Timeline for answer to Would a terraformed planet have no fossil fuels and if so, what alternates would be available? by AlexP
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | jpa | @AlexP Hmm true, I was focusing only on the metal ore reduction. Lack of coal would have had higher impact in heating energy needs (both industrial and residential). | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | AlexP | @jpa: Greece and Italy were already running out of forests in the antiquity. And not mention Mesopotamia. Six thousand years ago, 75% of England was forested; by 1900, that had fallen to 5%. (And no it wasn't agriculture; even with modern technology, only about 30% of the area of England is considered arable land.) Yes there is plenty of forest in Siberia, but Siberia is far away. | |
| 17 hours ago | comment | added | jpa | The "running out of forests" argument at the end sounds off. Currently global tree removals are around 2000Mt/year, which would give about 500Mt of charcoal if pyrolysed . Coal production 8000Mt/year, of which 1000Mt is used for steel production. Having no coal certainly would have changed the economics, but I don't think it would have stopped industrialization. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | codeMonkey | This answer hints at, but doesn't mention the ACTUAL answer, which is "terraforming requires so much civilizational power that the idea of that civilization regressing to the Bronze Age is not feasible" -- if you have interstellar travel and the ability to ALTER THE GEOCHEMISTRY of entire planets, there isn't a catastrophe that can "knock you back to the stone age" | |
| yesterday | comment | added | AlexP | @quarague: Oxygen is a very reactive gas. Without constant replenishment, Earth's oxygen would be gone in a few thousand years, nowhere near 100,000 years. (Mostly consumed for oxidizing all the dead animals.) Having free oxygen in the atmosphere really needs a world wide replenishment system. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | quarague | I wonder how longterm longterm actually is. True, if you where to just split 20% of the C02 in the athmosphere into carbon and O2 and release the oxygen, this would not be stable and the O2 would quickly react with something. But if 'quickly' means 'within a 100,000 years' the terraformers might not actually care. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | ain92 | @Thibe The easiest way to capture carbon dioxide is to fix it into carbonates not reduce it to coal | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Thibe | +1 If the planet started from a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere, then I would even go so far to say, that coal deposits are a very likely byproduct when the atmosphere is terraformed. All that carbon has to go somewhere and I doubt that they would just remove all the unused carbon, which wasn't needed for the soil. Coal deposits are assumingly easier and quicker made than oil deposits. Though it is kind of pointless to speak of "easier and quicker" when it comes to terraform an entire planet. | |
| 2 days ago | history | answered | AlexP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |