The scientific and technological community is discussing an extraordinarily radical proposal for combating climate change: Andy Gaverly, a computer engineer at Microsoft who was pursuing his graduate studies at Rochester Institute of Technology at the time the idea was formulated, put forward a plan to detonate an ultra-powerful nuclear charge on the ocean floor. The goal is not to cause damage but, on the contrary, to 'save' the planet by instantly grinding up oceanic rocks and thereby accelerating the natural sequestration of carbon dioxide. It is important to note right away: the author has no professional background in either climatology or nuclear physics, and all of his calculations remain personal and have not undergone scientific peer review.
The Core of the Proposal: Accelerated Rock Weathering
The foundation of Gaverly's concept is a well-known scientific method — enhanced rock weathering. Alkaline rocks, including basalt, naturally react with carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater and reliably bind it into stable minerals. According to the data cited by the author, the oceans already absorb about 30 percent of anthropogenic emissions in exactly this way, and mechanical grinding of basalt could significantly accelerate this process. Since industrial crushing of rock on a global scale requires enormous amounts of time and energy, the engineer proposed 'saving' both with a single powerful nuclear strike on the ocean floor.
Calculations and Scale: A Thousand Times More Powerful Than the 'Tsar Bomba'
According to Gaverly's estimates, binding a volume of carbon equivalent to 30 years of global emissions would require an explosion of about 81 gigatons in TNT equivalent. For comparison: the most powerful nuclear device ever tested in history — the Soviet 'Tsar Bomba' — had a yield of around 50 megatons. Thus, the proposed charge would have to be roughly 1,000 times more powerful than the 'Tsar Bomba.' In the author's design, the charge is to be placed at a depth of several kilometers beneath the Kerguelen Plateau in the Southern Ocean; the mass of water and rock, in his view, would absorb most of the radiation. Gaverly himself assesses the released radiation as negligible compared to ordinary coal-fired power plants, and the project's cost at approximately 10 billion dollars, which, by his logic, is substantially cheaper than the economic damage from climate change.
Historical Context: The Project Plowshare Program
The idea has a historical precedent. The United States previously operated the Project Plowshare program, under which the use of 'peaceful' nuclear explosions for engineering tasks, including the digging of canals, was studied. However, none of these tests even came close to the scale proposed by Gaverly, and modern assessments of nuclear explosion risks differ fundamentally from mid-20th-century conceptions.
Criticism from the Scientific Community
The scientific community reacted to the proposal with sharp disapproval. Associate Professor of Earth System Science at Lund University, Wim Carton, noted that the concept copies the early 'reckless' geoengineering schemes of the mid-last century, and given modern knowledge of the consequences of nuclear explosions, such plans are even more dangerous. Other researchers additionally cast doubt on the actual rate of carbon binding by basalt. The questions of radiation containment, ecological harm to the ocean, compliance with international treaties banning nuclear testing, and the real effectiveness of such an explosion remain entirely open.
Contradictory Data
The sources and statements of the proponents contain directly opposing assessments. On the one hand, the author of the calculations claims that the radiation levels would be negligible by the standards of the coal energy sector, and that the 10-billion-dollar cost is justified compared to the damage from climate change. On the other hand, independent scientists emphasize that the calculations have not been peer-reviewed, the rate of carbon mineralization by basalt has not been confirmed at the claimed scale, and the issues of radiation safety, ocean ecology, and legality under the testing-ban treaties remain unresolved. Thus, the proposal exists as a documented public initiative, however its scientific validity and safety are disputed by experts and have not been confirmed.
