2 ms·
Um, no. The limiting factors are all still economic. If you want to try to rely on mineral weathering to reduce atmospheric CO2 any reasonable amount you now ha
by forgetfreeman 2y ago
Um, no. The limiting factors are all still economic. If you want to try to rely on mineral weathering to reduce atmospheric CO2 any reasonable amount you now have to finance the quarrying, crushing to fine power, transport, and distribution of gigatons of stone or engineer a suitable replacement which replaces quarry and processing costs with input stock acquisition and synthesis leaving transportation and distribution untouched.
- Tuna-Fish 2y ago... Alternatively you do none of that and frack underwater basalt. What makes these gotcha arguments so infuriating is that you have no clue what you are talking about, and refuse to spend even 15 minutes googling for what projects have been proposed and what is being studied. Instead you dream up an imaginary strawman to rail against. Literally no-one has ever proposed doing any of what you just talked about, because it would very clearly be economically unviable. There are many options that are not that which are being studied.
- forgetfreeman 2y agoI'm going to go out on a limb and guess you haven't been paying any attention to ongoing pilot projects in europe studying seeding ag land with basalt fines as a possible mitigation strategy. Far from being uninformed I was merely trying to extend to you the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as I assumed nobody would credibly believe that fracking could produce meaningful amounts of surface area compared to powdered fines. Clearly I was mistaken, there are those among us that confuse make work for drill crews with actual progress. Carry on then.