Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: How much quicklime would it take to terraform Venus?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,282

    How much quicklime would it take to terraform Venus?

    If you could drop a load of god knows how many teratons of quicklime into Venus's atmosphere, how much would it take before you reduced the CO2 to near Earth levels?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,066
    With one significant digit accuracy, you need a cube of quicklime 100 km on a side.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,835
    A large asteroid's worth of the stuff. I don't think that is available.

    I think another way of doing it might be preferable; importing hydrogen to convert the CO2 into water and carbon, for example. Even then I think the atmosphere is too massive for it to all be removed by this method, and some of it will need to be physically removed and exported.

  4. #4
    You would need, assuming 100% absorbtion of CO2, about 1.23 tons of quicklime (CaO) for every ton of atmosphere. That would be about 10,000 tons for every square meter of Venus's surface, or a layer about 3 kilometers deep.

    Venus has a surface area of about 460,000,000 square kilometers so this would be about 1,380,000,000 square kilometers which would be a cube over 1,000 km across. This is a bit more than Ilya's figure, but I am often wrong about these sorts of things.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Stick an orbital tube in it and suck away the atmosphere. It's got a vacuum at one end, after all...

    ADDED: And sell the CO2 to new space habitats to add to their ecosystems. Gotta get some use out of it.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2007-May-23 at 10:18 PM. Reason: added
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,835
    Carbon and oxygen separately would be very much in demand around the Solar system.
    The Moon needs carbon if it is to support any amount of population. Mars could do with more CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Every orbiting habitat need oxygen; and carbon may become the building material of choice if the promises of nanotechnology bear any fruit.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    You would need, assuming 100% absorbtion of CO2, about 1.23 tons of quicklime (CaO) for every ton of atmosphere. That would be about 10,000 tons for every square meter of Venus's surface, or a layer about 3 kilometers deep.

    Venus has a surface area of about 460,000,000 square kilometers so this would be about 1,380,000,000 square kilometers which would be a cube over 1,000 km across. This is a bit more than Ilya's figure, but I am often wrong about these sorts of things.
    You added an extra zero in "10,000 for every square meter of Venus's surface". On Earth every square meter has 10 tons of air over it. On Venus it is 90 times more -- 900 tons of mostly CO2, hence about 1400 tons of quicklime.

  8. #8
    You added an extra zero in "10,000 for every square meter of Venus's surface". On Earth every square meter has 10 tons of air over it. On Venus it is 90 times more -- 900 tons of mostly CO2, hence about 1400 tons of quicklime.
    Thanks for that. As you can see, I am often wrong about these sorts of things. 3km does seem sort of excessive, doesn't it?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    16,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Stick an orbital tube in it and suck away the atmosphere. It's got a vacuum at one end, after all...

    ADDED: And sell the CO2 to new space habitats to add to their ecosystems. Gotta get some use out of it.
    For some reason (by no suprise), this picture came to mind.

    Anyway; just stick the other end of the tube on Mars. The centrifugal force will move the atmosphere. Two terraforms for the price of one.

    (yes, I'm joking)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    499
    Nah Crash some comets into it to raise the water content then seed it with some engineered photsynthetic micro-organisms - Its alwys best to let biology run a long time project like terra forming - it is also self replicating.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,282
    You'd need to lower the temperature. Water is fine as liquid, but as vapour it's just another greenhouse gas. Besides, Venus is so hot that the water would break up into hydrogen and oxygen. No; first, get rid of the CO2, then you can start work on the water.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Why not use it as rocket fuel*? If CO2 can blow up a soda bottle, it can power a spacecraft.

    *D'oh! I meant to say, for reaction mass. It would make a pretty sucky rocket fuel, wouldn't it?
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2007-May-24 at 05:11 PM. Reason: d'oh!
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    13,984
    It's fine as fuel. The tough part is getting someone to shake the rocket vigorously before you launch.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    What's the mass/thrust ratio for Mentos, anyway?
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by parallaxicality View Post
    You'd need to lower the temperature. Water is fine as liquid, but as vapour it's just another greenhouse gas. Besides, Venus is so hot that the water would break up into hydrogen and oxygen.
    No, it is not THAT hot -- water does not break up into hydrogen and oxygen until temperature is in thousands of degrees. But you are right about water vapor being a greeenhouse gas.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,282
    Oh. I read somewhere that the reason there was no water in Venus's lithosphere is because the water had broken down into H2 and O2; the O2 had combined with HS to form H2SO4, and the hydrogen had escaped into space.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Only in the upper atmosphere, where the water molecules are exposed to direct sunlight. The energy breaks the bonds, O2 sinks, H2 rises, and blows away into space.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  18. #18
    You want to get rid of Venus's CO2? Stick it inside diamonds. Get the carbon to make diamonds from CO2. Then you can use the diamonds to fill in all the shallow areas on Venus so you won't need so much water to make oceans. Or if you don't want to reduce the air pressure too much you could build giant platforms that reach up to areas of lower pressure for people to live on. Giant diamond fibre optic cables could carry light to the night side. Diamond disco balls could be make for export to the galaxy's discos and so on.

    I tried to explain to my ex-girlfriend that a graphite engagement ring was just as good as a diamond one since it's all carbon, but she just didn't want to listen.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    That still leaves us with far more oxygen than one planet needs.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  20. #20
    That still leaves us with far more oxygen than one planet needs.
    That goes in the diamonds too along with the C. You make a hollow diamond and then you put the atmosphere you don't want inside it under pressure. Provided you don't skimp on the diamond container's construction it should be pretty safe in there. You might have to make them pretty small so kids wouldn't be trying to pop them.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Hmmm, eventually even diamonds will wear out (or get crushed back into the crust), and all that gas will go back where it came from. I'd rather go with removing the excess, it's a more long-term solution.
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  22. #22
    Hmmm, eventually even diamonds will wear out (or get crushed back into the crust), and all that gas will go back where it came from. I'd rather go with removing the excess, it's a more long-term solution.
    Surely covering the entire planet with diamonds would be cheaper?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    13,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    Surely covering the entire planet with diamonds would be cheaper?
    It would pay for itself, surely.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose View Post
    It would pay for itself, surely.
    If diamonds could be mass-produced that cheaply, they'd be practically worthless. "Why, that's just a common diamond..."
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    13,984
    Yup. The trick is to sell them to people who don't follow the news or the market much and have more dollars than sense (cents).

    It'd be kind of neat having a full set of diamond bits for my El-Cheapo brand cordless drill.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    18,888
    Well, then you're in luck; such people are more common than diamonds!
    STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    228
    This discussion broke down at, about, the diamond production post.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,801
    If we engineered the photosynthetic organisms as gasbags, they could hover at more equitable atmospheric layers.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ravens_cry View Post
    If we engineered the photosynthetic organisms as gasbags, they could hover at more equitable atmospheric layers.
    Photosynthesis is still only going to convert CO2 to O2, giving you an extremely high pressure, nearly pure O2 atmosphere and a bunch of flammable organic material.

    The only vaguely workable approach I've seen is to import vast amounts of hydrogen (which would be needed for photosynthesis anyway, as the carbon ends up as carbohydrates) to convert the atmosphere almost entirely into water and carbon. You can then work on seeding it with photosynthetic life to turn the rest into oxygen and biomass, and cooling the planet so the water rains down to the surface rather than adding to the greenhouse effect.

    Now you've got a high pressure (couple atmospheres) oxy-nitrogen atmosphere with considerably greater depth and solar energy input than Earth's and two month long days and nights. Good luck with agriculture, you'll probably have to live in underground bunkers to survive the storms and temperature extremes.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Now you've got a high pressure (couple atmospheres) oxy-nitrogen atmosphere with considerably greater depth and solar energy input than Earth's and two month long days and nights. Good luck with agriculture, you'll probably have to live in underground bunkers to survive the storms and temperature extremes.
    Hmmm, sounds like we need to bleed off some excess atmosphere anyway, so why not put a tap on the magnetotail, or better, a double tap: one big filament to Mars with stuff we'll eventually need there, and another smaller filament that interacts with the Venetian ionosphere to recycle water vapor.

Similar Threads

  1. Would it be possible to terraform Venus?
    By potoole in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-13, 03:50 AM
  2. Should We Terraform Mars?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Dec-30, 07:50 PM
  3. Don't terraform Mars!
    By Red1 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-02, 04:28 PM
  4. Should We Terraform?
    By bossman20081 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 2004-Aug-11, 02:14 AM
  5. Which would be easier to terraform- Mars or Venus?
    By Banquo's Ghost in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-07, 04:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •