Atmospheric methane to carbon [on hold]Free Radical Reaction of Methane and ChlorineIs a carbon-fluorine bond...
Why we don't have vaccination against all diseases which are caused by microbes?
Are required indicators necessary for radio buttons?
Why don't politicians push for fossil fuel reduction by pointing out their scarcity?
Church Booleans
How can I run SQL Server Vulnerability Assessment from a SQL Job?
How much code would a codegolf golf if a codegolf could golf code?
Does C++20 mandate source code being stored in files?
How does turbine efficiency compare with internal combustion engines if all the turbine power is converted to mechanical energy?
How should I think about joining a company whose business I do not understand?
Vacuum collapse -- why do strong metals implode but glass doesn't?
How big would a Daddy Longlegs Spider need to be to kill an average Human?
How can I support the recycling, but not the new production of aluminum?
Was Tuvok bluffing when he said that Voyager's transporters rendered the Kazon weapons useless?
Efficient way of generating a random number of N (less than 64) bits with exactly M bits equal to one
Starships without computers?
Does Swashbuckler's Fancy Footwork apply if the attack was made with Booming Blade?
How do you call it when two celestial bodies come as close to each other as they will in their current orbits?
Why are delta bots so finicky?
What is "Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron"?
To "hit home" in German
Can pay be witheld for hours cleaning up after closing time?
How to compare two different formulations of a problem?
Are illustrations in novels frowned upon?
How can I use unicode in this condition?
Atmospheric methane to carbon [on hold]
Free Radical Reaction of Methane and ChlorineIs a carbon-fluorine bond stronger than a carbon-chlorine bond?Which singlet dihalocarbene has the strongest carbon-halogen bond?Carbon tetraradicalDoes presence of alkyl groups on alpha carbon increase yield of alkane in Kolbe's Decarboxylation?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
I read an article by popsci that talked about huge fans forcing methane over a catalyst.
Now that got me wondering, can't we produce hydroxyl radicals with powerfull uv lasers blasting the sky, creating more hydroxyl radicals to break down the methane.
Would this be effective enough to help create enough hydroxyl radicals to help break down methane or would it be a waste of energy against too small an offset?
radicals
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
$endgroup$
put on hold as too broad by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Jon Custer, Todd Minehardt, Tyberius yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I read an article by popsci that talked about huge fans forcing methane over a catalyst.
Now that got me wondering, can't we produce hydroxyl radicals with powerfull uv lasers blasting the sky, creating more hydroxyl radicals to break down the methane.
Would this be effective enough to help create enough hydroxyl radicals to help break down methane or would it be a waste of energy against too small an offset?
radicals
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
$endgroup$
put on hold as too broad by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Jon Custer, Todd Minehardt, Tyberius yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I read an article by popsci that talked about huge fans forcing methane over a catalyst.
Now that got me wondering, can't we produce hydroxyl radicals with powerfull uv lasers blasting the sky, creating more hydroxyl radicals to break down the methane.
Would this be effective enough to help create enough hydroxyl radicals to help break down methane or would it be a waste of energy against too small an offset?
radicals
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
$endgroup$
I read an article by popsci that talked about huge fans forcing methane over a catalyst.
Now that got me wondering, can't we produce hydroxyl radicals with powerfull uv lasers blasting the sky, creating more hydroxyl radicals to break down the methane.
Would this be effective enough to help create enough hydroxyl radicals to help break down methane or would it be a waste of energy against too small an offset?
radicals
radicals
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
asked 2 days ago
TschallackaTschallacka
1484 bronze badges
1484 bronze badges
put on hold as too broad by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Jon Custer, Todd Minehardt, Tyberius yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as too broad by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Jon Custer, Todd Minehardt, Tyberius yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as too broad by Mithoron, Mathew Mahindaratne, Jon Custer, Todd Minehardt, Tyberius yesterday
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
2
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It would be a total waste of energy.
Remember that the Sun is sending orders of magnitude more energy than humanity can produce. A significant fraction of that is UV, so the Sun is already breaking up more Methane than humanity could do by adding laser diodes or whatnot.
We might be able to do more at the ground, where the Sun's UV is mostly filtered.
It would still be an enormous feat to merely reach the Sun's UV level.
However, there is a big reason NOT to do it at the ground: UV does not only break up methane, but also oxygen. Part of that will recombine to ozone, which is an irritant (in the medical sense, i.e. extended-time exposure will cause damage no matter what).
(I do not know whether the oxygen bonds are stronger or weaker than the methane bonds. If methane has the weaker bonds, one could use an UV wavelength below the oxygen energy. You'd still break up bonds of any atmospheric molecule that has weaker bonds than methane, such as pheromones and whatnot; it is entirely unclear what consequences that would have.)
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Powerful ground lasers are surely inefficient. The radicals are created in close proximity, meaning they likely have a good chance to recombine. Also highpower lasers (or any strong light source) are generally not very efficient. A lot of small ones would be better.
I would mount simple UV LEDs on the underside of passenger planes, where they are switched on to illuminate clouds at night (there is no sense in doing it during daytime, obviously). If that's enough to lift the project over the "waste of time and energy" limit, I'm not so sure.
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It would be a total waste of energy.
Remember that the Sun is sending orders of magnitude more energy than humanity can produce. A significant fraction of that is UV, so the Sun is already breaking up more Methane than humanity could do by adding laser diodes or whatnot.
We might be able to do more at the ground, where the Sun's UV is mostly filtered.
It would still be an enormous feat to merely reach the Sun's UV level.
However, there is a big reason NOT to do it at the ground: UV does not only break up methane, but also oxygen. Part of that will recombine to ozone, which is an irritant (in the medical sense, i.e. extended-time exposure will cause damage no matter what).
(I do not know whether the oxygen bonds are stronger or weaker than the methane bonds. If methane has the weaker bonds, one could use an UV wavelength below the oxygen energy. You'd still break up bonds of any atmospheric molecule that has weaker bonds than methane, such as pheromones and whatnot; it is entirely unclear what consequences that would have.)
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It would be a total waste of energy.
Remember that the Sun is sending orders of magnitude more energy than humanity can produce. A significant fraction of that is UV, so the Sun is already breaking up more Methane than humanity could do by adding laser diodes or whatnot.
We might be able to do more at the ground, where the Sun's UV is mostly filtered.
It would still be an enormous feat to merely reach the Sun's UV level.
However, there is a big reason NOT to do it at the ground: UV does not only break up methane, but also oxygen. Part of that will recombine to ozone, which is an irritant (in the medical sense, i.e. extended-time exposure will cause damage no matter what).
(I do not know whether the oxygen bonds are stronger or weaker than the methane bonds. If methane has the weaker bonds, one could use an UV wavelength below the oxygen energy. You'd still break up bonds of any atmospheric molecule that has weaker bonds than methane, such as pheromones and whatnot; it is entirely unclear what consequences that would have.)
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It would be a total waste of energy.
Remember that the Sun is sending orders of magnitude more energy than humanity can produce. A significant fraction of that is UV, so the Sun is already breaking up more Methane than humanity could do by adding laser diodes or whatnot.
We might be able to do more at the ground, where the Sun's UV is mostly filtered.
It would still be an enormous feat to merely reach the Sun's UV level.
However, there is a big reason NOT to do it at the ground: UV does not only break up methane, but also oxygen. Part of that will recombine to ozone, which is an irritant (in the medical sense, i.e. extended-time exposure will cause damage no matter what).
(I do not know whether the oxygen bonds are stronger or weaker than the methane bonds. If methane has the weaker bonds, one could use an UV wavelength below the oxygen energy. You'd still break up bonds of any atmospheric molecule that has weaker bonds than methane, such as pheromones and whatnot; it is entirely unclear what consequences that would have.)
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
It would be a total waste of energy.
Remember that the Sun is sending orders of magnitude more energy than humanity can produce. A significant fraction of that is UV, so the Sun is already breaking up more Methane than humanity could do by adding laser diodes or whatnot.
We might be able to do more at the ground, where the Sun's UV is mostly filtered.
It would still be an enormous feat to merely reach the Sun's UV level.
However, there is a big reason NOT to do it at the ground: UV does not only break up methane, but also oxygen. Part of that will recombine to ozone, which is an irritant (in the medical sense, i.e. extended-time exposure will cause damage no matter what).
(I do not know whether the oxygen bonds are stronger or weaker than the methane bonds. If methane has the weaker bonds, one could use an UV wavelength below the oxygen energy. You'd still break up bonds of any atmospheric molecule that has weaker bonds than methane, such as pheromones and whatnot; it is entirely unclear what consequences that would have.)
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
answered 2 days ago
toolforgertoolforger
1411 bronze badge
1411 bronze badge
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
toolforger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
$begingroup$
The ozone argument isnt really one: Hydroxyl radicals are made via singlett oxygen, which is also resonsible for ozone generation. As long as your artificial light source is less intense than the sun, it wont create unhealthy ozone levels. Of course it likely also wont make enough hydroxyls to make a difference. ;)
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Powerful ground lasers are surely inefficient. The radicals are created in close proximity, meaning they likely have a good chance to recombine. Also highpower lasers (or any strong light source) are generally not very efficient. A lot of small ones would be better.
I would mount simple UV LEDs on the underside of passenger planes, where they are switched on to illuminate clouds at night (there is no sense in doing it during daytime, obviously). If that's enough to lift the project over the "waste of time and energy" limit, I'm not so sure.
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Powerful ground lasers are surely inefficient. The radicals are created in close proximity, meaning they likely have a good chance to recombine. Also highpower lasers (or any strong light source) are generally not very efficient. A lot of small ones would be better.
I would mount simple UV LEDs on the underside of passenger planes, where they are switched on to illuminate clouds at night (there is no sense in doing it during daytime, obviously). If that's enough to lift the project over the "waste of time and energy" limit, I'm not so sure.
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Powerful ground lasers are surely inefficient. The radicals are created in close proximity, meaning they likely have a good chance to recombine. Also highpower lasers (or any strong light source) are generally not very efficient. A lot of small ones would be better.
I would mount simple UV LEDs on the underside of passenger planes, where they are switched on to illuminate clouds at night (there is no sense in doing it during daytime, obviously). If that's enough to lift the project over the "waste of time and energy" limit, I'm not so sure.
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Powerful ground lasers are surely inefficient. The radicals are created in close proximity, meaning they likely have a good chance to recombine. Also highpower lasers (or any strong light source) are generally not very efficient. A lot of small ones would be better.
I would mount simple UV LEDs on the underside of passenger planes, where they are switched on to illuminate clouds at night (there is no sense in doing it during daytime, obviously). If that's enough to lift the project over the "waste of time and energy" limit, I'm not so sure.
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
answered 2 days ago
KarlKarl
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
6,92415 silver badges36 bronze badges
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
So if you would take a couple of those superlong solar powered self flying planes and patch them up with uv leds you could have a sustainable solution?
$endgroup$
– Tschallacka
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Tschallacka No. You just make it mandatory for all planes landing in US or EU to have those and present a usage log. A kilowatt or two of electricity are basically free on a jet airplane. Much better scaleability.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
At the risk of sounding too obvious, doesn't the sun already illuminate clouds with UV?
$endgroup$
– immibis
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
$begingroup$
@immibis Well, only during the day. But you're right. The underside of clouds is likely the only place where this might possibly make sense.
$endgroup$
– Karl
yesterday
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
It's kinda mean to insta-fry unsuspecting birds and bats. ;-)
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Arising questions: a) How much methane is in the atmosphere, b) how effective is a hydroxyl radical in destroying methane, c) how effectively can we produce them, d) can we actually increase the local concentration, e) how long does the effect last, f) does it make sense to e.g. increase the concentration overnight? If you have all that info, it's easy to put the numbers together and make a business case for it.
$endgroup$
– Karl
2 days ago