Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems

By J. McClellan, David William Keith, Jay Apt. 2012

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We perform engineering cost analyses of systems capable of delivering 1–5 million metric tonnes (Mt) of albedo modification material to altitudes of 18–30 km. The goal is to compare a range of delivery systems evaluated on a consistent cost basis. Cost estimates are developed with statistical cost estimating relationships based on historical costs of aerospace development programs and operations concepts using labor rates appropriate to the operations. We evaluate existing aircraft cost of acquisition and operations, perform in-depth new aircraft and airship design studies and cost analyses, and survey rockets, guns, and suspended gas and slurry pipes, comparing their costs to those of aircraft and airships. Annual costs for delivery systems based on new aircraft designs are estimated to be $1–3B to deliver 1 Mt to 20–30 km or $2–8B to deliver 5 Mt to the same altitude range. Costs for hybrid airships may be competitive, but their large surface area complicates operations in high altitude wind shear, and development costs are more uncertain than those for airplanes. Pipes suspended by floating platforms provide low recurring costs to pump a liquid or gas to altitudes as high as ∼ 20 km, but the research, development, testing and evaluation costs of these systems are high and carry a large uncertainty; the pipe system’s high operating pressures and tensile strength requirements bring the feasibility of this system into question. The costs for rockets and guns are significantly higher than those for other systems. We conclude that (a) the basic technological capability to deliver material to the stratosphere at million tonne per year rates exists today, (b) based on prior literature, a few million tonnes per year would be sufficient to alter radiative forcing by an amount roughly equivalent to the growth of anticipated greenhouse gas forcing over the next half century, and that (c) several different methods could possibly deliver this quantity for less than $8B per year. We do not address here the science of aerosols in the stratosphere, nor issues of risk, effectiveness or governance that will add to the costs of solar geoengineering.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Global and Planetary Change, Physiology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/970230aa493fb20cec920fe9119cf7deb2514c9b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning (2019, background): “[652] Justin McClellan, David W Keith, and Jay Apt.”
Assessing the controllability of Arctic sea ice extent by sulfate aerosol geoengineering (2015, background): “sufficient scale to inject SO2 into the lower stratosphere, within the capability of current tanker aircraft [Robock et al., 2009;McClellan et al., 2012], and from a single point source in the Arctic.”
Geoengineering: The world's largest control problem (2014, background): “Solar geoengineering could quickly reduce global mean temperatures at relatively low cost [11], but with a number of risks [12,13].”
An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering (2016, background): “The strong mixing events that occur through folds in the tropopause might pose a particular concern for SAI; the stratospheric air can be transported deep into the troposphere and even reach the surface, possibly leading to strong deposition events.86 Evidence was also found of effects on cirrus clo”
Why Solar Radiation Management Geoengineering and Democracy Won't Mix (2013, background): “…existing institutions The prominence of SRM in debates about geoengineering is based largely on the idea that it could be ‘cheap and effective’ compared with both carbon mitigation strategies and other geoengineering techniques (Barrett, 2008; Klepper and Rickels, 2012; McClellan et al, 2012).”
A Voting Architecture for the Governance of Free‐Driver Externalities, with Application to Geoengineering (2015, background): “6 Ballpark estimates of annual geoengineering costs of offsetting projected heating in this century might be in the neighborhood of around eight billion dollars or so per year (McClellan et al., 2012).”