World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t get it, why wouldn’t sapphire dust work? Isn’t that dirt cheap to make? And it’s carbon free!
    Seems illogical to add carbon in the form of diamond, to a problem that is mostly caused by carbon?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      The carbon isn’t the problem, it’s the CO2 molecule. I would be really curious if solid carbon in diamond form is able to react with ozone in the atmosphere to make CO2, or if it would be inert, or if it would do something else.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        No reactions, just reflections. The premise is “bounce the heat before it can be trapped.”

        The main reason they looked at diamond this time is because it’s very clump resistant, which is a positive for heat deflection.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 months ago

        It’s also Methane and CO, gasses that also contain carbon. I know diamond is pretty stable, but it does burn, and then it creates the gasses we try to avoid.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          CO is not a significant greenhouse gas. (And N20 is…)

          Are diamond particulates likely to burn if they’re dispersed in the atmosphere?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Are diamond particulates likely to burn if they’re dispersed in the atmosphere?

            Actually yes, if they enter the engine of a plane they will burn.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Not quite minuscule, for every ton of jet fuel burned, 2 tons of oxygen is needed, to take that in, about 3-4 ton of atmospheric air goes through the combustion, the volume of that air is quite a lot, and is only sustained because oxygen is constantly renewed. The diamonds will not have self sustained renewal and will be burned up pretty quickly.
                Also being an aerosol increases surface and potential chemical reactions by a magnitude of maybe a billion per unit, so although we consider diamonds to be very stable in their normal form, a diamond aerosol is obviously much less so, and UV light refracted could accelerate break down of the diamond aerosol, into free carbon, which will create carbon gasses. I bet researchers have considered this, but I see no numbers for it?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                16 months ago

                I just wonder why not use sapphire dust instead. Doesn’t it reflect sunlight almost identically?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    286 months ago

    The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    216 months ago

    Sweet! Four more years of Trump presidency, and Elon Musk can just pay for it out of pocket.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Elon musk’s kids should be made an example of when reclamation comes around.

      They’re being brought up thinking they can live like gods. How unfortunate would it be if they actually had to live like the rest of us…

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    606 months ago

    Of all the aerosols they could think about!

    No chance at all of a basically indestructible material not being destructed if absorbed by lungs (or gills) and leading to some disease. You don’t need to check. There’s no way this could go wrong.

    Or, rather… I believe lead is cheaper… Given how much people like to use it, maybe it’s a better option.

  • Tiefling IRL
    link
    fedilink
    English
    846 months ago

    Does it have to be diamonds? Could we maybe use the ashes of billionaires instead?

  • Jolly Platypus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176 months ago

    It’s not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.

  • Diplomjodler
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    That amount sounds like total bullshit. Diamonds can be manufactured and once that is done at scale, it won’t be all that expensive. Even at $10000 a ton, five million tonnes would cost just 50 billion.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      $10000/ton is $5/lb from a quick google search they are about $250/lb for industrial diamonds. So 50* 50 or 2500 billion or 2.5 trillion with no idea if they can use run of the mill industrial diamonds or if there will be additional processing to get them into the aerosolized form also how are you going to launch them, and for how many years would we need to do it

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      126 months ago

      That number is for doing it anually for 65 years. It lists roughly 18 billion per year for the cost.

      But besides that, I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of the diamonds. Synthetic ones are way cheaper than natural ones, yes, but there’s a lot of room between “natural diamond expensive” and “actually cheap”. Going by these prices https://www.diamondtech.com/products/categories/diamond_powder_price_list.html

      It’s $2.5 million per tonne. I assume you could get a cheaper price per weight if you’re buying five million tonnes of anything, but it’s still two orders of magnitude more expensive than you are guessing

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

      Firstly, it’s 5 million tonnes per year. For 65 years. Secondly, the cost is for a 65 year SAI program, including developing the tech and running the missions. Thirdly, this is all explained in TFA or the links therein.

    • HubertManne
      link
      fedilink
      186 months ago

      These are not good ideas. Remember that global warming is just an overarching effect of pollution which we will still have. What diamond dust pollution effects will be, no one knows, but I doubt we want to find out.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        136 months ago

        The fossil fuel oligarchy would prefer to give all mammals on Earth emphysema than stop burning fossils, and do it for 10x the price.

  • marcolo
    link
    fedilink
    26 months ago

    @FlyingSquid
    “Scientists say…”
    All of them, are you sure?
    Geoengineering schemes are not agreed upon by many scientists. There are several types of geoengineering “solutions” and no agreement on any, just suggestions.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16 months ago

      I don’t know, but I hear De Beers is already planning to corner the lung transplant market.

  • Daemon Silverstein
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176 months ago

    Someone heard The Beatles (or maybe Rihanna) for their first time and thought “Diamonds in the sky… Huh… What if…”.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176 months ago

    Isn’t this kind of thing the premise for all those “snowball Earth” sci Fi stories where global cooling went too far

  • AlphaOmega
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16 months ago

    Isn’t this very similar to the annuki and the Sumerian history. Where these aliens came to earth to mine gold to take it back to their planet and use it to save their atmosphere.