Salta al contenuto principale

in reply to Flying Squid

Just force debeers to open their vault. The cost would drop.
in reply to Flying Squid

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

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

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

Isn't diamond manufactured in labs in 15 minutes now? I think the price is assuming natural diamonds value
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Flying Squid

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.

in reply to DominusOfMegadeus

Whatever you do, don’t look up silicosis. Not a problem at all. Not relevant.
in reply to DominusOfMegadeus

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.

in reply to marcos

We're carbon based lifeforms and diamonds, yep, made of carbon. What could possibly go wrong!? /s
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Flying Squid

It's not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.
in reply to Flying Squid

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.
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Diplomjodler

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.
in reply to HubertManne

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

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.
in reply to Diplomjodler

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 diamondtech.com/products/categ…

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

in reply to Diplomjodler

$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
in reply to Flying Squid

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.
in reply to dogslayeggs

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?
in reply to PlantJam

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

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.
in reply to Flying Squid

So what would it cost to replace all fossil fuel energy with renewable?
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to pageflight

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?
in reply to pageflight

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.
in reply to Buffalox

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
in reply to ComicalMayhem

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.

in reply to itslilith

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.
in reply to pageflight

You might find interesting.
in reply to palordrolap

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.
in reply to Flying Squid

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?
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Buffalox

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.
in reply to sem

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.

in reply to sem

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.
in reply to Buffalox

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

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

in reply to naught101

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.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Buffalox

True. That would be a minescule fraction of what's there though..
in reply to naught101

I just wonder why not use sapphire dust instead. Doesn't it reflect sunlight almost identically?
in reply to naught101

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?
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Flying Squid

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

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...

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Flying Squid

The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.
in reply to Flying Squid

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

Break into the diamond company vaults and just take it. Bam, free diamonds.
in reply to Flying Squid

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.
in reply to febra

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.

Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Eximius

Am I the only one worried about it scratching my eyes???
in reply to Flying Squid

How effective would it be to sprinkle CEO dust into the sky?
in reply to blackn1ght

I'm not saying we should try it and find out, but I've heard worse ideas.
in reply to blackn1ght

Not at all. Much cheaper to sprinkle them in the hog trough
in reply to Flying Squid

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.

in reply to Flying Squid

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.
in reply to Flying Squid

Does this feel like swallowing a spider to catch a fly to anyone else?
Questa voce è stata modificata (1 mese fa)
in reply to Flying Squid

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.
in reply to JeeBaiChow

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

@Flying Squid
"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.

World News reshared this.

in reply to marcolo

I can't help what the article is titled. 🤷‍♂️