What if we knew how to turn CO2 into O2?

[RockyTV]

Let me make an intro here.

I'm fascinated with those space stuff, like rockets being launched, NASA and it's missions, etc. And I'm a 13-year old kid who plays KSP and is fascinated with space. Yep, that's right. I'm the kind of guy that asks his dad: "dad, why didn't we learn how to nuclear fusion yet?", "dad, why NASA wont go to Mars on a tripulated mission", "dad, why the sky is blue?".

So, yesterday, I was going to bed and I kept talking to my dad about our solar system planets and their composition. Then I found out that a big part of them has carbon dioxide in their atmosphere, that is over 9000 80% percent of it's atmosphere. And I did a little joke with him - I said "we will only get to explore the deep space when we turn CO2 into O2". He said "what would that help us?". And then I went to sleep, thinking on what I just said.

What if it is actually possible, and we can discover many new stuff with it?

What if with CO2 turning into O2, we could develop a "bio"-plant that doesn't needs water to survive and does what a normal plant do?

[SargeRho]

What if I told you we know how to do that?

[Psycix]

A simple way to do this:

Extract water from rocks or atmosphere. Greenhouses. Done.

Another interesting thing you might want to look at is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

It allows us to create methane (rocket fuel) on Mars and other CO2 containing bodies. (And we usually need a whole lot more rocket fuel + oxidiser than we need oxygen for breathing.)

Otherwise, the CH4 can be pyrolysed, where the H2 is fed back into the reactor and the C is deposited as graphite. This creates a full CO2 to O2 cycle.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Psycix

[RockyTV]

Extract water from rocks or atmosphere. Greenhouses.

Done.

Another interesting thing you might want to look at is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

It allows us to create methane (rocket fuel) on Mars and other CO2 containing bodies. (And we usually need a whole lot more rocket fuel + oxidiser than we need oxygen for breathing.)

Ohhh, that's nice. Didn't knew that.

Edited October 26, 2013 by RockyTV

[RockyTV]

Now I came up with another question: the Sabatier reaction provides an unlimited energy source? (think with me: put the reactor near the engines, where the temperatures are so much elevated, capture the released CO2, then do it all again)

[Psycix]

It always takes just as much (and due to efficiency losses) more energy to reverse a (energy-yielding) reaction than you get out of it.

Any process that goes back to the same components it starts off with will not produce excess energy.

[drakesdoom]

Now I came up with another question: the Sabatier reaction provides an unlimited energy source? (think with me: put the reactor near the engines, where the temperatures are so much elevated, capture the released CO2, then do it all again)

That is not an unlimited energy source, you are just using the waste heat of the engines to run a chemical reaction that stores some of the energy for later use. You would probably be better off running coolant around your engine and then through a turbine generator to charge a capacitor bank.

[Scotius]

No. The kid is right. Every single plant cell can turn CO2 into O2 and sugar, using only chlorophyll and sunlight. We need huge, complicated setups and a lot of chemistry thrown in to get similiar results. If we could do this the way plants do it would bring tremendous change to the ways we do life support in space, produce hydrocarbons, fuels and a lot of other things we rely on plants for now.

[K^2]

If you look at how the plants do it, they do it in very similar ways. The primary difference is that their chemical factories are miniature. We're getting there with both nanotech and biotech. Worry not.

[RockyTV]

I've found that.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/16/need-more-air-artificial-trees-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-to-oxy/

[Joshington]

What if I told you we know how to do that?

Me: (╯°□°）╯︵ ââ€Â»Ã¢â€Âââ€Â»

[Godot]

If you look at how the plants do it, they do it in very similar ways. The primary difference is that their chemical factories are miniature. We're getting there with both nanotech and biotech. Worry not.

Well, I am sure we could construct bioreactors with choroplasts or algae behind micromembranes to turn CO2 in solution into O2

[Person012345]

Let me make an intro here.

I'm fascinated with those space stuff, like rockets being launched, NASA and it's missions, etc. And I'm a 13-year old kid who plays KSP and is fascinated with space. Yep, that's right. I'm the kind of guy that asks his dad: "dad, why didn't we learn how to nuclear fusion yet?", "dad, why NASA wont go to Mars on a tripulated mission", "dad, why the sky is blue?".

So, yesterday, I was going to bed and I kept talking to my dad about our solar system planets and their composition. Then I found out that a big part of them has carbon dioxide in their atmosphere, that is over 9000 80% percent of it's atmosphere. And I did a little joke with him - I said "we will only get to explore the deep space when we turn CO2 into O2". He said "what would that help us?". And then I went to sleep, thinking on what I just said.

What if it is actually possible, and we can discover many new stuff with it?

What if with CO2 turning into O2, we could develop a "bio"-plant that doesn't needs water to survive and does what a normal plant do?

I've thought about if we could turn it into carbon/O3 in large quantities before. Just idly.

[Nuke]

Well, I am sure we could construct bioreactors with choroplasts or algae behind micromembranes to turn CO2 in solution into O2

i think they have already done that. there are also some things you can do with genetic engineering to optimize conversion. algae cyanobacteria is the whole reason we have an o2 atmosphere to begin with.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Nuke

[jfx]

Easy from a chemistry perspective.

Not so easy from an engineering perspective.

-> Too expensive to be viable. Like so many other things.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

You would be able to (mostly) breathe on Mars...

[magnemoe]

How do they generate oxygen on IIS? They must have this issue and they don't want to send up lots of oxygen?

