Using Earth's magnetic field to eject CO2

A new solution from a plasma physicist 15

We've already thoroughly debunked geoengineering strategies like launching mirrors into space, seeding the oceans with extra iron, and loading the atmosphere with ray-repelling aerosols. But this idea, posed by a scientist last week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, though still a long shot, is actually pretty ingenious.

Alfred Wong, a plasma physicist at UCLA, says that we might be able to use Earth's natural magnetic field as a giant conveyor belt to catapult excess carbon dioxide into outer space. The CO2 must be ionized first, which Dr. Wong proposes could be done with lasers (generating less emissions than the process would remove).

Once they are there, Dr Wong expects the incoming stream of charged particles that cause auroras to deliver the bonus that will make the whole thing work, by dumping some of their energy into the spiralling as well. This should happen through a process called stochastic resonance: the spiralling molecules get preferential treatment, so to speak, because they stand out in what is otherwise an environment of random movements.

Blocks himself admits that the project is still in the incubator stage, and has a long way to go to be viable, but thinks it could be workable. Just don't tell the neighbors.

Maywa Montenegro is an editor and writer at Seed magazine, focusing mainly on ecology, bidiversity, agriculture, and sustainable development.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 11:32 am
    04 Jun 2007

    Any idea that involvesshooting stuff with lasers has my vote.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  2. GreyFlcn Posted 2:21 pm
    04 Jun 2007

    I'd hate to thinkI'd hate to think what would happen if we screwed up and only got it partway.

    Permalink

  3. Easterbunny Posted 10:41 pm
    04 Jun 2007

    don't throw away stuff you might needI can't help but think that blasting even a tiny portion of the atmosphere into space might not be a good idea. Any what about those oxygen molecules that will be going along for the ride?

    Permalink

  4. onkl Posted 11:12 pm
    04 Jun 2007

    O molecules and atomsWell, I don't think the oxygen atoms which are part of the CO2 sent "up" will be missed. As for the O2 molecules: I'd guess the proffesor has some trick in his sleeve to distinguish which molecules will and will not be ionized, else this plan would basically render an innovative way to send air in general to space, which is presumably not very useful, apart from easying the task of the special effects manager aranging the "romantic kissing scene" to end the next SF in space flick.

    I'd guess easier ways to do that exist though.

    Permalink

  5. trickertreat Posted 1:18 am
    05 Jun 2007

    irreversible loss of CO2?With all the talk of sequestration and ejecting CO2, I've been wondering if we should be thinking of ways to only temporarily tie up the CO2 in case we someday need to actually put some back into the atmosphere. Wow, would think it now, but who knows, maybe someday we'll be able to control the planet's atmosphere and weather with some precision. Plus, I have never been real comfortable with the idea of permanently ejecting anything out into space (garbage, nuclear waste, or whatever). It just doesn't seem very neighborly...becomes a free pass to muck stuff up here on this planet and eject it out of our backyard without having to really take responsibility for the sustainability approach.

    Permalink

  6. GRLCowan's avatar

    GRLCowan Posted 2:00 am
    05 Jun 2007

    I wish it would be more often acknowledged ...that silicates-to-carbonates is not a long shot. And it's not really geoengineering in the bad, stupid, "Swallow a cat to catch a swallowed rat" sense; it's more like pulling the rat out by the tail.
    --- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan

    Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes

    Permalink

  7. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 2:23 am
    05 Jun 2007

    And I wish it would be more often acknowledged ...that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the first place is a lot less of a long shot than schemes like this.

    Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

    Permalink

  8. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 2:54 am
    05 Jun 2007

    Laser Floyd

    Imagine, the whole world gathers for one evening, and a gigantic CO2 cleansing with lasers is performed across the whole sky -- with "Dark Side of the Moon" streaming in synchrony over the Internet.

    John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"


    You Read It Here First

    Permalink

  9. Danothebaldyheid Posted 2:55 am
    05 Jun 2007

    YepJMG. That plan's certainly working out well....

    Permalink

  10. JMG's avatar

    JMG Posted 3:20 am
    05 Jun 2007

    BaldyLet me know where it's been tried.

    Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

    Permalink

  11. SustainableGreen Posted 3:48 am
    05 Jun 2007

    Donut bacon wrapHey, all:
    This is like the "large" person on an exercise bike  sweatin' and peddlin'--at the same time eatin' a donut wrapped in bacon.  Yum.  No goddam self-discipline or even self-awareness.  
    And the high-tech, 'trust-us-we-know-what-we-are-doing' shills are those who in a former life were the ones who put the horseshoes on the broke-down horse we rode into town on, and now they want to sell us another identical horse.   Yet more subsidies or research competition, when the problem is HOW TO CUT DOWN ON CARBON PRODUCTION.  The throttle is stuck full open, and all some people can think of is trying to slam on the brakes.  
    This is not sustainable.
    David

    Sustainability For Life
    Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

    Permalink

  12. Danothebaldyheid Posted 11:53 pm
    05 Jun 2007

    Which is true...My point is that, to be quite honest, most people have no idea about how disastrous are the consequences of runaway global warming, and will not accept a drastic curtailment of their energy use. They are selfish and short-sighted, I agree; however they will not change to the necessary extent WITHIN THE NECESSARY TIME FRAME. Not only will they not, but the latest comparisons between real world warming and the models lead to the the conclusion that they probably CAN not. Anybody who thinks this is gonna change without a cataclysmic disaster, is kidding themselves. If you are hoping for that cataclysmic disaster, you are on the wrong side of this argument and are a presumably the kind of person who hopes for train wrecks.....

    Permalink

  13. GreyFlcn Posted 12:04 am
    06 Jun 2007

    Speaking of carbon sequestration.Speaking of carbon sequestration:

    "Fuck with the ocean, and who knows whats going to happen."

    Permalink

  14. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:54 am
    06 Jun 2007

    Another great link, Grey FalconI have not had time to listen to the whole talk but I heard a biodeisel enthusiast start to get testy with him and I can see that he has learned how to deflect their religious fanaticism by sugaring critique with lots of positives.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  15. GreyFlcn Posted 1:22 am
    06 Jun 2007

    Actually he was largely wrong on biodieselThe particulate issue isn't really an issue with the upcoming 2008 generation of US diesel vehicles.
    BioDiesel instead has many other issues associated with it.

    http://greyfalcon.net/biodiesel
    Perhaps the most damning being that biodiesel from rainforrest areas is multiple orders of magnitude worse than gasoline in CO2 emmisions.

    http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil

    http://greyfalcon.net/soy
    And there's also issues of fungability.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0516-ethanol_amazon.html

    http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert.png

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+fungib ...

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement