How does the saying go, the only thing that can stop a bad air pollutant with a gun is a good air pollutant with a gun?
The solution to global warming is to artificially heat earth to Planck temperature, this ensuring it cannot possibly become any hotter.
This diagram is wrong on so many levels. Ozone is “charged Oxygen” (O1 rather than the usual O2) so it’s saying you get Ozone out of the Hydrogen side. The bubbles are forming in a place where they can’t get to the output vents, so the accumulating gases would slowly force the water level in the inner chamber down, and thus up through the vents. It’s pretty shit. Is it AI slop?
Putting Ozone on the Hydrogen side was my mistake, I haphazardly added the hearts last minute and just put 2 great things about the gases there, not realising they were about the same gas. For what it’s worth, you got it wrong too, as Ozone is O3.
The diagram itself is from here. While there are plenty of reasons to doubt the promises of clean hydrogen companies, I at the very least trusted them when it comes to understanding electrolysis… might want to rethink that. But AI it is not, as far as I can tell.
You’re quite right, Ozone is actually O3, I got that wrong. I should have looked it up, but I didn’t, hence the error. I’m so sorry I mislead you - can you forgive me? Ozone is actually very interesting - did you know there is a layer of the upper atmosphere known as The Ozone Layer, and that it has a hole in it? Also, Ozone is sometimes produced by chemical reactions and electrical arcs - it has a distinctive, Ozoney smell. As you also made mistakes, I think we are now even - have you ever considered taking up a career as a Large Language Model?
Even if this would work without any complications from increasing atmospheric pressure, electrolyzing 0.5% of the ocean with present-day technology would take more than 200,000 years. That’s plenty of time to invent new tech to speed it up, but even if some miracle invention next week sped it up by 2 orders of magnitude, it would still take more than 2000 years. So in feasibility terms I would rate this concept lower than building space elevators to save rocket fuel.
Cool sci-fi concept tho - let’s get Arnold on it right away!
Not to mention we fix that pesky sea level rising bit.
Why is the 2 in CO2 superscript? Numbers like that are always subscript.
