Diamond Dust Could Cool the Planet At a Cost of Mere Trillions (science.org) 57
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: From dumping iron into the ocean to launching mirrors into space, proposals to cool the planet through 'geoengineering' tend to be controversial -- and sometimes fantastical. A new idea isn't any less far-out, but it may avoid some of the usual pitfalls of strategies to fill the atmosphere with tiny, reflective particles. In a modeling study published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists report that shooting 5 million tons of diamond dust into the stratosphere each year could cool the planet by 1.6C -- enough to stave off the worst consequences of global warming. The scheme wouldn't be cheap, however: experts estimate it would cost nearly $200 trillion over the remainder of this century -- far more than traditional proposals to use sulfur particles. [...]
The researchers modeled the effects of seven compounds, including sulfur dioxide, as well as particles of diamond, aluminum, and calcite, the primary ingredient in limestone. They evaluated the effects of each particle across 45 years in the model, where each trial took more than a week in real-time on a supercomputer. The results showed diamond particles were best at reflecting radiation while also staying aloft and avoiding clumping. Diamond is also thought to be chemically inert, meaning it would not react to form acid rain, like sulfur. To achieve 1.6C of cooling, 5 million tons of diamond particles would need to be injected into the stratosphere each year. Such a large quantity would require a huge ramp up in synthetic diamond production before high-altitude aircraft could sprinkle the ground-up gems across the stratosphere. At roughly $500,000 per ton, synthetic diamond dust would be 2,400 times more expensive than sulfur and cost $175 trillion if deployed from 2035 to 2100, one study estimates.
The researchers modeled the effects of seven compounds, including sulfur dioxide, as well as particles of diamond, aluminum, and calcite, the primary ingredient in limestone. They evaluated the effects of each particle across 45 years in the model, where each trial took more than a week in real-time on a supercomputer. The results showed diamond particles were best at reflecting radiation while also staying aloft and avoiding clumping. Diamond is also thought to be chemically inert, meaning it would not react to form acid rain, like sulfur. To achieve 1.6C of cooling, 5 million tons of diamond particles would need to be injected into the stratosphere each year. Such a large quantity would require a huge ramp up in synthetic diamond production before high-altitude aircraft could sprinkle the ground-up gems across the stratosphere. At roughly $500,000 per ton, synthetic diamond dust would be 2,400 times more expensive than sulfur and cost $175 trillion if deployed from 2035 to 2100, one study estimates.
Greater Restoration? (Score:5, Funny)
So basically, they want to cast Greater Restoration on the planet?
Re: (Score:3)
No, This is Science (Score:2)
What about the power requirements? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best numbers I've seen involve about 28 kWh to produce a single karat of synthetic diamond. There are 4,535,923.7 karats in a ton. 5 million tons is 22,679,618,500,000 karats. Multiply that times 28 kWh, and you have 635,029,318,000,000 kWh of power. At a U.S. average of 0.86 pounds of CO2 per kWh, that's 273,062,606,740 *tons* of CO2 emitted to produce those synthetic diamonds. And that's not counting the emissions from any mining required to create the raw materials.
So we would emit the equivalent of more than 7 *years* of annual CO2 emissions every year. Does their model account for the 700% increase in CO2 emissions required to do it? More to the point, sure, it *might* still cool the atmosphere (or not), but will it *stay* cool after all that extra CO2 is added to it, once the diamond dust settles out of suspension, or will we end up with a series of rebound heating waves that get worse and worse until we can't produce enough diamond dust to fix the problem, and the entire human race is wiped out by our own recklessness and hubris?
I'm not saying this can't work, because I haven't done the math, but any time you're talking about a triple-digit percentage increase in world CO2 emissions to solve a problem, the amount of energy involved is so enormous that it raises serious red flags, and if we can find a way to produce that much energy without adding CO2 to the atmosphere, then we've already likely solved the problem without blowing diamond powder into the air.
