StratoShield FAQ
You can learn even more about the StratoShield and the science behind it on our video, Climate Science page, Our Answers about Geoengineering and the StratoShield White Paper.
What is the StratoShield?
The StratoShield is one possible way to respond to a climate emergency in which greenhouse warming becomes intolerable. The StratoShield would reverse greenhouse warming by slightly reduc¬ing the amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth. The shield does this by increasing the amount of sulfur aerosols injected into the atmosphere by about 1%, a process that happens naturally whenever volcanoes erupt. The aerosols reflect incoming sunlight back into space. Although the change in sunlight would be imperceptible to human eyes—and probably beneficial for plants—it would have a substantial cooling effect for the part of the Earth under the shield.
How much aerosol would the StratoShield put into the stratosphere?
The reference system we’re studying would inject 100,000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide a year into the stratosphere, which at a constant flow rate works out to only about 34 gallons (130 liters) a per minute. About 100 million tons of sulfur dioxide already rises into the stratosphere each year, about half from manmade sources (such as power plants) and half from natural processes (such as volcanoes) . One StratoShield installation would thus increase annual aerosol input to the atmosphere by about one part in 1,000. Scientific studies so far have concluded that a worldwide system (which would require a dozen or more StratoShield installations) would probably have to spread several million metric tons a year of sulfur dioxide throughout the stratosphere to reduce solar radiation hitting the entire planet by about 1.8% (4 W/m²) globally. Climatologists believe that small reduction in sunlight would be adequate (if it occurred equally around the globe) to counter all of the warming caused by a doubling of CO₂ over preindustrial levels. A StratoShield placing 100,000 metric tons of aerosol a year into the upper atmosphere would be expected to reduce incoming solar radiation by less than half a watt per square meter, averaged over the globe. More research is needed to confirm these estimates.
What is the aerosol made of?
The aerosol would likely be made of sulfur dioxide (SO₂), a natural component of volcanic ash that is present in the air we all breathe every day. Another possibility is to use SO3 instead. Engineered aerosols, not found naturally in the atmosphere, could be more efficient at reflecting certain parts of the solar spectrum, but their benefits over SO₂ might not be worth the cost of development and production—or the uncertainties about their environmental effects. Science has produced a good understanding of both the global sulfur cycle (which includes volcanic ash) and the safety of sulfur dioxide at the very low concentrations required for geoengineering. A good deal more research would be required to establish the safety and environmental life cycle of customized aerosol particles.
Why not just use airplanes to disperse the aerosols?
Others have proposed this approach; we also gave it serious consideration. We concluded that airplanes may not be the best solution, for a number of reasons. Some existing military aircraft do fly high enough to reach the stratosphere, and in principle could be re-tasked to deliver sulfur-bearing aerosols in the event of a climate emergency—which would after all constitute a threat to international security. Calculations so far suggest the operating costs to use aircraft could be quite high, however, and if the required altitude for aerosol injection is beyond the bottom of the stratosphere (due to stratospheric wind patterns), the cost would go up dramatically.
A second concern with using military aircraft as delivery vehicles is the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that they would produce, exacerbating the very problem they were deployed to solve. If fighter jets were used, 167 jets would each have to make three flights a day, 250 days a year to deliver the amount of aerosol required, according to one recent study [Robock et al. 2009].
A related, more promising idea is to adjust the fuel mixture in commercial airplanes to generate the needed aerosols in their ex¬haust (rather than flying a cargo hold full of aerosols). Unfortunately, this option would reduce their fuel efficiency and is not likely to be accepted by stakeholders in commercial airplane operations.
Aren’t there other ways of achieving the same effect?
There are many other ways of enhancing Earth’s albedo to reduce average global insolation. I.V. has been collaborating with Professors John Latham and Stephen Salter on one very promising idea of theirs to increase marine cloud cover by spraying salty sea water into the air. The small droplets would serve to nucleate more clouds, which increases the albedo of that area. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has advocated painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity. Our inventors have begun exploring ways to brighten ground cover such as asphalt by, for example, incorporating crushed glass into the mix.
Many of these ideas will no doubt prove ineffective or impractical for one reason or another when they are fully studied, but there does seem to be a wide array of options still to explore. It is an area ripe for invention.
What is the lifetime of the aerosols in the stratosphere?
The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 gave us an opportunity to learn many things about using sulfur-based aerosols to cool the Earth. The aerosols it spewed into the stratosphere remained there for an average of 1-2 years before falling down through the troposphere.
Why are you building this now?
We are not building or even planning to build the StratoShield. Intellectual Ventures is simply urging that research on geoengineering options, including stratospheric aerosol enhancement, begin in earnest now. We share with many others a concern that the massive scale of technological development, deployment, investment, and lifestyle changes required to bring greenhouse gas levels down to sustainable levels will take more time to implement than we have before the climate starts changing in intolerable ways.
If that happens, geoengineering options could buy humanity additional time to complete the shift to a cleaner energy system. The solution to the problem of climate change is new energy systems, not geoengineering. But we may find that we need geoengineering technologies as stop-gap responses if the transition to these cleaner energy systems takes too long, or if abrupt changes in climate occur unexpectedly.
