Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment
Open accessAbstract
We review the capabilities and costs of various lofting methods intended to deliver sulfates into the lower stratosphere. We lay out a future solar geoengineering deployment scenario of halving the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing beginning 15 years hence, by deploying material to altitudes as high as ∼20 km. After surveying an exhaustive list of potential deployment techniques, we settle upon an aircraft-based delivery system. Unlike the one prior comprehensive study on the topic (McClellan et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019), we conclude that no existing aircraft design—even with extensive modifications—can reasonably fulfill this mission. However, we also conclude that developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities would neither be technologically difficult nor prohibitively expensive. We calculate early-year costs of ∼$1500 ton −1 of material deployed, resulting in average costs of ∼$2.25 billion yr −1 over the first 15 years of deployment. We further calculate the number of flights at ∼4000 in year one, linearly increasing by ∼4000 yr −1 . We conclude by arguing that, while cheap, such an aircraft-based program would unlikely be a secret, given the need for thousands of flights annually by airliner-sized aircraft operating from an international array of bases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Key aircraft cost factors presented in table 5 are generally consistent with (and in many cases identical to) those presented in Smith and Wagner (2018), at least in the early years.
“Key aircraft cost factors presented in table 5 are generally consistent with (and in many cases identical to) those presented in Smith and Wagner (2018), at least in the early years.”
From The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100 (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Wagner (2018)
Table 4 (section 6; page not available) lists aircraft operating-cost factors, and Table 5 gives costs by deployment year. Our copy does not contain the citing document’s Table 5, so it cannot establish that its factors are generally consistent with, or identical to, these factors in the early years. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFor the reasonably foreseeable future, the lofting solution that best minimizes both technology risk and cost is a newly designed fleet of high-altitude tanker aircraft.
“Reliance is also made upon the conclusion that, for the reasonably foreseeable future, the lofting solution that best minimizes both technology risk and cost is a newlydesigned fleet of high-altitude tanker aircraft (Smith and Wagner 2018).”
From The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100 (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Wagner 2018
Section 3 compares lofting technologies and rules out several as too immature, unable to reach the required altitude, or substantially more costly. Section 4.1 describes a new aircraft designed for the mission. The conclusion is bounded by the paper’s first-15-years deployment scenario: Section 4.3 says a later-generation solution could instead use a non-aircraft technology, so the broader claim about the reasonably foreseeable future overstates its scope. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSAI can rapidly reduce global temperatures for costs on the order of $10 billion per year per C of cooling.
“With the ability to rapidly reduce global temperatures for costs on the order of $10 billion per year per C of cooling2”
From Engineering and logistical concerns add practical limitations to stratospheric aerosol injection strategies (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The deployment scenario (section 2) projects a 0.2°C reduction in global average temperature relative to the baseline per decade, and the further discussion (section 6) estimates average direct operating costs of about $2.25 billion per year—figures broadly consistent with an order-of-magnitude estimate of $10 billion per year per °C. But the paper does not estimate the cost of achieving a full 1°C of cooling; it also says deployment would take several years to ramp up and excludes indirect costs. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLongitude of injection has been assumed to be somewhat arbitrary in most simulations, with longitudinal transport evenly dispersing aerosols zonally.
“Longitude of injection has been assumed to be somewhat arbitrary in most simulations2,25, with longitudinal transport evenly dispersing aerosols zonally.”
From Engineering and logistical concerns add practical limitations to stratospheric aerosol injection strategies (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Estimates for cost of sulfur-based deployments stem nearly entirely from aircraft-related expenses, making such decreases in payload likely to significantly impact costs.
“Estimates for cost of sulfur-based deployments stem nearly entirely from aircraft-related expenses, making such decreases in payload likely to significantly impact costs2.”
From Engineering and logistical concerns add practical limitations to stratospheric aerosol injection strategies (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The fleet plan was established in consultation with many of the world's leading commercial aviation enterprises and in reliance upon the author's personal experience as a senior executive at Boeing and COO of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings.
