Support the IEET

The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:

Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view

whats new at ieet

Soylent Update Keto Version

Fermi Paradox & the Great Filter- Are We Likely Doomed?

Sherlock Holmes as Cyborg and the Future of Retail

Artificial Intelligence, Anthropics & Cause Prioritization

What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?

Building the Virtues Control Panel

ieet books

Virtually Human: The Promise—-and the Peril—-of Digital Immortality
by Martine Rothblatt


Rick Searle on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 29, 2014)

Ste4en on 'What is the Difference between Posthumanism and Transhumanism?' (Jul 29, 2014)

OC on 'The Maverick Nanny with a Dopamine Drip: Debunking Fallacies in the Theory of AI Motivation' (Jul 29, 2014)

CygnusX1 on 'The Problem with the Trolley Problem, or why I avoid utilitarians near subways' (Jul 28, 2014)

instamatic on 'Beauty Is Skin-deep—But That’s Where Genetic Engineering Is Going Next' (Jul 27, 2014)

instamatic on 'Why We’ll Still Be Fighting About Religious Freedom 200 Years From Now!' (Jul 27, 2014)

contraterrine on 'Radcliffe-Richards on Sexual Inequality and Justice (Part Two)' (Jul 27, 2014)

Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List


Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Nanomedical Cognitive Enhancement
Jul 11, 2014
(6063) Hits
(0) Comments

Interview with Transhumanist Biohacker Rich Lee
Jul 8, 2014
(5930) Hits
(0) Comments

Virtually Sacred, by Robert Geraci – religion in World of Warcraft and Second Life
Jul 3, 2014
(4496) Hits
(0) Comments

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
Jul 5, 2014
(3730) Hits
(18) Comments

IEET > Security > Eco-gov > SciTech > Vision > Futurism > Contributors > Andrew Maynard

Print Email permalink (2) Comments (7049) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg

Could precisely engineered nanoparticles provide a novel geoengineering tool?

Andrew Maynard
Andrew Maynard
2020 Science

Posted: Sep 17, 2010

While traveling to the World Economic Forum meeting in China, I came across a new paper that piques my interest. The paper is by David Keith at the University of Calgary (published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science), and is a theoretical investigation of how injecting large quantities of precisely engineered particles into the upper atmosphere might provide a cost-effective tool for climate intervention - geoengineering.

The idea of using aerosol particles for messing with climate change isn’t a new one; the idea of injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more sunlight away from the earth has been around for a while.  But there were a couple of novel aspects of David’s paper that caught my attention.

The first was that he proposes engineering particles as disks a few micrometers wide and around 50 nanometers thick, that are designed to automatically congregate where they are most useful in the atmosphere - in other words, this is a beautiful case of nanotechnology meets geoengineering.

The second aspect of the paper that caught my attention was that I was working with precisely engineered particles not too dissimilar from those that David described back in the 1990s, which got me wondering whether techniques being used then for fabrication of silicon particles could be used for the more complex particles being proposed here.

In a nutshell, David’s idea is to engineer discs around 10 micrometers across and 50 nanometers thick, with a core of aluminum, a top layer of aluminum oxide, and a bottom layer of barium titanate.  Injected high enough into the atmosphere (so Brownian motion didn’t muck things up) the discs should align with the lighter aluminum/aluminum oxide side facing up, and the heavier barium titanate side facing down.  This is important, because the way these two surfaces interact with air molecules when the particles heat up - as they would do in sunlight - means that there would be a net force pushing the discs up (photophoresis).  In effect, the particles would levitate to a stable position in the atmosphere, while keeping their shiny side to the sun - thus reflecting sunlight away from the earth (or increasing albedo).


This approach is a lot more sophisticated than dumping huge quantities of sulfates into the atmosphere, as in principle more could be achieved with less material, and in a more controlled manner.  By engineering nanoparticles appropriately, it might also be possible to control where they go even further - by introducing a magnetic component for instance, so they follow the Earth’s magnetic field.

The idea is an intriguing one.  The science that David Keith outlines - which admittedly is broad brushstrokes science - is plausible.  The forces on discs the size he suggests should be sufficient to keep them aligned in the upper atmosphere - even when the Sun isn’t present for short periods of time.  And if sufficient quantities could be produced, they should have a measurable cooling effect.  The neat thing of course is that this is a concept that can be tested reasonably easily in the lab, using simulated atmospheres and prototype particles.  And with advances in materials manufacturing in recent years, it shouldn’t be too hard to make small batches of the discs.

Which brings me to the second reason the paper caught my eye.  Back in the 1990”²s I was interested in how non-spherical airborne particles - including discs - behaved in aerosol samplers.  One particular source of particles I played around with was precisely engineered uniform discs, just a few micrometers in diameter, formed using micromachining techniques more usually used to manufacture semiconductor chips.

This was a technique described by Mark Hoover (a good colleague from NIOSH) and colleagues, and developed in the UK by Paul Kaye.  By using suitable templates, precisely shaped particles could be etched on the surface of a silicon wafer, then floated off and aerosolized.  The result was an airborne cloud of precisely engineered discs.

Of course, Mark and Paul were using silicon as their main material.  But with modern Chemical Vapor Deposition techniques, it would be easy to use a similar technique to manufacture the particles described by David Keith.  The question then is, how expensive would they be?

In his paper, David estimates that around 10 billion kg of these nano-discs would be needed.  That’s a lot - but probably economically viable with large-scale investment in production and if the benefits were deemed important enough (David runs the figures assuming the cost of manufacture is less than 1% the cost of abating CO2 emissions, and arrives at a cost of less than $60/kg).

There is another question though, and that is the question of environmental and human health impact.  If the use of such particles was ever explored seriously - even at the laboratory scale - it goes without saying that parallel studies would be needed to understand how they might interact with the atmosphere, environment and people in less than helpful ways, and how adverse impacts might be avoided. 

Here again, though, David Keith comes up with a thought-provoking idea:  What if the particles were engineered to have a finite lifespan, so that potential adverse impacts were minimized?  This might be done, he suggests, by designing particles that degrade over time under UV radiation and a constant assault from oxygen radicals in the atmosphere.  Safety by design in other words - an idea that has been discussed in nanotechnology circles for a while (including in the 2006 Safe Handling of Nanotechnology commentary in Nature) - but it’s good to see it being explored in this context.

At present, geoengineering the climate using engineered nanoparticles is just an idea - but it is a plausible one, and shows what can happen when different technologies and ideas begin to converge.  One to watch in the future I suspect.

Andrew Maynard is Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Print Email permalink (2) Comments (7050) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


“At present, geoengineering the climate using engineered nanoparticles is just an idea”

No it is not “just” an idea, Congress has legislated the use of geoengineering weather using aerosolized aluminum and barium in HR 2977.

In the paper “The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering” ( ), it was claimed that while geoengineering with a huge quantity of sulfate was very economical, engineered particles could reduce the quantity of the aerosol used by ten times.  After reading this article, this is the first time I’ve actually read of a way to engineer those those sun dimming aerosol particles.  Frankly, I would rather inhale silica than sulfate particles (in general).  It always struck me as primitive to choose sulfate particles just because volcanic eruptions emit them and that dims the sun.

By the way: “The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state.”—Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Most IEET Readers Expect Libido Will Persist

Previous entry: Science and Politics


RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @     phone: 860-297-2376