Space-based solar radiation management

Aurora polaris, Laukvika, Lofoten (1)

?

An aurora, also known as the polar lights or aurora polaris, is a natural light display in Earth's sky, predominantly seen in high-latitude regions (around the Arctic and Antarctic).

Year: 2021


Photographer: Peter Prokosch

References

GHG emissions reductions and future negative emissions are the only sustainable solutions to stabilize or even reverse global warming as they counter the cause of the problem. However, such actions will likely take a while to materialize, and inertia in the climate system and “baked-in” warming already ensures major changes in global temperatures and the nearing of several tipping points. Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques seek to reduce global temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation. They would thereby not fix the underlying issue of the warming effects of GHGs, but are according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research (2023) ‘the only known approach that could be used to cool the Earth within a few years’.

One of the most intuitive SRM approaches would be to reflect or block some solar energy before it reaches the Earth’s atmosphere. Several space-based ideas have been suggested to do just that (See Baum et al. 2022 for a summary of all ideas). Most of these intend to place something between the Earth and the sun at Lagrange Point L1. These could be space mirrors (Early 1989), Lightsails (Kennedy et al. 2013), space bubbles (https://senseable.mit.edu/space-bubbles/), sunshades (Angel 2006), a fleet of self-reproducing space vehicles (Ellery 2016), or lunar dust (Bromley et al. 2023). Almost all studies share the aim to reduce solar radiation by 1.8%, and claim this would be needed to compensate for a doubling of CO2. Such space-based SRM could have certain advantages over other kinds of SRM, as they would lead to less side effects and be more predictable and they could perhaps be focused on specific areas (Keith 2000).

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

Low 1

Some of the earliest space based geoengineering ideas were developed during the early 20th century, and were given an impulse by the Space Race, with several wild speculative projects being suggested in the USSR (see Keith, 2000; Fleming, 2010). These past and present ideas are however largely standalone explorations that are very far from development. A 2021 report by RAND estimated the technological readiness of space mirrors as medium, but it is unclear why they think so other than that some smaller space mirrors already exist. Bromley et al’s (2023) comments are illustrative of the overestimations around the feasibility of such projects as they write that ‘[r]oughly 10 [to the power of ] 10 kg of dust per year is needed for Earth-climate impact, which is approximately 700 times more mass than humans have launched into space', and that the 'easier' alternative therefore would be to use mined lunar dust and launch it ‘on ballistic trajectories that cross near the Earth-Sun line of sight.'

In general most reviewers dismiss such techniques as an option. UNEP (2023) observes that the developmental timescales ‘appear prohibitive compared to other approaches’, and NASEM (2015) chose not to consider space-based ideas ‘because of the substantial time (>20 years) … and technology challenges associated with these issues’. Baum et al, (2022) analysis of expert opinions found that although many were ‘broadly positive about the concept itself’, they were ‘unsure about its ultimate workability.'

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

A technology with a TRL of 1-3: TRL 1 – Basic; TRL 2 – Concept formulated; TRL 3 – Experimental proof of concept

Scalability

Medium 2

There would likely not be major physical limitations to scaling as space offers ample room for such measures. In practise, they would however likely scale linearly as greater surface area could reflect more light but would also be more difficult to build and/or get into place.

Scalability

Physically somewhat scalable; linear efficiency

Timeliness for near-future effects

Low 1

Most reports and overview studies believe that space-based SRM would take too long to develop to be taken seriously as a means to enact short-term climate gains (NASEM, 2015; Keith et al, 2020; UNEP, 2023).

Timeliness for near-future effects

Implemented too late to make a significant difference

Northern + Arctic potential

High 3

Theoretically, space-based SRM could be targeted to specific regions and could therefore be regionally effective.

Northern + Arctic potential

Very detectable impacts in the Arctic, above the global average; technology ideally/preferably located here

Global potential

High 3

Like SAI, it is likely that this measure, if technologically feasible, would be able to cool surface temperatures.