“It was established in consultation with many of the world's leading commercial aviation enterprises (Smith and Wagner 2018), and in reliance upon the author's personal experience both as a senior executive at The Boeing Company and as the Chief Operating Officer of Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, a global air freight operator.”
From The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100 (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Wagner 2018
An aircraft-based delivery system is the most efficient method to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection, but a new purpose-built high-altitude aircraft will need to be developed.
“They surveyed potential deployment techniques and concluded that an aircraft-based delivery system is the most efficient method to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection.However, a new purpose-built high-altitude aircraft will need to be developed for this purpose as current models, even with modifications will not be sufficient.”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Wagner 2018
Initial costs for deployment to reduce anthropogenically driven radiative forcing rate by half are calculated to be in the range of $3.5 billion with average annual operating costs of $2.25 billion (approximately $1500/t SO2 injected).
“In an attempt to reduce anthropogenically driven radiative forcing rate by half, Smith et al. calculated initial costs for deployment to be in the range of $3.5 billion with average annual operating costs of $2.25 billion (approximately $1500/t SO 2 injected) (Smith and Wagner 2018).”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Smith and Wagner 2018
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
The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08823 · Cited by 6,467 · see citing works
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach
(2024) · doi:10.2514/5.9781624107290.0000.0000 · Cited by 2,269 · see citing works
Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?
Crutzen, P. J. (2006) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y · Cited by 1,541 · see citing works
G<scp>EOENGINEERING THE</scp> C<scp>LIMATE</scp>: History and Prospect
Keith, D. W. (2000) · Annual Review of Energy and the Environment · doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245 · Cited by 567 · see citing works
Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
Robock, A. D., Marquardt, A. B., Kravitz, B., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2009) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2009gl039209 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering
Barrett, S. A. (2007) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-007-9174-8 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Bongaarts, J. (2019) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.1111/padr.12234 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
CESM1(WACCM) Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Simpson, I. R., Glanville, A. S., Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Lamarque, J.-F., et al. (2018) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-17-0267.1 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Lamarque, J., Tribbia, J. J., & Vitt, F. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2017jd026874 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Wagner, G., & Weitzman, M. L. (2015) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400865475 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Self-citationAn overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering
Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., & Muri, H. (2016) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.423 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Climate shock: the economic consequences of a hotter planet
Revel, D. (2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.191040 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Watanabe, S., Cionni, I., Luca, N. D., Genova, G. D., Mancini, E., & Tilmes, S. (2014) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2013jd020566 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Research on global sun block needed now
Keith, D. W., Parson, E. A., & Morgan, M. G. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/463426a · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss
Keith, D. W., Weisenstein, D. K., Dykema, J. A., & Keutsch, F. N. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1615572113 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems
McClellan, J., Keith, D. W., & Apt, J. (2012) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Lamarque, J., Tribbia, J. J., & Vitt, F. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2017jd026868 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Sensitivity of Aerosol Distribution and Climate Response to Stratospheric SO 2 Injection Locations
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Vitt, F. M., Tribbia, J. J., & Lamarque, J. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2017jd026888 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Weitzman, M. L. (2015) · The Scandinavian Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO <sub>2</sub> ?
Niemeier, U., & Timmreck, C. (2015) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-15-9129-2015 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Pierce, J. R., Weisenstein, D. K., Heckendorn, P., Peter, T., & Keith, D. W. (2010) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2010gl043975 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Stratospheric Dynamical Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO <sub>2</sub> Injections
Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Tribbia, J. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Vitt, F., & Lamarque, J. (2017) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2017jd026912 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J., Tribbia, J., & Vitt, F. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2017jd028146 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Stilgoe, J. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315849195 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Burns, E. T., Flegal, J. A., Keith, D. W., Mahajan, A., Tingley, D. H., & Wagner, G. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000461 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Self-citationEffects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo‐engineering on cirrus clouds
Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U., & Feichter, J. (2012) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2012gl053797 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Geoengineering: The Next Era of Geopolitics?
