Spyke
lemmy.world

Human ashes are mostly carbon, so yes, of course. We'll run out of billionaires pretty quickly, though.

34

Let's give it a trial run with a few thousand then we can measure the impact and reevaluate.

18

Isn't diamond manufactured in labs in 15 minutes now? I think the price is assuming natural diamonds value

5
lemmy.world

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.

60

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.

1
lemmy.world

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.

57
PlantJamreply
lemmy.world

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?

27

There have never been lung issues caused by inhaling very small dust particles, right?

24
lemmy.world

Amazing. Instead of just.. fighting climate change by not polluting the planet let's just fill our entire atmosphere with diamond dust, because that's the logical decision of course.

38
Eximiusreply
lemmy.world

It's not really any different than usual dust, other than it is even more likely to scratch your phone (oh no!). The surprising thing is the bullshit price number, I'm sure it's some brain-dead economist looking at the point-price for diamond and with great effort making a single multiplication.

Edit: The study does note industrial diamond manufacturing, but doesn't go into detail on why it's so expensive for diamond powder, other than saying "it would require much more industrial diamond than is currently produced".... Which is just.... Empty? Considering industry would change to account for such a drastic rise in demand.

9
lemmy.world

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.

31
moist.catsweat.com

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.

18

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

13

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

12

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.

6

$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

1

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

27
lemmy.world

So what would it cost to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable?

25
Buffaloxreply
lemmy.world

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.

12
lemmy.world

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

10
Buffaloxreply
lemmy.world

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.

2

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.

0

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.

1
feddit.uk

How effective would it be to sprinkle CEO dust into the sky?

24

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

21

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...

3
sem
lemmy.blahaj.zone

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

17

Break into the diamond company vaults and just take it. Bam, free diamonds.

14

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.

10

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.

4
poliverso.org

@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.

2

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

1
lemmy.world

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?

1
semreply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

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.

4

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.

2
Buffaloxreply
lemmy.world

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.

1
naught101reply
lemmy.world

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

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

3
Buffaloxreply
lemmy.world

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.

0
naught101reply
lemmy.world

True. That would be a minescule fraction of what's there though..

1

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?

2

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

0

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.

1