World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD
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.
Does this feel like swallowing a spider to catch a fly to anyone else?
Perhaps we’ll die.
The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.
Does it have to be diamonds? Could we maybe use the ashes of billionaires instead?
Isn’t diamond manufactured in labs in 15 minutes now? I think the price is assuming natural diamonds value
Human ashes are mostly carbon, so yes, of course. We’ll run out of billionaires pretty quickly, though.
Let’s give it a trial run with a few thousand then we can measure the impact and reevaluate.
We’ll just have to try and find out.
Sounds like a win-win tbh
That’s a problem that solves it self
Isn’t this kind of thing the premise for all those “snowball Earth” sci Fi stories where global cooling went too far
No don’t worry about that!
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.
deleted by creator
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.
The fossil fuel oligarchy would prefer to give all mammals on Earth emphysema than stop burning fossils, and do it for 10x the price.
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
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.
$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
So what would it cost to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable?
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.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
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.
Corporations follow the law
Good one
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.
deleted by creator
You might find this 10-month-old Vlogbrothers video interesting.
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.
Someone heard The Beatles (or maybe Rihanna) for their first time and thought “Diamonds in the sky… Huh… What if…”.
Can we use zirconium for $1 trillion?
How much if we use rhinestones?
Nice try, DeBeers.
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.
This is garbage.
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?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.
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.
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.
CO is not a significant greenhouse gas. (And N20 is…)
Are diamond particulates likely to burn if they’re dispersed in the atmosphere?
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.
True. That would be a minescule fraction of what’s there though…
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?I just wonder why not use sapphire dust instead. Doesn’t it reflect sunlight almost identically?
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.
I was thinking asbestos…
Whatever you do, don’t look up silicosis. Not a problem at all. Not relevant.
Yeah, like asbestos… if asbestos bio-accumulated forever.
Instead, the world has a few mechanisms that will make asbestos harmless after a few generations. Not so much for diamonds.
We’re carbon based lifeforms and diamonds, yep, made of carbon. What could possibly go wrong!? /s
They got a headline. Mission achieved.
Diamond Lung.
Sounds posh.
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.
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.
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?
There have never been lung issues caused by inhaling very small dust particles, right?
