Men will do anything but vote for a carbon tax
...men?
Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
21–30 of 66 posts
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#22Worst case scenario: nuclear winter, humanity dies out. Problem solved
Nope, not a potential outcome.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#23I 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…
Can you tell me, without looking up, how many gigatons of carbon are in the atmosphere and how many are added by humans each year?
Yeah, it's 'simple' until confronted with the sheer scale of it
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#24The lengths people go to not to make walkable cities (and insulated buildings, fast trains.. you know, all the stuff that actually exists and works)
cities are made of concrete and steel, both of which emit carbon in their production. nearly everything from pharmaceuticals to clothes to computers is made with petrochemicals. It's not just a matter of civil design, and we don't have the answers.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#25This would only give a 30yr break on just one factor of the ecological collapse. I get it's tempting to think of a technological fix (even one as risky as an Earth-shattering nuclear explosion), but we have to question ourselves more.
There's no fix other than a technological one. Modifying the collective behavior of 8 billion people is just not going to happen.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#26Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#27The lengths people go to not to make walkable cities (and insulated buildings, fast trains.. you know, all the stuff that actually exists and works)
cities are made of concrete and steel, both of which emit carbon in their production. nearly everything from pharmaceuticals to clothes to computers is made with petrochemicals. It's not just a matter of civil design, and we don't have the answers.
We don’t have the answers to what?
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#28What a stupid idea
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#29They are talking about one gigantic nuclear explosion (81 Gt). Why couldn't multiple smaller explosions achieve the same outcome?
Isn't that much more expensive and therefore less likely to be approved?
The point would be experimentation. You do a small one, measure the results, and if it aligns with theoretical predictions, you scale up. It transforms it from high risk and high reward, into low risk high reward.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#30This would only give a 30yr break on just one factor of the ecological collapse. I get it's tempting to think of a technological fix (even one as risky as an Earth-shattering nuclear explosion), but we have to question ourselves more.
There's no fix other than a technological one. Modifying the collective behavior of 8 billion people is just not going to happen.
The problem will fix itself when we lose food security.
The only other way is to curb the carbon emission by stopping the burning of hydrocarbons.
It’s always been the solution, and will always be