Diamond Dust Could Cool the Planet At a Cost of Mere Trillions (science.org)
- Reference: 0175281195
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/19/003230/diamond-dust-could-cool-the-planet-at-a-cost-of-mere-trillions
- Source link: https://www.science.org/content/article/are-diamonds-earth-s-best-friend-gem-dust-could-cool-planet-and-cost-trillions
> 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 [2]published this month in Geophysical Research Letters , scientists report that shooting 5 million tons of diamond dust into the stratosphere each year [3]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, [4]one study estimates .
[1] https://slashdot.org/~sciencehabit
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL110575
[3] https://www.science.org/content/article/are-diamonds-earth-s-best-friend-gem-dust-could-cool-planet-and-cost-trillions
[4] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7/pdf
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)
I you can extract enough carbon to make the diamonds, perhaps you'd be better off extracting it and turning it into simple carbon black and burying it rather than making diamonds with it.
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)
From what I've read recently, temperatures are tracking the lower half of RCP 8.5 but emissions are on the lower end too (just). Hansen appears to have been on the money in 1988.
Re: What about the power requirements? (Score:1)
KWh is energy, not power.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to assume low carbon energy for this to make sense
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)
If it drops it by 1.6C on a semi-permanent basis for 7 years of emissions it might be worth it, but not if top ups are required very often. The devil will be in the detail.
Well yeah, but if it can save us from ourselves... (Score:2)
> 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
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)
Solar cells beaming energy down to earth. You might as well install all those solar roadways fiascos. GTFOH
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)
Could they be arranged to make weekends lighter in the UK in winter?
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)
The CO2 already there will persist for a long time so we may well need to not add to it and remove some. Even if the temperature stays the same, ice will melt at the poles which can have other negative effects. Granted, melting takes energy, but albedo also changes as a result.
It would be easier (Score:2)
It would be easier to just put some darkener in our gas. Let it fly out into the world. Of course it would eventually fall to the ground, but it's no less insane than this idea.
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)
...called "Lucy" by any chance? [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
P.S. I'm very surprised that nobody beat me to this reference!
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgR6UNeQxXE
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)
A short while ago it was proposed that blasting a bazillion bits of iron oxide dust into Mars atmosphere would raise the temperature, a step on the way to terraforming that planet.
But doing the same thing here except with diamond would apparently cool the Earth instead?
Re:Cools Earth but heats Mars? (Score:4, Funny)
That's nothing, imagine this. If you blow on your food, it will cool it off. But if you blow on your hands on a snowy day, it will warm them up! Devil's magic1
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)
The best and quickest way to cool the planet is to cool the poles so that lost ice re-accumulates. And really only need to do it in the North, since Antarctica's cap is too thick to significantly change albedo. Restoring Arctic sea ice would be the most efficient approach.
Instead of curbing consumption (Score:1)
We come up with this? Unless we degrow and changing our voracious consumption habits, civilization is doomed. We are more dependent on Earth’s climate than we realize. It’ll NOT go well for humanity.
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)
What could possibly go wrong?
(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)
If fantastical and grand solutions are on the table, then how about creating a giant dust cloud that blocks a couple percent of sunlight in between the sun and the earth? Specifically at the first Lagrange point (L1) so it stays somewhat stationary in front of the sun relative to the earth. It doesn't carry as much geo-engineering risks and the cloud would disperse naturally into space over the years.
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)
Clearly, something very slightly softer than diamond should be used. Meanwhile I am going to see if the domain name purediamondwindscreens.com is taken.
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)
Moon dust can be accelerated into orbit without the production costs.
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)
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009 [wikipedia.org]
Just no.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009
Why not try vaporized sodium? (Score:1)
Why not try vaporized sodium in orbit? It's easy to make, very reflective, easy to control (it dissipates) and it's been done before.
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)
Has anybody even remotely considered the effect of this on living BREATHING organisms. This is just stucking fuipid.
Greater Restoration? (Score:5, Funny)
So basically, they want to cast Greater Restoration on the planet?
Re: (Score:3)
"It's going to cost us a few trillions... in sales!" - DeBeers
No, This is Science (Score:2)
We are simply taking advantage of the scientific theory that very small rocks float.