An 81 Gt nuclear device would seem rather risky and expensive being greater than the world's nuclear arsenals combined. However trying it on a smaller scale could combine nuclear disarmament with an interesting experiment which could help reduce global warming. Win win.
Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
61–66 of 66 posts
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize the effects of climate change will not be something for which you can just isolate your bedroom for, then move on. Everyone needs water. Directly, and for food production. The most populous regions in the world run on meltwater. The Indus Valley. Pakistan. Bangladesh. Indonesia. California. Central China. There are thousands such locations as well, by the way, just smaller. Meltwater that only comes if…
Indonesia, a land of 17,000 islands has meltwater on one mountain on one island, not the main one. I doubt it's that reliant on meltwater.
Indonesia is surprisingly big and most of the land is surprisingly far away from the coast. A lot of it will dry out, and effectively cut water supply to Jakarta.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the goal isn't to make a giant fireball, the goal is to bury it 7 kilometers under the seafloor bed at detonate it, pulverizing a massive volume of rock. Nearly all of the energy is being captured by rock and water, not being blasted out into space. Im not sure why you started talking about military nukes when half the point of this thing is how completely infeasible it is for military usage.
The 7 kilometers is the hard part.
We have drilled many oil wells deeper than 7km. We will just need a wider bore to fit that chubby nuke down the hole.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 7 kilometers is the hard part.
We have drilled many oil wells deeper than 7km. We will just need a wider bore to fit that chubby nuke down the hole.
This borehole would effectively be a mineshaft. High yield nuclear weapons achieve around 5 Mt/ton, so a 81 Gt device would have a mass of 16,200 tons, about 1/3rd the displacement of a WW2 Iowa class battleship.
The deepest mine (a gold mine in South Africa) reaches a depth of 4 kilometers.
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> The problem will fix itself when we lose food security.
Except the highest producing people are the ones who will lose food security the last
Re: Nuclear Explosion for Carbon Sequestration
#66Worst case scenario: nuclear winter, humanity dies out. Problem solved
The nuclear winter premise is that burning cities will produce enough smoke to cover the sun for temperature to drop. AFAIK, there are no cities in deep ocean floor and even if there were, you'd have a little bit of a problem starting fire there.