Global potential

Major impacts detected

Cost - benefit

High 1

Almost all studies agree that such technologies would be very expensive, although it has been suggested that declining space transportation costs could force a reconsideration of some of these estimates (Yonekura, 2022). There are of course differences between suggested plans, and Ellery (2016) for example claims 3D printed self-replicating spacecraft would be a relatively less expensive space-based SRM measure. In an early ‘order-of-magnitude estimate’, Keith (2000) gave $50–500 billion. Baum et al's review comes up with a price tag of $1 trillion to $6–20 trillion (2022), although they elsewhere note side benefits like the potential use of sun shields as a source of renewable energy. Angel (2006) suggested around 1-2% of global world product. For both UNEP (2023) and NASEM (2015) this high cost is at least one major reason not to focus on space-based SRM.

Cost - benefit

Cost of investment comparable to cost of avoided damage

Environmental risks

Low 3

Like other SRM measures, these space based technologies would compensate for long wave greenhouse gas forcing with reductions in incoming solar energy and thereby affect processes like the hydrological cycle and photosynthesis. But there would be no impact from the introduction of either cloud condensation nuclei as in MCB, CCT, nor stratospheric physical-chemical reactions as in SAI.

Environmental risks

Very limited, site-specific effects restricted to the solution deployment location only

Community impacts

Unknown 0

0

Ease of reversibility

Unknown 0

It would likely depend on the measure. Some devices could be moved by rockets, while other technologies would be much harder to remove.

Risk of termination shock

High 1

LIke other SRM measures, there is a high risk of termination shock when such space technologies would for whatever reason be removed. Keith et al (2020) moreover warn that space-based SRM are highly vulnerable ‘to destruction by rogue actors’, and caution that ‘[r]edeployment … after destruction would be a major effort’.

Risk of termination shock

High or very significant termination shock or damage

Legality/governance

Unknown 0

There are certain international governmental structures in place with regards to outer space like the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (Keith et al 2020).

Scientific/media attention

Medium 2

Baum et al (2022) notes that 'the literature on space-based geoengineering is limited', and that only 2% of articles on geoengineering consider space-based methods. Some spectacular ideas like Bromley et al’s (2023) space dust from the moon idea have reached the public media, but as Keith et al (2020) write: ‘For the most part [such ideas] are simply left unconsidered.’

Scientific/media attention

Some attention within the scientific community, including published research and funding programmes; some media attention; some commercial interest

References

Angel, R. (2006). Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(46), pp.17184-17189. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608163103

Baum, C. M., Low, S., & Sovacool, B. K. (2022). Between the sun and us: Expert perceptions on the innovation, policy, and deep uncertainties of space-based solar geoengineering. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 158, 112179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112179

Bromley BC, Khan SH, Kenyon SJ (2023) Dust as a solar shield. PLOS Clim 2(2): e0000133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000133

Ellery, A., 2016. Low-Cost Space-Based Geoengineering: An assessment based on self-replicating manufacturing of in-situ resources on the moon. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering, 10(2), pp.278-285. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550422000234

Fleming, J. R. (2010). Fixing the sky: the checkered history of weather and climate control. Columbia University Press.

Grisé, Michelle, Emmi Yonekura, Jonathan S. Blake, David DeSmet, Anusree Garg, and Benjamin Lee Preston, Climate Control: International Legal Mechanisms for Managing the Geopolitical Risks of Geoengineering. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA1133-1.html.

Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual review of energy and the environment, 25(1), 245-284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245 

Keith, D. W., Morton, O., Shyur, Y., Worden, P., & Wordsworth, R. (2020, March 17). Reflections on a meeting about space-based solar geoengineering. Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program. https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/reflections-meeting-about-space-based-solargeoengineering

Kennedy III, R. G., Roy, K. I., & Fields, D. E. (2013). Dyson Dots: Changing the solar constant to a variable with photovoltaic lightsails. Acta Astronautica, 82(2), 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.10.022

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18988 

Yonekura, Emmi. (2022). Why Not Space Mirrors? The RAND Blog, October 19. Available at: https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/10/why-not-space-mirrors.html

Related ideas