4 ms·
Nuclear Explosions for Large Scale Carbon Sequestration: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06623 https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06623 seems more promising, I love that the
by briandw 1y ago
Nuclear Explosions for Large Scale Carbon Sequestration:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06623 https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06623
seems more promising, I love that there is more research and interest in accelerated weathering
- joegibbs 1y agoCould there be any possible negative effects from an 81 gigaton nuke exploding though? A 100 megaton Tsar Bomba would wipe out all of New York, a thousands times more than that might have some adverse impact.
- colechristensen 1y agoThis is a very shallow analysis, feels like an undergrad wrote that. You just wouldn't build a bomb that big, if it were a uranium bomb you'd need on the order of 100 tons of highly enriched uranium and one of the problems would be "how do I get that much uranium close enough together to even build a bomb". The damn thing would be the size of a small to medium ship. And the guy is talking about burying it under kilometers of seabed. When it went of it would be (not cause, be) a 8+ scale earthquake.... one could go on but you get the point. It's a silly napkin math idea that someone decided to put on arxiv. If you wanted to blow up the seabed with nukes to sequester carbon practically, you could do it, but it would take a lot of them and there would be a lot of effects to the local ocean.