World GDP: $105.4 trillion USD

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours 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?

  • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours 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
      2
      ·
      3 hours 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
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours 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?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours 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.

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    13 hours 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.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours 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.

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours 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

    • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      12 hours 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
        10
        ·
        12 hours 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
      8
      ·
      12 hours 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
      4
      ·
      12 hours 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.

  • P_P@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    13 hours ago

    It’s not cost effective to save humanity. Stock prices would crash.