Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#2assuming this is serious...
There is no silver bullet - you can't just build a 10bn$ nuclear bomb programm and call it a day. All the other means are still needed to transition away from fossil fuel.
The earlier we start the better.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#3To crib from Wes Anderson, "what this paper presupposes is Project Plowshare didn't go -far enough-."
More seriously I'll refrain from judgment until I've read it all. But it's interesting thus far.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#4They are talking about one gigantic nuclear explosion (81 Gt). Why couldn't multiple smaller explosions achieve the same outcome?
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#5I find it interesting ever more risky way to sequester carbon are invented.
Instead of making adding biochar to farm land an agricultural subsidy. A simple, extremely low risk policy, that is a local subsidy and does create international trade conflicts like other subsidies can.
And it does not affect any wilderness.
And in hot humid climates is proven to increase fertility.
Or a bit risky we could fertilize the open ocean, very significantly increase ocean life. And it has been proven that a significant percentage of fish poop sequesters carbon in the deep ocean.
Instead efforts seem to be focused on shading the sun. And new ideas using nukes....
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#6What if exploding nukes on the seafloor has the opposite effect and actually _releases_ already sequestered carbon?
IMO, this idea is very poorly thought out.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#7There's zero technical analysis in this paper. Is there no better source for this discussion?
edit: It doesn't even make much sense. It asserts, without any engineering rationale, that a large fusion bomb will efficiently pulverize 4 trillions tons of basaltic rock—the volume of a sphere of basalt 20 km (!!) in diameter—into a fine silt.
So many strange assumptions going into that.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#8Nukewards Ho!
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#9I'm getting similar vibes from this to the Soviet's idea to reverse nothern rivers flow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_river_reversal
They were also planning to use nukes for that. Thankfully it never happened
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#10I find it interesting ever more risky way to sequester carbon are invented. Instead of making adding biochar to farm land an agricultural subsidy. A simple, extremely low risk policy, that is a local subsidy and does create international trade conflicts like other subsidies can. And it does not affect any wilderness. And in hot humid climates is proven to increase fertility. Or a bit risky we could fertilize the open…
Does biochar remain in ground for long? How quickly does it decompose and rot?