The global warming that we fuel on a daily basis through our consumption of fossil fuels today constitutes a threat to the survival of our humanity. Solutions exist. Most require, if not an effort, some changes in our ways of understanding the world. And undoubtedly for the best, ultimately.
Never mind. Some do not plan to really change their ways of doing things. So they look for another porteporte output by using large-scale carbon dioxide (CO) capture and storage technologies2) excess in our atmosphere, for example. And in the mattermattera researcher from Rochester Institute of Technology (United States) is now proposing a completely crazy idea. At the basis of his project which he describes as“bold”a nuclear explosion on the seabed!
Helping the ocean sequester more CO2
This is not the first time the idea has been floated. In the 1960s, the project Plowshare had studied the effect that a nuclear explosion could have on the geological materials of the ocean floor. And what Andy Haverly imagines here is that by pulverizing the basalt which constitutes the seabed, such an explosion could accelerate the sequestration of the carbonecarbone by a phenomenon known to scientists as forced rock weathering – or ERW for Enhanced Rock Weathering.
This probably deserves some explanation. First to remind that it is known to researchers that the ocean captures part of the CO2 present in our atmosphere. It even sequesters nearly 30% of the greenhouse gas that we emit. One of the processes by which it proceeds is based on the presence in the seabed of rocks alkalinealkaline like basalt. When they come into contact with water laden with CO2they dissolve. The CO2 then becomes part of a limestone which remains stored at the bottom of the water.
Relying on forced weathering of rock to eliminate CO2 from our atmosphere
The process appeared interesting to researchers in the 1990s, when the climate crisis raised new interest in solutions that would eliminate CO2 of our atmosphere. Today, experts say it will be necessary to resort to carbon capture and storage if we hope to keep warming below a threshold « acceptable ». The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even considers it as ” inevitable “. But scientists fear that the promises of this type of solution will further undermine the efforts we will make to limit – and ultimately reduce to net zero – our greenhouse gas emissions.
The Frontier initiative or how tech giants want to boost the CO2 capture industry
The idea of forced weathering of rocks is that of optimizing the natural properties of basalt, for example, to accelerate the process of geological storage of CO2. To do this, you have to grind the rock. In doing so, the contact surface is increased and thus the capture efficiency. About a year ago, the group Frontier – Tech giants united to boost the CO capture industry2 – announced an investment of $57 million to push the development of forced rock alteration technologies.
-A colossal nuclear explosion near Antarctica
Having clarified this, let’s return to the idea developed by Andy Haverly. The researcher details how he managed to calculate the power of a nuclear explosion which would sequester the equivalent of 30 years ofbroadcastsbroadcasts de CO2 in basalt. An explosion of around 81 gigatons (Gt) of TNT. Even though the most powerful atomic bomb to have ever exploded did not exceed 50 megatons (Mt). That’s about 1,000 times less than what Andy Haverly is aiming for. “This is not to be taken lightly”he remarks lucidly.
Especially since other recently published studies already call into question what we could expect from the accelerated weathering of rocks. Researchers have in fact studied some “traps” linked to the geochemical and mineralogical compositions of the rock powders which may have led to an overestimation of the effectiveness of the method.
But Andy Haverly reassures us. Everything should be fine. According to his calculations, burying the nuclear device – a very classic bomb hydrogenhydrogen – beneath the Kerguelen Plateau in the Southern Ocean, somewhere between 3 and 5 kilometers deep in the basalt-rich seafloor and about 6 or 8 kilometers below the water surface will keep the explosion in the water. And the basalt should absorb and trap the majority of radiation at a local level.
What are the fallout for such a nuclear explosion?
The majority of radiation? The researcher predicts “little or no loss of life due to the immediate effects of radiation”. In the long term, he still recognizes that the explosion will have “impact on humans and will cause losses”. This increase in radiation would not, however, constitute, according to Andy Haverly, “just a drop of water in the ocean”. Whereas “Every year we emit more radiation from power plants coalcoal and we have already detonated more than 2,000 nuclear devices”. So, one more or one less… Especially since the global warmingglobal warming threatens at least 30 million lives by 2100.
The same argument is retained concerning the impact of such a nuclear explosion on theecosystemecosystem. What does a dozen square kilometers represent? “striped” of the card in the face of the loss of biodiversitybiodiversity what does global warming cause? Between rising temperatures, changing regimes of precipitationprecipitationfragmentation or loss of habitats, acidification, extreme weather phenomena and changes in seasonal cycles, according to the researcher, “it is clear that climate change represents a greater risk for the global ecosystem”.
All that remains is to raise the 10 billion dollars which will be necessary to manufacture this atomic bomb and to override – for the good of humanity only, of course… – all the non-proliferation treaties and the trick will be played. With the promise of a return on investment since the cost of climate change is currently estimated at 100,000 billion dollars. “On a financial level at least, it is the most obvious course to follow”concludes Andy Haverly. Financially…
