72
Does it have to be diamonds? Could we maybe use the ashes of billionaires instead?
Human ashes are mostly carbon, so yes, of course. We'll run out of billionaires pretty quickly, though.
Sounds like a win-win tbh
Let's give it a trial run with a few thousand then we can measure the impact and reevaluate.
That’s a problem that solves it self
We’ll just have to try and find out.
Isn't diamond manufactured in labs in 15 minutes now? I think the price is using natural diamonds value
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The artificially-inflated price of the diamonds should be irrelevant in this calculation.
Nice try, DeBeers.
It's not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.
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.
Sweet! Four more years of Trump presidency, and Elon Musk can just pay for it out of pocket.
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...
Just force debeers to open their vault. The cost would drop.
Isn't this kind of thing the premise for all those "snowball Earth" sci Fi stories where global cooling went too far
Break into the diamond company vaults and just take it. Bam, free diamonds.
This is garbage.
The silicosis will run rampant
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?
load more comments
(4 replies)
@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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2024
72 points (85.3% liked)
World News
39523 readers
1167 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS