Pandora Says Laboratory-Made Diamonds Are Forever (bbc.com) 165
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The world's biggest jeweller, Pandora, says it will no longer sell mined diamonds and will switch to exclusively laboratory-made diamonds. Concerns about the environment and working practices in the mining industry have led to growing demand for alternatives to mined diamonds. Pandora's chief executive, Alexander Lacik, told the BBC the change was part of a broader sustainability drive. He said the firm was pursuing it because "it's the right thing to do." They are also cheaper: "We can essentially create the same outcome as nature has created, but at a very, very different price." Mr Lacik explains they can be made for as little as "a third of what it is for something that we've dug up from the ground."
Pandora's lab-made diamonds are being made in Britain, and the UK is the first country where they will be sold. The new diamond jewelry will start at $350. [...] One problem with lab-made diamonds, though, is that they can take a lot of energy to produce. Between 50% and 60% of them come from China, where they are made in a process known as "high-pressure, high-temperature technology." The use of coal powered electricity is widespread. However in the United States, the biggest retail market for lab-grown diamonds, there is a greater focus on using renewable energy. The largest US producer, Diamond Foundry, says its process is "100% hydro-powered, meaning zero emissions." Both types are chemically and physically identical to mined diamonds.
Pandora's lab-made diamonds are being made in Britain, and the UK is the first country where they will be sold. The new diamond jewelry will start at $350. [...] One problem with lab-made diamonds, though, is that they can take a lot of energy to produce. Between 50% and 60% of them come from China, where they are made in a process known as "high-pressure, high-temperature technology." The use of coal powered electricity is widespread. However in the United States, the biggest retail market for lab-grown diamonds, there is a greater focus on using renewable energy. The largest US producer, Diamond Foundry, says its process is "100% hydro-powered, meaning zero emissions." Both types are chemically and physically identical to mined diamonds.
But (Score:4, Funny)
are they still a girl's best friend?
Re: (Score:3)
I think most girls realized that they aren't, which is why they want a career now.
Let's be clear (Score:4, Interesting)
Alrosa and De Beers are the two companies that sell diamonds.
Both of them have HUGE stocks of diamonds OUT-OF-MARKET to keep the PRICES HIGH-AS-HELL.
In truth, diamonds should be gifted with a cereal box if they released everything they have been hoarding.
So, machine-made diamonds? Well, those are JUST THE SAME as the one excavated. Ditch those from those companies.
Just like with Aspirine (a brand name) and acetylsalicylic acid (the real chemical deal).
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
DeBeers needs to keep its monopoly position to keep making money.
DeBeers hasn't had a diamond monopoly for almost 30 years [sawongam.com].
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Informative)
But they are the company that created the high price of diamonds through their marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
All this talk of DeBeers is making me thirsty.
Re: (Score:2)
DeBeers needs to keep its monopoly position to keep making money. Their marketing is designed to make people think anything but “real” diamonds are somehow less and thus an insult if you give them.
Well ... sure. But let's be honest; diamonds have been valued as much or more for being super expensive as for being pretty.
We've had diamond substitutes that look the same or better (to anyone not wearing a loupe) for a long time. They have not, let's be honest, been accepted as being as nice gifts as diamonds.
"Diamonds are a girl's best friend" because they are expensive. Will be interesting to see how this develops.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had diamond substitutes that look the same or better (to anyone not wearing a loupe) for a long time. They have not, let's be honest, been accepted as being as nice gifts as diamonds.
Well, the substitutes are not quite the same as diamonds, and I do not need a loupe to spot the difference. But there are other stones that are arguable better. Clean clear bright is nice, but colored are stones are often nicer, once you actually sit down and consider different stones and different settings seriously.
Once this is established and accepted, I expect colored artificial diamonds to dominate most of the market.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No so much any more. Now all "legal" diamonds have a serial number etched on them with a laser in micro print. If a new diamond doesn't have that etching no reliable gem dealer will touch it. You will have some back alley dealers but the price will be low. Using diamonds as a means of back door currency just isn't what it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
No, machine made diamonds are generally of higher quality.
Are you sure about that? Artificial diamonds are not perfect, the largest artificial diamonds are also smaller than the largest natural diamonds, by far. The imperfections may be different, and you can get higher quality / bigger artificial diamonds for the same price, but can they compete at the top end? It may happen eventually, but we are not here yet.
Diamond is not sapphire. You can get huge (hundreds of kg), flawless sapphire crystals for cheap, not so much with diamond.
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure about that? Artificial diamonds are not perfect, the largest artificial diamonds are also smaller than the largest natural diamonds, by far.
You can now buy flawless 10ct artificial diamonds if you have spare $200k lying around: https://www.77diamonds.com/dia... [77diamonds.com] (they don't have a 10ct stone right now, this is the closets one at 8ct). The largest gem-quality artificial diamond is 112ct (but it's a black one) and the largest CVD diamond is something like 80ct in the form of a flat disk.
Natural diamonds can indeed be bigger, but anything above 20ct is a unique find worth millions. You certainly won't be able to flood the market with them. Artificial diamonds with this weight will be mass-produced within several years.
Re: (Score:2)
I find the really tiny diamonds in polishing compounds to be excellent value and super useful.
Large multi carat rocks of the stuff are not nearly as useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Large multi carat rocks of the stuff are not nearly as useful.
No one's been making use of them because they're very expensive. Diamond has 10 times the thermal conductivity of copper while being a good electrical insulator. And if you can get large consistent wafers, then semiconductor processes become economically feasible. If you can run transistors at 300 degrees C, then transferring the heat out becomes a lot easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Different techniques create different qualities - old heat-and-pressure methods created relatively flawed diamonds, usually colored, with unusual physical properties that could be used to identify them (e.g. fluorescing yellow under x-rays) . Vapor deposition on the other hand is capable of growing diamond so utterly flawless it would be suitable for making microprocessors - something any natural diamonds is grossly inadequate for. Basically, the only way to tell them from natural diamond is that they're
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
"The flaws in natural diamonds can't be replicated in man-made diamonds which is what gives them their uniqueness and value"
Says the company that spent years talking up the price of "flawless" diamonds.
Re:Let's be clear (Score:5, Informative)
Alrosa and De Beers are the two companies that sell diamonds.
Both of them have HUGE stocks of diamonds OUT-OF-MARKET to keep the PRICES HIGH-AS-HELL.
Diamonds are ALL marketing ... This article from 1982 is still a good read:
Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond? [theatlantic.com]
"An unruly market may undo the work of a giant cartel and of an inspired, decades-long ad campaign."
Re: (Score:3)
Diamonds weren't particularly desirable gemstones until DeBeers unleashed a massive marketing campaign about a century ago. They're more common than all forms of corundum (ruby and sapphire).
Re: (Score:2)
..or, just stop valuing silly shiny rocks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are pretty and rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:..or, just stop valuing silly shiny rocks (Score:5, Informative)
Diamonds weren't even a thing until the 20th century. If you wanted to get engaged, you got a ring, maybe with a precious stone, but never a diamond because they weren't particularly worthy for it.
DeBeers did extensive marketing to the point where a ring has to be diamond and it's so woven into culture that you're forced to do it.
Ditto anything else like it must cost you 3-5 months pay - again, all marketing by DeBeers.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the more exotic man-made materials are more interesting. Silicon nitride, titanium diboride, boron nitride, francium astatide, etc....
(OK the last one was a joke)
Re: ..or, just stop valuing silly shiny rocks (Score:3)
Re: ..or, just stop valuing silly shiny rocks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Diamonds are not all that pretty and definitely not particularly rare.
Doubly so the so-called "chocolate diamonds." Normally those are used on drill bits.
If it wasn't for the marketing aimed at women and the artificially maintained high prices by DeBeers diamonds would be a fraction of the current price.
The marketing is aimed at both genders. For men, the message is, "If you don't spend two months' salary on the ring, you don't love her." For women, it's "If he doesn't spend two months' salary on the ring, you should dump him for a guy who will."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: ..or, just stop valuing silly shiny rocks (Score:2)
This is the thinking of the first proto humans. "OOHH OOHH UGG EEE EE!", as they jumped up and down, their dicks flapping in the air, their balls swishing around, and their long body fur standing on end in excitement at seeing 'shiny rocks'.