Why did you choose this idea to study?
If the world decided that it had to use geoengineering as a stop-gap solution, the goal would be to deploy it quickly but also to phase it out relatively quickly. That leads us to prefer geoengineering approaches that are less expensive and that require little or no new technology, so are easier to deploy quickly. It also leads us to prefer approaches whose cooling effects are well understood and readily controlled, and which dissipate quickly once the system is turned down or turned off.
The StratoShield is an example of a geoengineering system that draws on existing technology and has deployment and annual operation costs amounting to millions of dollars, rather than billions. Although we have explored the general principles of how a system like this would operate, many technical details would have to be worked out. The detailed R&D is not something that IV currently contemplates doing, although if a responsible research program on geoengineering is launched, we may participate and collaborate with others in inventing and refining a variety of technical options.
In concert with technical development, a great deal of environ¬mental science must be done to identify possible side effects. There may be work-arounds to avoid some side effects, but others could be show-stoppers. Much more intellectual effort needs to be applied to this area so that a body of scientific and engineering knowledge exists, should it ever be needed to address a climate emergency.
Uhm.
Can you please talk about possible side effects?
I guess there are many, most of them we propably cannot foresee.
This is incredibly incredible. I mean, you’re talking about possibly the worst solution to climate problems ever. Why ? Because, if you’re right, it’ll be doable and cheap. What do human do with doable and cheap things ? Abuse them.
So instead of changing our habits, and trying to put less things in the atmosphere, we’d actually pump *more*. Surely this’ll have side effects, and we’ll just *have* to pump even more things.
This means “humanizing” climate, ie. creating a situation where we have to continue and manage the climate in the long run, and actually accelerating and further complexifying a process that we really don’t understand.
Research is sure needed, and is of course not wrong in itself. What is wrong is our tendency
to test things in the field much too soon, and for the wrong reasons.
Thanks for posting your proposal. I hope that it generates some forward movement. The fact that you allow comments means that you welcome ideas, constructive criticism and suggestions. In these times, shouldn’t we all pull together and offer what we can?
To me, the idea of the StratoShield sounds preferable to using aircraft to distribute aerosols, because it would be far less polluting, and cheaper, as you say.
Like you, I would have reservations about putting these substances into the atmosphere. But I’m assuming this wouldn’t be done unless there was no other option – a global emergency. Proceeding under that assumption, here are my thoughts about your proposal. I’m a non-scientist and non-engineer and I’m simply brainstorming. You or anyone else may feel free to use any idea I put forth, if by some miracle it’s not rubbish.
Once the StratoShield is aloft, it would be difficult to service and maintain. So it would be logical to build it as a structure able to sustain significant damage and still function for a season. Also, maybe at the end of the Arctic spring, undamaged and reusable parts of the StratoShield could be separated and shipped to Antarctica to be used in a StratoShield deployed before the austral spring.
BLIMPS. Could the blimps be compartmentalized or internally lobulated so that, if a break occurs in the outer skin, only the helium in the affected compartment or lobe would be lost? (Sort of like the human lungs – which have a total of 5 discrete lobes. We can survive nicely with one missing.) This might allow the blimp to remain aloft without repair for as long as needed. With compartmentalization it might be safe to use a lighter material for the blimp. The unaffected compartments would need to be able to bear slightly more than their share of the weight (redundancy). For example, a 10-lobe blimp could be designed to function without 3 of its lobes of helium.
What if multiple V-shaped lobes were radiating out from a central stem, like a huge daisy? The junction between the daisy and the hose could be designed to allow the daisy to rotate freely, like a pinwheel. Lateral wind force could be mostly transformed into lift.
BALLOONS. Another scenario was multiple balloons at vertical intervals to support the hose, rather than a single large blimp at the top. That has the advantage of redundancy and it could allow the Stratoshield structure to remain aloft despite loss of balloons, without risking human lives to repair it. For example, the Stratoshield could be deployed initially with all of the balloons 75% inflated; if a quarter of the balloons were lost, the remaining balloons could be inflated with more helium to take up the slack.
Instead of single round balloons at each level (which would be inherently unstable to the winds), how about a rotating daisy of balloons at each level?
MATERIALS. Does the technology exist to make a self-healing fabric for the blimp or balloons? For example, if a linear break or small round puncture occurred, the edges could extrude gel which would harden and close the defect securely.
Regarding the cable which would run alongside the hose, suppose that it was a braided bundle of 10 strands, which could do its job even if 4 of the strands were broken.
You discussed the structure which would house the hose and cable from bottom to top. Because the hose would flex, the surrounding structure would also need to flex. As you have discussed, wind drag would be undesirable. A sleeve-shaped fish-net-type network of super-slim but strong filaments (like silk) might serve. Because it would be open-weave, air would pass through it, thus it would not act as a sail.The sleeve would need to be woven in a locking manner that would not unravel if a filament broke.
There might need to be a provision for towing the top of the StratoShield back to the designated spot in the sky, in case it is blown too far away. What would serve as its “handle”, and how would an aircraft grasp it?