[Exclipse]

You would be able to (mostly) breathe on Mars...

I am not sure how you figure this, considering we cannot breath on the summit of Mt. Everest, which has a higher atmospheric pressure than anywhere on Mar's surface, including the lowest observable impact craters.

Mars average - 0.6 kilo-pascals (0.087 psi)

Hellas Planitia bottom - 1.16 kilo-pascals (0.168 psi) Lowest altitude on Mars.

Armstrong limit - 6.25 kilo-pascals (0.906 psi) Point at which water boils at the normal temperature of the human body: 37 °C (98.6 °F)

Mount Everest summit - 33.7 kilo-pascals (4.89 psi)

Also to put this in even more perspective CO2 is a heavier gas than O2.

So the only way we can ever live on Mars will be within closed environments (Biospheres), Unless we find a way to generate an Magnetosphere around Mars (Or some other method) to protect the atmosphere from being torn away by the Sun's radiation.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Exclipse

[PakledHostage]

I am not sure how you figure this, considering we cannot breath on the summit of Mt. Everest, which has a higher atmospheric pressure than anywhere on Mar's surface, including the lowest observable impact craters.

While I am not disputing anything else you posted, I would like to make one minor correction: Humans can breath fine on the summit of Mt. Everest. It has been summited many times without the use of supplemental oxygen. Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler were the first to do it in 1978. Two years later, Reinhold Messner returned to climb Everest solo, again without oxygen.

That's not to diminish the effect of altitude on the human body, however. Pilots flying unpressurized aircraft require oxygen when flying above 10000 feet for more than 1/2 hour, and at all times when the aircraft is above 12000 feet altitude. Climbers and high altitude inhabitants can survive above 12000 feet altitude without oxygen, but they must acclimatize to the lower pressures over the course of several days. Above about 18000 feet (roughly 50 kPa), acclimatization has only a limited benefit and the body will slowly deteriorate.

Edited October 29, 2013 by PakledHostage

[lajoswinkler]

No. The kid is right. Every single plant cell can turn CO2 into O2 and sugar, using only chlorophyll and sunlight. We need huge, complicated setups and a lot of chemistry thrown in to get similiar results. If we could do this the way plants do it would bring tremendous change to the ways we do life support in space, produce hydrocarbons, fuels and a lot of other things we rely on plants for now.

It's not that simple. First of all, you need water, too. Then you need compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen in the form of phosphates and nitrates. Even with water as an only add-on to your proposition, the plant will die.

What you learn in school is just a simplified model (as most stuff in curriculum is) of reality.

The only reason plants are able to do all this is because they have extremely small cellular parts, a biochemical machinery, to do it. Life uses enzymes to lower the activation energy of each reaction. Industry works with chemical reactors, burners, coolers, catalytic chambers... Aside from the development of nanomaterials as a new approach to catalysis, we are stuck.

How do they generate oxygen on IIS? They must have this issue and they don't want to send up lots of oxygen?

Electrolysis of water they bring with them from Earth. It's not easy because the required energy is huge and solar panels are poor sources or energy. ISS has enough solar panels and not many oxygen consumers onboard so they can even exercise as much as they want and burn that oxygen in their body cells. They really have enough of that gas.

[RockyTV]

It's not that simple. First of all, you need water, too. Then you need compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen in the form of phosphates and nitrates. Even with water as an only add-on to your proposition, the plant will die.

What you learn in school is just a simplified model (as most stuff in curriculum is) of reality.

The only reason plants are able to do all this is because they have extremely small cellular parts, a biochemical machinery, to do it. Life uses enzymes to lower the activation energy of each reaction. Industry works with chemical reactors, burners, coolers, catalytic chambers... Aside from the development of nanomaterials as a new approach to catalysis, we are stuck.

[...]

Did you read this article? (posted on first page, last post): http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/16/need-more-air-artificial-trees-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-to-oxy/

[Exclipse]

While I am not disputing anything else you posted, I would like to make one minor correction: Humans can breath fine on the summit of Mt. Everest. It has been summited many times without the use of supplemental oxygen. Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler were the first to do it in 1978. Two years later, Reinhold Messner returned to climb Everest solo, again without oxygen.

That's not to diminish the effect of altitude on the human body, however. Pilots flying unpressurized aircraft require oxygen when flying above 10000 feet for more than 1/2 hour, and at all times when the aircraft is above 12000 feet altitude. Climbers and high altitude inhabitants can survive above 12000 feet altitude without oxygen, but they must acclimatize to the lower pressures over the course of several days. Above about 18000 feet (roughly 50 kPa), acclimatization has only a limited benefit and the body will slowly deteriorate.

Thanks for the correction!

All of Mars still lies below the Armstrong limit though, so without a suit on your blood will boil.

[Idobox]

Other methods to produce oxygen on spacecraft use monopropellant. Peroxide spontaneously turns to water and oxygen, and nitrous oxide can also be used to produce oxygen, but not hydrazine.

There is also a compound called potassium superoxide. It reacts with CO2 to release O2, making it a great way to recycle air. It was used in Soyouz, but because it is toxic, and explodes when in contact with water, it has been pretty much abandoned.

[lajoswinkler]

Did you read this article? (posted on first page, last post): http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/16/need-more-air-artificial-trees-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-to-oxy/

I remember that from the media. It's bull**** from some ill-advised or ignorant designer made for people to feel like they're contributing to the environment. Greenwashing.