Could a giant nuclear bomb save the climate? One engineer thinks so, sparks viral debate

Time of India

2 days ago

In a move that has startled both scientists and policy thinkers, a young software engineer with no formal background in climate or nuclear science has proposed using a massive nuclear explosion to fight climate change.
Andy Haverly
, 25, published the paper in January this year on the open-access platform arXiv, describing a plan to bury and detonate the largest nuclear device ever conceived deep under the seafloor to boost global carbon capture.
'By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels,' the study says.
How the method works: Blasting basalt for carbon sequestration
At the core of Haverly's proposal is a natural process called
Enhanced Rock Weathering
(ERW), which binds carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere into solid minerals. The idea is to accelerate this process dramatically by using nuclear force to pulverise enormous quantities of basalt rock, which is abundant beneath the ocean floor.
Play Video
Pause
Skip Backward
Skip Forward
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
0:00
Loaded
:
0%
0:00
Stream Type
LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
1x
Playback Rate
Chapters
Chapters
Descriptions
descriptions off
, selected
Captions
captions settings
, opens captions settings dialog
captions off
, selected
Audio Track
Picture-in-Picture
Fullscreen
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text
Color
White
Black
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Text Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Opaque
Semi-Transparent
Transparent
Caption Area Background
Color
Black
White
Red
Green
Blue
Yellow
Magenta
Cyan
Opacity
Transparent
Semi-Transparent
Opaque
Font Size
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200%
300%
400%
Text Edge Style
None
Raised
Depressed
Uniform
Drop shadow
Font Family
Proportional Sans-Serif
Monospace Sans-Serif
Proportional Serif
Monospace Serif
Casual
Script
Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values
Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Anvisa aprova solução para ajudar a reduzir gordura visceral da barriga em 7 dias!
Você Mais Saudável Hoje
Saiba Mais
Undo
The proposed detonation would take place on the Kerguelen Plateau in the remote Southern Ocean. Here, the ocean floor lies 6 to 8 kilometres below sea level. Haverly suggests burying the nuclear device a further 3 to 5 kilometres into the basalt rock. The extreme depth and water pressure — around 800 atmospheres — would act as a natural containment, trapping most of the explosion's energy and fallout.
'By burying the nuclear device kilometers underground under kilometers of water, we can be certain that the explosion will first pulverise the rock then be contained by the water,' the paper claims.
Live Events
The scale of the proposal: 1,600 times Tsar bomba
The proposed nuclear yield is staggering: 81 gigatonnes. For comparison, this is more than 1,600 times the force of the Soviet Union's 1961
Tsar Bomba
, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated at 50 megatons.
The paper estimates this would pulverise approximately 3.86 trillion tonnes of basalt, which in turn could sequester about 1.08 trillion tonnes of CO₂ — roughly 30 years of global emissions, assuming 36 gigatonnes emitted annually.
The model assumes the detonation would have a 90% efficiency rate in pulverising basalt, based on historical modelling of nuclear impacts on rock formations.
A nod to the past: Echoes of project plowshare
Haverly's proposal draws conceptual inspiration from
Project Plowshare
, a Cold War-era U.S. initiative (1957–1977) aimed at exploring peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. Tests like the 1962 'Sedan' explosion created massive craters and scattered radioactive fallout across multiple states.
Although Project Plowshare envisioned using nuclear blasts for engineering tasks like building canals or harbours, Haverly's concept aims for climate repair — not infrastructure development.
'Seeing the movie
Oppenheimer
really brought nuclear power to the front of my mind,' Haverly told Vice.
'There are elements of this idea that are already well known, like Enhanced Rock Weathering, and detonating nuclear weapons underground but combining all of these ideas has not been considered seriously before. And that's the reason I posted this paper.'
Fallout or future? Assessing safety risks
While the scale of the detonation would dwarf all previous tests, Haverly insists that the danger to life and ecosystems would be minimal. The study argues:
'Few or no loss of life due to the immediate effects of radiation.'
However, it also acknowledges that the plan would 'impact people and cause losses.' Haverly addresses the likely radioactive fallout by stating it would be:
'Just a drop in the ocean.'
He adds, 'Each year we emit more radiation from coal-fired power plants and have already detonated over 2,000 nuclear devices.'
To minimise long-term contamination, the study recommends a standard fission-fusion hydrogen bomb, optimised to lower radioactive residue. The surrounding basalt would trap radiation locally, though the site would become uninhabitable for several decades. The affected zone is projected to be only a few dozen square kilometres — relatively small compared to the global impact of unchecked climate change.
Cost, timeline, and trade-offs
Haverly estimates the total cost of the project at $10 billion. In contrast, he cites climate-related damage projections from economists like
Nicholas Stern
and the
IPCC
, which exceed $100 trillion by 2100. The study claims:
'This is a 10,000x return on investment.'
The paper sets a decade-long timeline for deployment, accounting for engineering design, political approval, and field testing.
Conditions for Success
The proposal's success rests on several crucial assumptions:
That the explosion can sequester 30 years of CO₂.
That the detonation does not spark global catastrophe.
That the device is too large to be militarised, thus avoiding geopolitical escalation.
That decarbonisation efforts will not dramatically improve in the meantime.
Haverly frames the plan not as desperation, but as a bold but rational intervention.
'This is not to be taken lightly,' he writes in the study.
'By specifying the necessary parameters, we demonstrate the potential for effective carbon sequestration while minimising adverse side effects.'
A climate crisis that demands unusual thinking
The paper arrives at a time when governments and scientists are increasingly open to controversial geoengineering methods. In the UK, the
Advanced Research and Invention Agency
(ARIA) is backing a £50 million programme to explore sunlight-dimming techniques. These include stratospheric aerosol injections and marine cloud brightening — both aimed at temporarily reducing the Earth's temperature.
These strategies, while untested on large scales, signal growing willingness to explore radical interventions. In that context, Haverly's nuclear detonation idea, however extreme, may represent the logical end of this trend — where risk is weighed against a collapsing climate.
Whether the world is ready for such a trade-off is a question that now hangs in the air.