Men will do anything to keep using fossil fuels.
This paper proposes to use nuclear bombs to blow up the seafloor to increase alkalinity and take up atmospheric CO₂. What could go wrong? 🤷🏻♂️
h/t @climatejesper
Men will do anything to keep using fossil fuels.
This paper proposes to use nuclear bombs to blow up the seafloor to increase alkalinity and take up atmospheric CO₂. What could go wrong? 🤷🏻♂️
h/t @climatejesper
Seems what is new is old; using nuclear bombs for fracking,
https://www.cpr.org/2019/09/06/remember-the-first-time-colorado-tried-fracking-with-a-nuclear-bomb/
"This is orders of magnitude larger than the largest nuclear explosion
ever detonated,
so this is not to be taken lightly." 😀
@CityAtlas @davidho @climatejesper
Tired response: "Your basalt are belong to us."
Wired response: "Yo mama is not to be taken lightly."
@davidho Crack in the World
What more could you ask for. You can keep driving gas powered muscle cars PLUS you get to blow stuff up.
I consider this "looking on the bright side."
@davidho @climatejesper solar, wind, nuclear and decreasing consumption are
right the fuck there
and instead we're proposing to... blow up the ocean to make more dinosaur juice so I can drive my lifted F350 over schoolchildren
@davidho @climatejesper "...preservation of local ecosystems..."? 🤔 🤔
Go on, tell me another.
@davidho @climatejesper …well, I guess I now have a meter stick to judge CDR projects. “On a scale of 1 to gigaton-nuking the sea floor, how dumb is it?”
Probably comforts the SAI people to not be the people with the most shocking idea at the climate intervention table, too.
@davidho @climatejesper maybe reach out to his computer science MS thesis advisor and let her know that he’s lost his mind and posting BS under the auspices of being affiliated with RIT years later…
I'm not against carbon sequestration, so I read the paper out of curiosity
But it's totally crazy. I even checked to see if paper's publication date was April 1
"a nuclear explosion yield of 81 Gt is required. This is orders of magnitude larger than the largest
nuclear explosion ever detonated, so this is not to be taken lightly."
"This section makes
these assumptions about the nuclear device:
1. This explosion can be detonated without global catastrophe"
UNBELIEVABLE ‼️‼️‼️‼️
@davidho @climatejesper Apart from the monumental stupidity, I’d say the rather predictable outcome would be sealing up the natural fracture network they were hoping to create, with a large net drop in basalt reactivity area.
Not unlike the 60s dickheads at Gulf Oil who tried fracking wells with nukes, only to find they’d melted and sealed everything in sight.
This sounds like an idea deeply rooted in the think of 'Operation Plowshare'.
You've got a problem? Just throw some nukes at it.
@davidho @climatejesper "This paper presents a bold proposal to employ a buried nuclear explosion"
They spelled "batshit crazy" wrong...
Reminds me of the Mother Of All Bombs your elected SIO, Sadist_In_Office dumped on Afghanistan mountains.
Reckon, the drought in Afghanistan didn't enhance weathering of the pulverized rocks.
One of his cronies might advise him to repeat this on a Greenland fiord.
Could we get a nuclear winter, too?
@davidho @breadandcircuses @climatejesper tbf: we probably should stop burning fossile fuels completely, like yesterday, AND do ridiculous stuff like this.
Not "exactly this thing", but still really large scale things to offset really huge amounts of carbon already released.
in reality we'll do neither, but one can dream
@davidho @ai6yr @climatejesper
I say again:
climate change doesn't frighten me half as much as climate action.
“Humans beings always do the most intelligent thing… after they’ve tried every stupid alternative and none of them have worked.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller