You must log in or register to comment.
The point is that it’s a passive process, not an active one. No need for pumping.
Water is so much denser than air that you do get more exposure time per unit time.
I’ve got my fingers crossed for a Snowpiercer set up.
Carbon sequestration is not going to solve global warming. CO2 is less than 2% of atmosphere. Even if you pass a shitton of air through the strata the difference will be negligible.
Water absorbs a lot of co2 and removing it from the water via weathering is a valid idea.
I don’t know. What do you think is the concentration of CO2 in the sea water? I am just not convinced.
The concentration isn’t as important as the difficulty to remove it. It’s still a hard problem, but rock weathering is one way to accomplish it, but it would need a lot of exposed rock surface.
The biggest threat of co2 emmisions is ocean acidifcation. A collapse of the ocean ecosystem would be devastating to the rest of the planet. A warmer planet sucks, but dead phytoplankton would result in a global plumment in O2 production.
I think y’all are missing the point here.
It’s really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.
Actually, one of their feasibility assumptions is that the device is too large to be used militarily.
I think they underestimate a military’s desire to use all of the things that go boom.
Ah. I suppose building an 81 gigaton nuclear weapon wouldn’t be small.
Let’s fire up the antimatter then!
The only way to convince conservatives to fight climate change is if we do it with guns and bombs
If it gets the job done, I’m willing to make that compromise.
Just spitballing here. These grand ideas good/bad practical/or not are the beginning of mankind learning how to geo engineer planets or moons. I’ll be long dead before I get proven right or wrong so it’s easy to spitball
I’m pulling for artificial diamonds. It’s the funniest solution: dumping truckloads of precious gemstones back down empty wells. Or burying them in the desert. Or I guess just handing them out for industrial uses, since even grinding them to dust isn’t the same problem as CO2. Have a free bucket of aquarium gravel, made out of worthless tacky gold.
Hey, if you can make diamond that easily, we can exchange a LOT of substances for it. Not just windows and glasses, but pretty much every ceramic object, insulators, but also just toilets (slap some paint on it and done).
Drop a plate, floor breaks.
I mean… if we’re being honest, the long-term effects of global thermonuclear war would be (very eventual) carbon sequestration in tens to hundreds of millions of years, and then we’ll renew our oil reserves! We of course won’t be around to use them, seeing as we’ll have been sequestered into the oil.
Can we get new oil actually? I thought we now have organisms that can break down every organic matter and thus it can not really accumulate anymore?
There’s an abiotic pathway that creates new oil geologically. It’s a very small amount.
The theory is popular in Russia, where it’s claimed to be the main way oil is produced. That’s complete bullshit. It turned out there is some, but not enough to matter.
If you squeeze a baby hard enough
Oil actually comes from aquatic life (mostly plankton) that sinks to the sea floor and gets buried, squeezed and heated. Oil still forms today, but it’s a process of millions of years.
Coal is formed from plants, and that does indeed require something doesn’t eat it first. Swamps, for example, help a lot, letting the fallen trees sink down where most stuff can’t eat it. Peat can also form into coal. Coal forms even slower than oil though, and it’s much rarer, but it also doesn’t require an ocean, so it’s often more accessible for us land-living humans
Coal is much rarer than oil? I have to look that up, I always thought there is far more coal.
Nope, there is about 3x more coal than oil.
IIRC, all that coal comes from plant material from before there were microbes that can break down cellulose. Meaning that while it’s possible to regenerate oil over millions of years, coal cannot.
So yes, there may be more of it now, but when we burn it, it’s gone forever.
Being sequestered into the oil sounds pretty nice at this point.
Uh oh. What an apropos American way to go.
I feel like the podcast Behind The Bastards talked about this in the episode released today.
Did they talk about nuking the great lakes again?
No: this was about how the US Government considered underground nuking Alaska for the coal, killing cattle to check for cancer, and having people believe it was aliens. I was at work, so I may have missed a few points, but there was a discussion on power via turbine powered by nuclear weapon melted salt.
Re-naming all the Great Lakes to Lake America (with the easy to remember acronym “AAAAA!”) was one of the late night shows.
This is “nuke the hurricane”-level science.
No, absolutely not. This is increasing the surface area and availability of rocks that take up CO2.
By “level”, I’m talking about the practicality and wisdom of the idea.
It is not comparable.
Drivel…
This is by far the most practical “geoengineering” solution I’ve seen, far better than aerosols over the arctic, space shades or whatever. The ecological damage is comparatively miniscules.
And even then… quite a engineering feat. Nukes are actually “cheap” to scale up (a small bomb can catalyze big, cheap cores), but burying that much volume “3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor” is not something anyone is set-up to do.
But by far the hardest part is… information. Much of the world doesn’t even believe in climate change anymore, and by the time they do, it will be too late.
That would just make the molepeople mad and double our problems
The last time I checked, we don’t have a whole lot of climate solutions that feature the bomb. And I’d be doing myself a disservice… and every member of this species, if I didn’t nuke the HELL out of this!
