Comment

Seems half-baked. Well unbaked really. They make a shit ton of assumptions that I’m not sure are true.

For example, why do they assume 90% pulverization efficiency of the basalt? Or is that a number they just pulled out of their ass?

And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

Cool concept but, like, maybe we should check the assumptions a little harder?

source

Sort:hotnew top

kozy138@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Some people would literally rather nuke the planet than take a train to work…

source
TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

Yeah… Doesn’t the carbon sequestering happen from rain absorbing carbon in the atmosphere and then attaching to the rock to mineralize it? Something tells me 6-7 km of ocean might impede that process.

And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

Dilution is the solution…ocean big?

source
- riodoro1@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Dilution was supposed to be the solution to the whole greenhouse gasses emissions, turns out atmosphere not … that big.
  
  source
- Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  The ocean dissolves a large amount of CO2, which then, just like in the rain example, can react with minerals. It can react faster if there is more surface area of said minerals.
  
  source
  - TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Do you know if Co2 that dissolves into water is less buoyant, or is it held in suspension? Or is this relying on the sediment being suspended in the ocean for a while before being deposited back on the ocean floor?
    
    source
    psud@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    They expect the pulverised rock to be spread by the blast and distributed on ocean currents, the CO2 is throughout the water column, it moves over concentration gradients, if one volume of water has 1g/L and another has 3g/L then CO2 will move from the 3g/L bit into 1g/L bit until they are in balance
    
    I think they hope the pulverised rock will be spread so it works quicker, not having to wait for CO2 to balance
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    I am not sure if I understand you. Dissolved CO2 in water of like normal water. There is no crazy difference. If water can get to the rocks, so can the dissolved CO2.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Also would it kill all the sea life leading to a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions from all the decomposing fish corpses? Does undersea decomposition release greenhouse gases?

source
- Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  And doesn’t plankton already sequester CO2 on the ocean floor when it dies?
  
  source
  - TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Oh right. The solution of course is a bigger bomb.
    
    source