Cited by 37Climate Change and GeoengineeringAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Production of Sulfates Onboard an Aircraft: Implications for the Cost and Feasibility of Stratospheric Solar Geoengineering

Open access
Smith, Jordan P., Dykema, John A., Keith, David W.·2018·Earth and Space Science

Abstract

Injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, a form of solar geoengineering, has been proposed as a means to reduce some climatic changes by decreasing net anthropogenic radiative forcing. The cost and technical feasibility of forming aerosols with the appropriate size distribution are uncertain. We examine the possibility of producing the relevant sulfur species, SO 2 or SO 3, by in situ conversion from elemental sulfur onboard an aircraft. We provide a first‐order engineering analysis of an open cycle chemical plant for in situ sulfur to sulfate conversion using a Brayton cycle combustor and a catalytic converter. We find that such a plant could have sufficiently low mass that the overall requirement for mass transport to the lower stratosphere may be reduced by roughly a factor of 2. All else equal, this suggests that—for a given radiative forcing—the cost of delivering sulfate aerosols may be nearly halved. Beyond reducing cost, the use of elemental sulfur reduces operational health and safety risks and should therefore reduce environmental side effects associated with delivery. Reduction in cost is not necessarily beneficial as it reduces practical barriers to deployment, increasing the urgency of questions concerning the efficacy, risks, and governance of solar geoengineering.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2018ea000370

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere is considered a leading candidate for solar geoengineering because of its economic and technological feasibility and because we have data.

    “Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere is considered a leading candidate for solar geoengineering both because of its economic and technological feasibility [527,743] and because of a reason that should resonate with the ML community: we have data.”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [743]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. In J. R. Davis (Ed.), ASM specialty handbook: Heat-resistant materials. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
  2. Farokhi, S. (2014). Aircraft propulsion (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. McClellan, J., Sisco, J., Suarez, B., & Keogh, G. (2010). Geoengineering cost analysis. Cambridge, MA: Aurora Flight Sciences Corporation.
  4. National Research Council (1998). The atmospheric effects of stratospheric aircraft project: An interim review of science and progress. Washington, DC: The Natl. Acad. Press.
  5. National Research Council (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool Earth. Washington, DC: The Natl. Acad. Press.
  6. hetcat0133 · DOI
  7. Sunden, B. (2005). High temperature heat exchangers (HTHE). In R. K. Shah, M. Ishizuka, T. M. Rudy, & V. V. Wadekar (Eds.), Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Enhanced, Compact and Ultra-Compact Heat Exchangers: Science, Engineering and Technology, 11-16 September, 2005, Whistler, Canada (pp. 226-238). Hoboken, NJ: Engineering Conferences International.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, J. P., Dykema, J. A., & Keith, D. W.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Keith, David W.
Venue
Earth and Space Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
150-162
ISSN
2333-5084 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2796452566
Cited by
37
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Earth and Space Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Harvard University
  • Pratt and Whitney Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
solar geoengineering, stratospheric sulfate aerosols, catalytic converters, cost analysis, feasibility, radiative forcing, health and safety risks, geoengineering governance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review