4 ms·
Why a nuke? If you're going to use something explosive to collapse the well, I'm sure there are many other options available that would provide enough "oomph" t
by Ixiaus 16y ago
Why a nuke? If you're going to use something explosive to collapse the well, I'm sure there are many other options available that would provide enough "oomph" to collapse that well. A "nuke" sounds like overkill and exaggeration.
- ErrantX 16y agoThe suggestion I have heard is that a nuclear bomb will generate the heat/evergy required to fuse the rock around the edge of the explosion. Otherwise it will just leave open cracks. I have no idea if that is true; but it seemed reasonable when I read it.
- Ixiaus 16y agoThis is a good point, but that kind of heat could ignite the reservoir too?
- sp332 16y agoNot a problem for two reasons: 1. Oil won't burn without oxygen. It might break up into simpler hydrocarbons (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.), but it won't cause a firestorm. 2. Burning the oil is much less bad than letting it leak all over the coastline, poisoning animals and preventing oxygen from getting mixed into the water. There are already several operations intentionally burning the oil on the surface.
- randallsquared 16y agoA "nuke" sounds like overkill and exaggeration That's because the anti-nuclear activists managed to turn "nuclear" into the boogeyman in the 60s and 70s. A properly sized device used five weeks ago would certainly have done less environmental damage than the amount of oil spilled so far.
- Ixiaus 16y agoThis is a good point, but still, I'm sure a "properly sized" explosive that wasn't nuclear could do the trick too. I'm ignorant here: if a nuclear device were to be used wouldn't it irradiate the surrounding water? Wouldn't fallout plumes in the ocean would be more destructive than oil plumes? Or do you think it would be deep enough in the collapsed well to be insulated? Do I have any of this wrong? Also, regardless of the explosive used, isn't there a chance it could ignite the reservoir?
- streety 16y agoMy understanding was the explosive was going to be put down the well or buried in a second well close to the leaking well. Nuclear bombs are more compact, for equivalent yield, than chemical explosives which is why I assumed they were being proposed. As for your final point a fire needs heat, fuel and oxidiser. The oxidiser should be absent so no fire.
- stratomorph 16y agoA "properly sized" conventional explosive would be impractically enormous: nukes are measured in kiloton or megaton yields. There is no way to effectively detonate (say) twenty million pounds of conventional explosives all at once, never mind the non-trivial challenge of emplacing that amount. As I understand it, you'd place it below the sea floor, into the well, so the surrounding water would be shielded by all the rock above the blast site. For the same reason, there would be no fallout plumes, because all that solid mass would prevent the newly-created radioactive material from going anywhere. And it can't ignite the reservoir, because there's no oxygen to burn down there. All that said, it's still probably not a good idea. Hopefully it doesn't become the only idea.
- Ixiaus 16y agoAn excellent point about oxygen, that had slipped my mind.
- gnaritas 16y agoConventional explosives require oxygen to burn, this things a mile under water, it ain't going to happen. Nukes don't require oxygen.