World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

  • TurboHarbinger@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Let’s throw more carbon to the air, what could go wrong. Is not like it will get to our lungs and destroy everything from the inside.

  • john89@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 days ago

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

  • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 days ago

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

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days 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.

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days 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.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days 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.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days 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

    • jalkasieni@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days 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.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days 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

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      You are missing the point, because we need to do that anyway.
      The idea is to prevent things from getting worse in the meantime.
      Replacing fossil fuels take time no matter how much we invest.

      • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        ok but you just know corporations are going to use this as an excuse to keep using fossil fuels. like to them this is basically carte blanche to keep the status quo and block green energy from happening even harder. “oh hurdur har har we found a solution to climate change and it’s dumping diamonds in the atmosphere, no need to pay for green energy anymore haha” type shit

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          corporations are going to use this as an excuse to keep using fossil fuels.

          Corporations follow the law, the only way to solove this is to have the laws required.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Oh please, of course they don’t always, but the ones that don’t are generally forced to by oversight.
              Yes I kn ow they generally get off easy, but then oversight is increased and if it continues, the penalties increase, until ultimately it will be forced to shut down if illegal activities continue.
              So yes generally cooperations do follow the law.

      • pageflight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thanks, hadn’t seen that before. I wonder how things like “eat less beef” fit into that chart, or of that’s part of the $0 premium.

  • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m still set on “we’re fucked” until I see some more hopeful news.

    When we are fucked and who is first fucked, and making sure I’m not that guy is what I’m trying to determine.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days 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?

    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days 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.

      • Infinite@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days 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.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days 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.

        • naught101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

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

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

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days 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.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days 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?

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

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

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    4 days 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.

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Yes, let’s just have everyone on Earth breathe in diamond dust all day every day. There’s no way that could be bad for our health.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      just wear masks for a few decades, potentially respirators, and probably add whole house air filtration if you want to take it off at night.

    • PlantJam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      There’s never been a case of something having different behavior or health effects just because of a tiny chemical difference (trans fat) or size difference (micro plastics), what’s the worst that could happen?