much ozone? (if corona discharge were to be
>       the method)

Lots.  And it would have to be done in the stratosphere.  Of course, whatever
we might use to put the ozone generators up there is likely to release
chemicals that will, themselves, tend to deplete the ozone.  It's almost
certainly a no-win situation.

>    3) If this artificially-produced ozone were to be created on
>       on the earth's surface, how could it be transported to the
>       atmosphere where it is needed?

To the best of my knowledge, it can't.  The O3 => O2 reaction can be surface
catalyzed.  That means that when O3 comes in contact with a surface, it
spontaneously decomposes (that's why in Los Angeles, on a smoggy day, the
ozone's not as bad inside as it is outside).  Any container in which you might
put the ozone will, of course, have surfaces, so you're not going to be able to
ship very much of it very far.

>I appologize- I know nothing about the scientific fields of expertise
>involved here. I do know however that in my line of work, we go to great
>lengths to *minimize* the emission of ozone into the atmosphere.

That's because ozone is a fairly nasty chemical.  It damages tissue, it rots
rubber (the tire manufacturers make special tires for the Los Angeles area that
are more resistant to ozone than tires marketed elsewhere), and pretty much
oxidizes anything that can be at all easily oxidized.  And ozone produced on
the ground is NOT going to make it to the stratosphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.