Dalby, S. (2015) · Geography Compass · doi:10.1111/gec3.12195 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Keith, D. W., & Irvine, P. J. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000465 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change
MacMartin, D. G., Caldeira, K., & Keith, D. W. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0134 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden
Keith, D. W., Wagner, G., & Zabel, C. L. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3376 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citationThe cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited
Moriyama, R., Sugiyama, M., Kurosawa, A., Masuda, K., Tsuzuki, K., & Ishimoto, Y. (2016) · Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9723-y · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Tailoring Meridional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering
Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., & Keith, D. W. (2018) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2017gl076472 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Experiment Earth: responsible innovation in geoengineering
Stilgoe, J. (2015) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.192260 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome
Reynolds, J. L., Parker, A., & Irvine, P. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000416 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Lawrence, M. G., & Crutzen, P. J. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000463 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Lifting options for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering: advantages of tethered balloon systems
Davidson, P., Burgoyne, C. J., Hunt, H. E. M., & Causier, M. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0639 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering
Mahajan, A., Tingley, D. H., & Wagner, G. (2018) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1479101 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationNext steps in geoengineering scenario research: limited deployment scenarios and beyond
Sugiyama, M., Arino, Y., Kosugi, T., Kurosawa, A., & Watanabe, S. (2017) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1323721 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Geoengineering and the politics of science
Hamilton, C. (2014) · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · doi:10.1177/0096340214531173 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering
Reynolds, J. L., Contreras, J. L., & Sarnoff, J. D. (2018) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.512 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Smith, J. P., Dykema, J. A., & Keith, D. W. (2018) · Earth and Space Science · doi:10.1002/2018ea000370 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Institute of Medicine, N. A. O. S. (1992) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/1605 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Detecting sulphate aerosol geoengineering with different methods
Lo, Y. T. E., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Lott, F. C., & Highwood, E. J. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep39169 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
A Computer Model for Estimating Development and Procurement Costs of Aircraft (DAPCA-III)
Boren, H. E. (1976) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review
Fawzy, S., Osman, A. I., Doran, J., & Rooney, D. W. (2020) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w · Cited by 1,522 · see citing works
The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100
Smith, W. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Self-citationSolar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals
Reynolds, J. L. (2019) · Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspa.2019.0255 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Highly decentralized solar geoengineering
Reynolds, J. L., & Wagner, G. (2020) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationQuantifying the Efficiency of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering at Different Altitudes
Lee, W. R., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., & Tilmes, S. (2023) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2023gl104417 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., Keutsch, F. N., & Keith, D. W. (2020) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
An approach to sulfate geoengineering with surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide
Quaglia, I., Visioni, D., Pitari, G., & Kravitz, B. (2022) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
A Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Lofter Aircraft Concept: Brimstone Angel
Bingaman, D. C., Rice, C. V., Smith, W., & Vogel, P. (2020) · AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2020-0618 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationSun, H., Bourguet, S., Eastham, S., & Keith, D. (2023) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2023gl105371 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Hack, M., McNeill, V. F., Steingart, D., & Wagner, G. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20447-2 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationMethods for Dispersal of Precipitated Calcium Carbonate for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
Neukermans, A., Cooper, G., Foster, J., Galbraith, L., & Jain, S. (2021) · Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-20-0205.1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Hernandez‐Galindo, I., Määttänen, A., Redmond Roche, B. H., Boucher, O., Irvine, P. J., & Moore, J. C. (2026) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1029/2025ef007254 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smith, W., & Wagner, G.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wagner, Gernot
- Venue
- Environmental Research Letters
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2018-11-22
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 124001
- ISSN
- 1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2901600470
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 11.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Advanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
- Keywords
- solar geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, sulfate aerosols, deployment cost
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