My question is, how come humans still haven't evolved past this crude, primitive way of thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you've got that backwards. I doubt our ancient ancestors cared all that much about a bit of glassy rock. It's modern man and our obsession with the accumulation of material wealth that started making conspicuous displays of wealth in utterly impractical forms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They used to be rare. Not so much these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Define 'rare'.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans like to collect things, especially things of value that (appear to) elevate your status. Perhaps a leftover evolutionary trait of when our ancestors had to select a mate it depended on the ability to secure resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I do find Ruby, Sapphires, and Emeralds pretty but just because of the colors they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
One foolish mistake is enough, no need to fund wars in Africa while doing it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well Played! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's amusing to think of DeBeers stock holding all those natural diamonds
You're forgetting the tons of diamonds Russia has in storage. I remember seeing a show on 60 Minutes (I think) back in either the 90s or 00s, where they got an inside look at one diamond repository. They couldn't show much, obviously, but they were allowed to see the inside of one room.
Think of an oversized closet. Maybe 8' high and 5' across. On three of the walls were shelves with bags filled with uncut diamonds. This repository had hundreds of such rooms, and this was only one repository.
Russia is perpetually broke due to the vast and wide ranging corruption so they've had to store these tons of diamonds to sell on the open market as needed. They're going to be in a world of hurt if/when diamond prices collapse due to the manufactured ones.
Re:Well Played! (Score:4, Interesting)
Russia mining industry isn't known for producing large diamonds. They mostly produce industrial diamonds.
For what it's worth, most of the technology used today to produce diamonds, either the high pressure method, or the chemical vapor deposition method, was developed in the Soviet Union precisely to reduce the need for mined diamonds.
Re:Well Played! (Score:5, Interesting)
The DeBeers cartel pays Russia millions every year to keep most of those diamonds in Russia in the ground or in those vaults.
DeBeers spends more on diversion schemes to keep diamonds scarce than they do on mining new diamonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Well Played! (Score:3)
It's a racket to begin with. It boils down to "men better buy their wives and girlfriends diamonds, or no access to her pussy".
This is the kind of shit DeBeers (major creepotron; wait until he's the center of a vomit inducing sex scandal, way worse than the 'garden variety') has been pushing on society for decades.
Things get even more fucky in modern ultra-feminist, "woke" times.
Diamonds or bitcoin? (Score:3)
I wonder what is more profitable today? Using electricity to make diamonds or to mine bitcoin? I would include the costs of infrastructure to make it a proper cost benefit analysis (a diamond making machine and staff to run it vs. or a bitcoin rig and staff to run it, then electricity needed to mine a bitcoin and sell it vs. electricity to create $50K worth of diamonds and sell them)?
Re: (Score:3)
The long term profitability is going to be on the diamond side - you buy the gear and can run it for many years or even decades. It's possible a techology shift will render your gear obsolete, but given what you're doing it's not that likely.
The Bitcoin mining rigs are probably going to be outdated in relatively short order, OR the bubble will burst again, and it won't be worth running them because you can't get enough to cover the power.
It's possible you'll hit things at just the right time and make more o
Re: (Score:2)
Diamonds value can go down too, especially as there is a theoretically unlimited possible supply for manufactured diamonds (some newcomer can start flooding the market). I suspect the equipment break-even-ROI on bitcoin rig is shorter than diamond manufacturing factory too, staffing is cheaper for bitcoin rig, and selling (converting to the currency of your choice) is cheaper than with diamonds too.
I think we can hack the energy cost (Score:2)
In exchange for dumping the slave labor.
Also, if this takes off (and I think it will), I'm going to have a lot of fun laughing at De Beers as the market erodes around them.
Lots of diamond alternatives (Score:3)
In addition to lab-grade diamonds, there are several other good alternatives. White sapphire comes to mind. In fact, if I were to pop the question (which sadly appears increasingly unlikely at my age, but I digress), I would get her a white sapphire. Why, you ask? Sapphire is aluminum(III) oxide, and white sapphire is transparent. Any woman I would be popping the question to would be over the moon happy to be wearing a chunk of transparent aluminum on her left finger.
Slightly O/T. Deal.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the invention of "transparent aluminum" in Star Trek: The Voyage Home was all fake?!
+1, Funny.
Yes, Matilda, Star Trek is a work of fiction.
Haha (Score:4, Interesting)
The horrible company that is De Beers is going to be pissed.
No more shady business practices, child labour, market manipulation, and blood diamonds
Making diamonds? (Score:2)
I'm starting to think the Chinese could literally counterfeit antimatter somehow if they tried hard enough.
Genuine "diamels"! (Score:3)
Er ... isn't the whole point of diamonds to be expensive? It's not as though we haven't had affordable diamond substitutes available for a very long time.
