Abstract from the paper in the article:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

Large constellations of small satellites will significantly increase the number of objects orbiting the Earth. Satellites burn up at the end of service life during reentry, generating aluminum oxides as the main byproduct. These are known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere. We present the first atomic-scale molecular dynamics simulation study to resolve the oxidation process of the satellite’s aluminum structure during mesospheric reentry, and investigate the ozone depletion potential from aluminum oxides. We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere. Aluminum oxide compounds generated by the entire population of satellites reentering the atmosphere in 2022 are estimated at around 17 metric tons. Reentry scenarios involving mega-constellations point to over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide compounds per year, which can lead to significant ozone depletion.

PS: wooden satellites can help mitigate this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01456-z

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    At least the article came with the numbers. Given what I regularly read about all the pollutants we daily pump into the atmosphere, the numbers in this article for the materials being atomized is…well, they’re very small in scale.

    Basically, if a few hundred tons per year is hurting the ozone (and other things), just imagine what the billions of tons per year of emissions does.

    • Gsus4@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The point here is not that aluminum oxide “pollutes” on its own, it is that it “speeds up” the harmful reaction between ozone and any chlorine (like CFC) “pollutants” up there without being consumed, so it keeps acting over 30 years. It makes all the pollutants you mention “more effective” at depleting ozone.

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        I didn’t see a mention in the paper on what amount the bump up would be with the maximum amount of AlO2 distributed in the layers of the atmosphere where the reactions would occur. When emissions are in the trillions of tons, I wonder if it would even be measurable.

        • Gsus4@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          When emissions are in the trillions of tons, I wonder if it would even be measurable.

          emission of what? There aren’t trillions of tons of Chlorine in the stratosphere (that’s what interferes with O3) being pumped into the atmosphere. Are you thinking of CO2?

          I doubt anybody can give a confident answer today about the value of the effect that a kg of Al2O3 can have per ton of atmosphere at ozone layer height, because that would involve not just doing what they did in the paper, but also figuring out what “shape” the Al2O3 particles have to know what their adsorption surface would be, for e.g. zeolites this can be 16m2 per gram. e.g. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earth-extraterrestrial-space-dust-weight-meteorite but maybe it can be simply extrapolated from analogous metallic meteorite dust samples :/

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Carbon monoxide also contribute to ozone breakdown, and there are additional manmade substances similar to CFCs with chlorine and bromine that are still leaked. Environmental changes in the Antarctic also can increase ozone depletion as well as longer lasting cold air in the stratosphere (observed in 2020 in the Arctic). The mention of emissions was just to suggest that smaller reactions can get lost in all the other problems we have created, although wildfire increases are raising CO.