3 ms·
Sorry to post twice on this thread, but this concept gets so little relative attention, and to me, this is a huge and viable idea. And low cost. Sure you need t
by DLA 3y ago
Sorry to post twice on this thread, but this concept gets so little relative attention, and to me, this is a huge and viable idea. And low cost. Sure you need to cover a lot of land but if this technique was applied to farm lands it cloud have a disproportionate carbon sink effect relative to things like direct air capture or carbon storage. Worth additional attention IMO.
“Sprinkling basalt over soil could remove huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”
https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could-remove-huge-amounts-of-carbon-dioxide-from-the-atmosphere/ https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could...
- it_citizen 3y ago> Goll’s team used a land surface model to the simulate the effects of applying 5 kg/m2 of basalt dust over a vegetated area of 55 million square kilometres (about one third of the land on Earth). They found it has the potential to remove 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, where roughly half was stored in the biomass. Am I misunderstanding something? We emitted 37 billion tons in 2021. This solution would offset 2.5 billion tons (~7%) of our annual emissions. And to do that we would need to put 5KG of basalt per square meter on 1/3 of all land available on earth. Isn't it completely crazy and unrealistic?