Maybe the "traditional" wedding gift will have to become something with artificial scarcity, like NFTs or bitcoin ...
value (Score:2)
So, will they finally drop the market price of diamonds to its actual value? You know, that of very hard glass? Or is the cartel still powerful enough and the marketing still influencial enough to keep the bubble inflated?
Sooo... will prices he lowered too? (Score:2)
To cents per diamond.
Because, you know, usury is a crime too!
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, it makes no sense to mine them out of the ground when they can be created much more cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, it makes no sense to mine them out of the ground when they can be created much more cheaply.
Can you say "markup," boys and girls? I knew you could.
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:4, Funny)
Lab grown diamonds are actually not lab grown but from mines run by child slaves and they claim they are lab grown, where the sales are negotiated in pizza shops.
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Interesting)
Dovetailing on dogecoin stories. Diamonds have very little intrinsic value other than looking pretty. But emeralds, rubies, and sapphires look prettier. Diamonds are only so popular these days because of a very concerted marketing effort by DeBeers for over a century, convincing people that you need a diamond in order to get married, and not just any diamond it must be a NEW diamond and not a family heirloom. This is why you get very little value trying to resell a diamond, because there's no market for them. If diamonds did have more intrinsic value then you could sell grandma's old wedding ring for a good price.
Diamonds are just rocks that polish up nice. If the fiancee suggests geting a cubic zirconium then he or she is a keeper and you'll be off to a much better financial start than many.
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I'll grant you that *natural* diamonds are relatively useless - but synthetic ones hold immense potential.
There's *lots* of industrial uses for diamond in cutting tools, everything from saws to sanding discs. That only needs small, low-grade diamonds though, which have been relatively cheap and easy to mass-produce for a long time, making such tools quite affordable.
At the other end of the spectrum, flawless lab-grown diamond holds immense promise for electronics, where natural diamonds are far too flawed to be useful. Diamond displays the relatively unique combination of being an incredible thermal conductor (considerably better than copper), a good electrical insulator, and is both N- and P-dopeable so that you can create transistors and other semiconductors from it. Theoretically very nearly the perfect material for high-speed microprocessors that need to shed a lot of heat as quickly as possible.
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, but a major stumbling block has been creating enough diamond to even begin exploring the possibility. The silicon semiconductor industry is build on wafers, typically 300 mm in diameter; wafers are made from growing boules the size of logs from pure silicon. It's a pretty efficient process at this point.
By contrast, the only diamond wafers for semiconductor use are made via vapor deposition on some other substrate, and are only available in diameters of, say, 30 mm, only 1/100th the area. Purity and defect counts still leave something to be desired.
Granted, the same could be said for silicon back in the 1960s and 1970s: wafers were small, quality was so-so, and costs were high. But it's going to take a while to make some inroads. I've been hearing about it for over 20 years now, seemingly without much progress, and not a single IC on the market to point to. I think there's been more progress in other materials: SiC, Ge, Ga-As, etc. We'll probably get there eventually - I'm just not holding my breath for it to happen soon.
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Informative)
Quite so. Plus,that hypothetical 300mm diamond wafer would weight almost 1000 carats, easily worth many $million at current jewelry prices, compared to $3 for the silicon wafer. I don't imagine synthetic diamond producers are actually in any hurry to produce diamond logs and kill that market.
Wikipedia has a picture of a 92mm diamond slab though, so I think you're a bit behind the current production scales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Blood Diamonds (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the bigger impediment is a lack of suitably large flawless diamond wafers. Can't use them for semiconductors until the diamond production line can deliver flawless wafers large enough and cheap enough for production.
A 300mm (12") silicon wafer weighs about 125 grams and costs about $3. Diamond is denser, so a similar wafer would weigh about 188 grams, or 938 carats. Diamond price/carat increases with size, starting at around $1000 for 1/3 of a carat, and rapidly scaling up to ~$4000/carat for only 3 carats. But even using the low end that wafer would easily be worth $1,000,000.
Basically, so long as diamonds are considered valuable gemstones, I don't see how semiconductor applications can hope to take off. And given how lucrative the jewelry market is, I don't imagine synthetic diamond producers are in any hurry to scale up production to kill it.
Re: (Score:3)
I once knew someone whose job was researching diamond semiconductors. He said the main issue was the difficulty of doping them to P or N type. This was 10 years ago (we've since lost touch) but a quick search suggests this is still a problem [sciencedaily.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you have industrial diamonds for most of those uses. The engineers and scientists don't buy the diamonds they need at a jewelry store.
