Comment on At this rate, why not.

• 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

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Thanks, that makes things make a bit more sense.

      source
  • 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

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      There is no crazy difference. If water can get to the rocks, so can the dissolved CO2.

      Oh, I was just pondering the efficiency. If Co2 is held in suspension and only the top layer of sediment is going to be exposed to the carbon in the water, and not to a degree of co2 more concentrated than normal.

      source

      • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Every bit that is in contact with water is also in contact with CO2.

        source