So I'm not convinced that this is a very good idea. In fact, if my rough math above is not off by at least two or three orders of magnitude, I think it might very well go down as one of the worst ideas in all of human history, right alongside nuclear weapons and pineapple on pizza. Just saying.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are good points. Did you calculate the net change in CO2 if the carbon for the diamonds comes from CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place? I'm sure it's still going to be a net increase in CO2, unless all the power comes from renewables. Even then, it would clearly make more sense to completely replace all fossil fuel usage with that power first, rather than try crazy plans to geo-engineer the Earth.
Of course, just like all these plans to cool the Earth to counteract global warming, there's no exami
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the power requirements? (Score:4, Informative)
It's irrelevant whether it works or not because, as you point out, the energy to accomplish it is going to render it moot. As with all solutions that aren't significant reductions in emissions, such as carbon sequestration, thermodynamics is going to balance the books on the wrong side of the ledger. We keep trying to find these "get out of jail free" cards that will allow us to continue the behaviors that got us into this mess, and they all amount to one form of perpetual motion machine or another... in other words scams. The only solution is to drastically reduce GHG emissions. That's it, the only thing that's going to work, and we've almost certainly reached a point where even if we do so in the next decade or two, it's not likely to be soon enough to reduce the more significant impacts. We'd basically be doing it for our great great children... at best.
Re: What about the power requirements? (Score:3)
People have been saying the same thing for 30 years. I think we've already used up our free decades. A paper a few days ago shows a 50% chance of AMOC collapse by 2050 as is. Another presentation I saw a few weeks ago shows basically all emissions and temperatures following the RC 8.5 track, which argues that Hansen's more recent papers are likely correct - we've underestimated CO2 sensitivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we're now in a position where simply cutting emission isn't enough. We need to BOTH cut emissions, and extract CO2 from the system. And all the plans to do the second half are fakes, designed to promote continued consumption of fossil fuels. Either that, or impossible to scale up sufficiently. (E.g. planting trees is a good idea, but you can't scale it up sufficiently. And even then you've got to allow for "infant mortality". Most tree planting projects don't care for the trees they've
Re: What about the power requirements? (Score:1)
KWh is energy, not power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At a U.S. average of 0.86 pounds of CO2 per kWh
In France, where two thirds of electricity production comes from nuclear plants, the carbon intensity is 10 times lower: 39 gram CO2eq/kWh. I'm not saying that this makes diamond dust a feasible idea, but using the US number is probably not the best choice in this calculation. To get an idea of the varying carbon intensity of electricity production around the world, see electricitymaps.com.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The paper actually tests a number of different substances, with diamond being the best. What we need is to find something with similar optical properties but which requires less energy to produce.
Well yeah, but if it can save us from ourselves... (Score:2)
Well yeah, but if it can save us from ourselves...
Or at least the children. Let us think about the children for once!
Not convinced. (Score:2)
The energy needed to produce diamond dust is very high, and if you add more heat than you remove, you've achieved nothing.
A large array of movable modular solar collectors which you can move would seem better. Collect the energy over a very large area and beam it to somewhere useful. Earth might be good.
Because you can move them, you can control the level and location of shade. By beaming the energy to Earth, you reduce the need to generate energy on Earth. And solar cells in space should collect far more e
What ?!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with solar power collection in space is getting the power down to Earth. Fans of the idea (and I am one, but with reservations) often simply hand wave the part where the power has to reach Earth by assuming they can microwave it to Earth. If you've ever tried to work out what kind of microwave transmitter/receiver array you would need for that though, it doesn't come out looking very attractive compared to solar cells on the ground. Using orbital mirrors to increase sunlight to solar arrays on t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the consequences would need to be carefully considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, don't the thermodynamic limits argue against that sort of idea being able to make a difference? We need to reflect energy back into space, not absorb it into the surface where it will, ultimately, once again become heat.
Lung problems? (Score:2)
Doesn't "sharp" dust create lung problems? Those who work with stone-based furniture grinding machines often form medical problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, rich people have a natural tolerance.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Every air breathing animal on earth would end up with white lung disease. If white lung is taken it'll be glittering lung disease. Symptoms will likely be similar to silicosis.
Just another attempt to justify continue polluting (Score:2)
Rich assholes must get richer! Cannot have the human race actually do something effective about the upcoming (near-) extinction event. So here is some nice fantasy to keep the masses convinced we are not utterly and completely screwed already.
solving the wrong problem (Score:2)
Putting a band-aid on it won't solve the underlying problem. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We neeed to remoove it
Re: (Score:3)
Putting a band-aid on it won't solve the underlying problem. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere. We neeed to remoove it
If we reduce how much we produce, we won't have to remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is PLANT FOOD. Plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere and produce oxygen. We have barely ENOUGH CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the plants alive, and far BELOW long-term historical levels of CO2.
It would be easier (Score:2)
Practice your terraforming on Mars first (Score:2)
Look, if you're into terraforming, go practice on an uninhabited planet first. The atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2 and the average temperature is -80 F. If we're gonna put a million people there, somebody needs to fix up the place, first.
Is one of the researchers... (Score:2)
P.S. I'm very surprised that nobody beat me to this reference!
Really brilliant /s (Score:3)
We barely understand the most basic things about climate, and people want to deliberately muck with it on a planetary scale?
What could go wrong?
Cools Earth but heats Mars? (Score:2)
But doing the same thing here except with diamond would apparently cool the Earth instead?
Re:Cools Earth but heats Mars? (Score:4, Funny)
Nice sales tactic :) (Score:1)
-- far more than traditional proposals to use sulfur particles.
The $10 laundry detergent doesn't look so bad now, does it, sitting next to the $18 laundry detergent! :)
Shading concepts are most efficient at poles. (Score:2)
Instead of curbing consumption (Score:1)
I give up (Score:2)
Burn baby, burn. If it gets too hot, get a gasoline generator and plug an AC unit into it. Why the fuck not?
We obviously do not (collectively) care to deal with the actual problem.
Tiny hard particles in the air that we breathe (Score:2)
(Yes, those particles won't stay in the stratosphere forever. Eventually they'll sink to lower altitudes where they might cause all sorts of issues)
Dust cloud at L1 (Score:2)
Dust and air travel? (Score:2)
I remember back when the volcano under EyjafjallajÃkull on Iceland erupted in 2010 and spewed dust high up in the atmosphere ...
That dust was abrasive for aircraft engines and windshields, and postponed all transatlantic flights for a week.
(I had a workmate whose overseas vacation got an unplanned extension.)
Well that's one way of reducing CO2 emissions, I suppose...
Which is what we should do anyway. Right now. Without being forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
Just what we need. (Score:2)
sand blasting the ablative shielding of rockets on the way into orbit before corrosive clouds forming to sandblast the paint off planes flying through them and diamond rain falling to strip the land of anything made of material softer than diamonds.
Let's use the moon. (Score:1)
I would just be curious ... (Score:2)
what the amount of fossil fuel and consequently CO2 would be, required to distribute 5 million tons of diamond particles in the stratosphere.
Nope (Score:2)
Just no.
Why not try vaporized sodium? (Score:1)
easier to get started (Score:2)
This is for the environment and future of the planet. Shouldn't be too hard to convince ladies to donate their actual diamonds to the cause, dumping diamonds is cool. Make it free for divorced men to crush donated diamonds. win-win-win
Diamond dust and lungs? (Score:1)
A Foolish Expenditure (Score:2)
"Climate change" is a CYCLE, a thousand years long. Like winters and summers, the planet gets warmer and cools off in cycles that no human lifespan can encompass. This cycle is about at its peak, and it will begin to cool off "soon" - probably by 2050 or so. Doing some sort of IRREVERSABLE geo-engineering action would exacerbate the depths of the cooling cycle, and probably cause incalculable misery.
At the peak of the last cycle, Vikings grew barley and had dairy farms on Greenland. At the peak of the previ
Is breathing that stuff safe? (Score:2)
My point is I don't know, and who does? Please, let us not do stupid things that make everything worse, mmkay? 'Law of unintended consequences'.