Re: (Score:2)
And highest thermal conductivity.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something, though, that appeals to me about wearing a triumph of human ingenuity and research.
Re: Blood Diamonds (Score:2)
Diamonds have some very good physical properties. Hardness being the obvious one.
Diamond is also quite rare in that it is an excellent conductor of heat, many times better than copper, silver, gold or aluminium, and also an electrical insulator.
If it wasn't so expensive it would be amazing as a heatsink or as a electrically insulating thermal interface between a device and a traditional metal heat sink.
Gold is also another example of an element with great physical properties that is artificially price infla
Re: (Score:2)
> Diamonds have very little intrinsic value other than looking pretty
They actually do have considerable value for cutting tools, for wear resistant surfaces, and as insulators. They've been too expensive to use as much as desired.
Re: (Score:3)
But emeralds, rubies, and sapphires look prettier.
This.
Guys, start giving actual precious stones to your girls. Marketing departments can only create memes in a world without Internet. Now, all it takes is a couple youtubers and tiktokers to break the cycle.
Re:Human life and dignity matters little to most (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human life and dignity matters little to most (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that will go over well when everyone else she knows got a diamond.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wear more: have a gown made entirely of diamonds to stay ahead of those who only have diamonds on their neck and hands. When the competition progresses to gowns also, drive a diamond car. When they copy, bling the mansion. When they mansion also, launch your own diamond moon with your name on it. When they moon ya, pull a Saturn with 20 bling-rings. It's diamond turtles all the way up...
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, that may be the solution. If there are diamonds everywhere and nobody can tell the difference (at least not easily), then the overall value of diamonds will plummet hopefully. The problem is that making these diamonds consumes energy so it may not get any cheaper. Also for this to be commoditized we may have to wait on the patents on these machines expiring.
Re: If machines can crank them out (Score:2)
As a useful side effect, it will be easy to spot the useless eaters.
"Oh Charles Darwin, why hast thou forsaken us?"- oh, right, we have been keeping him chained up all these years. Time to turn him loose.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like gold to become a cheap commodity, though. Imagine if all the wires in your house were gold, because it's cheaper than copper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would not complain about abundant silver, but I believe gold has lower resistance than silver. Another benefit is that it doesn't rust.
Re:If machines can crank them out (Score:4, Informative)
Is it really too much trouble to look it up?
Electrical conductivity of metals
silver 6.3*10^7
copper 5.96*10^7
gold 4.22*10^7
aluminum 3.77*10^7
The biggest advantage for gold in electrical applications, compared to copper, silver, and aluminum is the tendency of gold not to corrode.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Silver corrodes very easily. Gold does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste of energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Still more useful than mining bitcoins. Hey, at least something real and tangible with actual function (lookin' shiny) is produced!
Re: (Score:3)
And a small but measurable amount of carbon is captured.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's such a huge stockpile of diamonds that these companies only continue to mine them so that nobody else can mine and sell them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or wasted on bitcoin?
Re: (Score:3)
hahaha, you have it backwards. Natural diamonds have inclusions under 10X or more magnification that synthetics don't. Cloud, cavity, crystal, feather, knots, needles, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought some manufactured diamonds a while ago (kinda gen 1 of the manufactured diamond trend). They have natural looking flaws in them (from the high temp/pressure method of manufacture). In fact, my jeweler couldn't even tell they were manufactured... and yes he tested them.
Re:Physically identical. (Score:4, Interesting)
Gem quality synthetic diamonds are required (by an agreement with DeBeers) to dope their diamonds with a UV sensitive dye because otherwise they are impossible to differentiate.
In fact modern synthetic diamonds can be produced in higher quality than 99.99% of mined diamonds.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>to dope their diamonds with a UV sensitive dye
I would very much like to see a link to this agreement.
Several years (decades?) ago, I remember seeing a 60-minutes report on these synthetic diamonds. DeBeers was trying different tests to identify synthetics from natural - thermal conductivity, light absorption, electrical conductivity, density, thermal expansion, etc...
At the end, the reporter concluded that the synt
Re: (Score:3)
This would be a good time to have an X Prize type competition for the lowest cost method of sequestering carbon by forming diamonds. Not gem diamonds,
This is on my super villain to do list. To flood the market with synthetic gem quality diamonds for cents per carrot. Making the natural diamond worthless and crashing the market.