Latest news with #RockWeathering
Japan Today
01-07-2025
- Science
- Japan Today
Rock on: How crushed stone could help fight climate change
By Sara HUSSEIN From sugar plantations in Brazil to tea estates in India, crushed rock is being sprinkled across large stretches of farmland globally in a novel bid to combat climate change. The technique is called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) and aims to speed up the natural capture and storage of carbon dioxide -- a planet-warming greenhouse gas. It is potentially big business with tech giants, airlines and fast fashion firms lining up to buy carbon credits from ERW projects to "offset" or cancel out their own emissions. What is ERW? ERW aims to turbocharge a natural geological process called weathering. Weathering is the breakdown of rocks by carbonic acid, which forms when carbon dioxide in the air or soil dissolves into water. Weathering occurs naturally when rain falls on rocks, and the process can lock away carbon dioxide from the air or soil as bicarbonate, and eventually limestone. ERW speeds the process up by using quick-weathering rocks like basalt that are ground finely to increase their surface area. How effective is ERW? ERW is still a fairly new technology and there are questions about how much carbon it can remove. One US study found applying 50 tons of basalt to a hectare of land each year could remove up to 10.5 tons of carbon dioxide per hectare over a four-year period. But scientists applying basalt to oil palm fields in Malaysia and sugarcane fields in Australia measured much lower removal rates. "Field trials are showing that there have been overestimates of the amount and rate captured," said Paul Nelson, a soil scientist at James Cook University who has studied ERW. Rates depend on variables including rock type and size, how wet and hot the climate is, soil type and land management. And measuring the carbon captured is difficult. The most popular technique measures "cations", positively charged ions that are released from the rock during weathering. But those cations are produced regardless of which acid the rock has reacted with. "If there are stronger acids than carbonic, then it will react with those," said Nelson, so measurable cations are produced even when carbon dioxide is not captured. That doesn't mean ERW is pointless, said Wolfram Buss, a researcher on carbon dioxide removal at the Australian National University, just that it needs to be carefully calibrated and measured. "There is no doubt that this technique works," he said. "However, to be sure how much carbon dioxide we actually remove, more funding is required to do fundamental studies." Are there other benefits? The added rock increases soil alkalinity, which can boost crop growth, soil nutrients and soil formation. Basalt is both naturally abundant and often available as a byproduct of quarrying, lowering the costs of the process. Experts note that even if the rock reacts with other acids in the soil, failing to lock away carbon dioxide at that stage, it can still have planetary benefits. That is because acids in the soil would otherwise eventually wash into rivers and the sea, where acidification leads to the release of carbon dioxide. If the rock neutralizes that acid in the soil, "you've prevented carbon dioxide being released from the water into the atmosphere downstream", said Nelson. The scale of those possible "prevented" emissions is not yet clear, however. What are the risks? ERW is broadly considered safe since it merely speeds up an existing natural process. However, some quick-weathering rocks have high levels of potentially poisonous heavy metals. Scattering finely ground rock also requires appropriate protective gear for those involved. But the main risk is that incorrect measurements overestimate captured carbon. Some projects are already selling carbon credits from ERW. If a company buys an ERW credit to "offset" its emissions but the process captures less than projected, it could result in net higher carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere. Where is ERW being done? Projects are happening in most parts of the world, including Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia. Earlier this year, a project in Brazil announced it had delivered the first-ever verified carbon-removal credits from an ERW project. The process is being used or trialled in agricultural settings from tea plantations in India's Darjeeling to U.S. soy and maize fields. What investor interest is there? An ERW startup -- Mati Carbon, working in India -- won the $50 million X Prize for carbon removal projects earlier this year. In December, Google announced what was then the world's biggest ERW deal, for 200,000 tons of carbon removal credits, to be delivered by the early 2030s by startup Terradot. The cost of the deal was not disclosed but a separate agreement by Terradot with a company representing firms including H&M sold 90,000 tons for $27 million. © 2025 AFP
Time of India
24-06-2025
- Science
- Time of India
Rock on: how crushed stone could help fight climate change
From sugar plantations in Brazil to tea estates in India, crushed rock is being sprinkled across large stretches of farmland globally in a novel bid to combat climate change. The technique is called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) and aims to speed up the natural capture and storage of carbon dioxide -- a planet-warming greenhouse gas. It is potentially big business with tech giants, airlines and fast fashion firms lining up to buy carbon credits from ERW projects to "offset" or cancel out their own emissions. What is ERW? by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo ERW aims to turbocharge a natural geological process called weathering. Weathering is the breakdown of rocks by carbonic acid, which forms when carbon dioxide in the air or soil dissolves into water. Weathering occurs naturally when rain falls on rocks, and the process can lock away carbon dioxide from the air or soil as bicarbonate, and eventually limestone. ERW speeds the process up by using quick-weathering rocks like basalt that are ground finely to increase their surface area. How effective is ERW? ERW is still a fairly new technology and there are questions about how much carbon it can remove. One US study found applying 50 tonnes of basalt to a hectare of land each year could remove up to 10.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare over a four-year period. But scientists applying basalt to oil palm fields in Malaysia and sugarcane fields in Australia measured much lower removal rates. "Field trials are showing that there have been overestimates of the amount and rate captured," said Paul Nelson, a soil scientist at James Cook University who has studied ERW. Rates depend on variables including rock type and size, how wet and hot the climate is, soil type and land management. And measuring the carbon captured is difficult. The most popular technique measures "cations", positively charged ions that are released from the rock during weathering. But those cations are produced regardless of which acid the rock has reacted with. "If there are stronger acids than carbonic, then it will react with those," said Nelson, so measurable cations are produced even when carbon dioxide is not captured. That doesn't mean ERW is pointless, said Wolfram Buss, a researcher on carbon dioxide removal at the Australian National University, just that it needs to be carefully calibrated and measured. "There is no doubt that this technique works," he said. "However, to be sure how much carbon dioxide we actually remove, more funding is required to do fundamental studies." Are there other benefits? The added rock increases soil alkalinity, which can boost crop growth, soil nutrients and soil formation. Basalt is both naturally abundant and often available as a byproduct of quarrying, lowering the costs of the process. Experts note that even if the rock reacts with other acids in the soil, failing to lock away carbon dioxide at that stage, it can still have planetary benefits. That is because acids in the soil would otherwise eventually wash into rivers and the sea, where acidification leads to the release of carbon dioxide. If the rock neutralises that acid in the soil, "you've prevented carbon dioxide being released from the water into the atmosphere downstream", said Nelson. The scale of those possible "prevented" emissions is not yet clear, however. What are the risks? ERW is broadly considered safe since it merely speeds up an existing natural process. However, some quick-weathering rocks have high levels of potentially poisonous heavy metals. Scattering finely ground rock also requires appropriate protective gear for those involved. But the main risk is that incorrect measurements overestimate captured carbon. Some projects are already selling carbon credits from ERW. If a company buys an ERW credit to "offset" its emissions but the process captures less than projected, it could result in net higher carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere. Where is ERW being done? Projects are happening in most parts of the world, including Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia. Earlier this year, a project in Brazil announced it had delivered the first-ever verified carbon-removal credits from an ERW project. The process is being used or trialled in agricultural settings from tea plantations in India's Darjeeling to US soy and maize fields. What investor interest is there? An ERW startup -- Mati Carbon, working in India -- won the $50 million X Prize for carbon removal projects earlier this year. In December, Google announced what was then the world's biggest ERW deal, for 200,000 tons of carbon removal credits, to be delivered by the early 2030s by startup Terradot. The cost of the deal was not disclosed but a separate agreement by Terradot with a company representing firms including H&M sold 90,000 tons for $27 million.
NDTV
24-06-2025
- Science
- NDTV
Rock On: How Crushed Stone Could Help Fight Climate Change
From sugar plantations in Brazil to tea estates in India, crushed rock is being sprinkled across large stretches of farmland globally in a novel bid to combat climate change. The technique is called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) and aims to speed up the natural capture and storage of carbon dioxide -- a planet-warming greenhouse gas. It is potentially big business with tech giants, airlines and fast fashion firms lining up to buy carbon credits from ERW projects to "offset" or cancel out their own emissions. What is ERW? ERW aims to turbocharge a natural geological process called weathering. Weathering is the breakdown of rocks by carbonic acid, which forms when carbon dioxide in the air or soil dissolves into water. Weathering occurs naturally when rain falls on rocks, and the process can lock away carbon dioxide from the air or soil as bicarbonate, and eventually limestone. ERW speeds the process up by using quick-weathering rocks like basalt that are ground finely to increase their surface area. How effective is ERW? ERW is still a fairly new technology and there are questions about how much carbon it can remove. One US study found applying 50 tonnes of basalt to a hectare of land each year could remove up to 10.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare over a four-year period. But scientists applying basalt to oil palm fields in Malaysia and sugarcane fields in Australia measured much lower removal rates. "Field trials are showing that there have been overestimates of the amount and rate captured," said Paul Nelson, a soil scientist at James Cook University who has studied ERW. Rates depend on variables including rock type and size, how wet and hot the climate is, soil type and land management. And measuring the carbon captured is difficult. The most popular technique measures "cations", positively charged ions that are released from the rock during weathering. But those cations are produced regardless of which acid the rock has reacted with. "If there are stronger acids than carbonic, then it will react with those," said Nelson, so measurable cations are produced even when carbon dioxide is not captured. That doesn't mean ERW is pointless, said Wolfram Buss, a researcher on carbon dioxide removal at the Australian National University, just that it needs to be carefully calibrated and measured. "There is no doubt that this technique works," he said. "However, to be sure how much carbon dioxide we actually remove, more funding is required to do fundamental studies." Are there other benefits? The added rock increases soil alkalinity, which can boost crop growth, soil nutrients and soil formation. Basalt is both naturally abundant and often available as a byproduct of quarrying, lowering the costs of the process. Experts note that even if the rock reacts with other acids in the soil, failing to lock away carbon dioxide at that stage, it can still have planetary benefits. That is because acids in the soil would otherwise eventually wash into rivers and the sea, where acidification leads to the release of carbon dioxide. If the rock neutralises that acid in the soil, "you've prevented carbon dioxide being released from the water into the atmosphere downstream", said Nelson. The scale of those possible "prevented" emissions is not yet clear, however. What are the risks? ERW is broadly considered safe since it merely speeds up an existing natural process. However, some quick-weathering rocks have high levels of potentially poisonous heavy metals. Scattering finely ground rock also requires appropriate protective gear for those involved. But the main risk is that incorrect measurements overestimate captured carbon. Some projects are already selling carbon credits from ERW. If a company buys an ERW credit to "offset" its emissions but the process captures less than projected, it could result in net higher carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere. Where is ERW being done? Projects are happening in most parts of the world, including Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia. Earlier this year, a project in Brazil announced it had delivered the first-ever verified carbon-removal credits from an ERW project. The process is being used or trialled in agricultural settings from tea plantations in India's Darjeeling to US soy and maize fields. What investor interest is there? An ERW startup -- Mati Carbon, working in India -- won the $50 million X Prize for carbon removal projects earlier this year. In December, Google announced what was then the world's biggest ERW deal, for 200,000 tons of carbon removal credits, to be delivered by the early 2030s by startup Terradot. The cost of the deal was not disclosed but a separate agreement by Terradot with a company representing firms including H&M sold 90,000 tons for $27 million.
France 24
24-06-2025
- Science
- France 24
Rock on: how crushed stone could help fight climate change
The technique is called Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) and aims to speed up the natural capture and storage of carbon dioxide -- a planet-warming greenhouse gas. It is potentially big business with tech giants, airlines and fast fashion firms lining up to buy carbon credits from ERW projects to "offset" or cancel out their own emissions. What is ERW? ERW aims to turbocharge a natural geological process called weathering. Weathering is the breakdown of rocks by carbonic acid, which forms when carbon dioxide in the air or soil dissolves into water. Weathering occurs naturally when rain falls on rocks, and the process can lock away carbon dioxide from the air or soil as bicarbonate, and eventually limestone. ERW speeds the process up by using quick-weathering rocks like basalt that are ground finely to increase their surface area. How effective is ERW? ERW is still a fairly new technology and there are questions about how much carbon it can remove. One US study found applying 50 tonnes of basalt to a hectare of land each year could remove up to 10.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare over a four-year period. But scientists applying basalt to oil palm fields in Malaysia and sugarcane fields in Australia measured much lower removal rates. "Field trials are showing that there have been overestimates of the amount and rate captured," said Paul Nelson, a soil scientist at James Cook University who has studied ERW. Rates depend on variables including rock type and size, how wet and hot the climate is, soil type and land management. And measuring the carbon captured is difficult. The most popular technique measures "cations", positively charged ions that are released from the rock during weathering. But those cations are produced regardless of which acid the rock has reacted with. "If there are stronger acids than carbonic, then it will react with those," said Nelson, so measurable cations are produced even when carbon dioxide is not captured. That doesn't mean ERW is pointless, said Wolfram Buss, a researcher on carbon dioxide removal at the Australian National University, just that it needs to be carefully calibrated and measured. "There is no doubt that this technique works," he said. "However, to be sure how much carbon dioxide we actually remove, more funding is required to do fundamental studies." Are there other benefits? The added rock increases soil alkalinity, which can boost crop growth, soil nutrients and soil formation. Basalt is both naturally abundant and often available as a byproduct of quarrying, lowering the costs of the process. Experts note that even if the rock reacts with other acids in the soil, failing to lock away carbon dioxide at that stage, it can still have planetary benefits. That is because acids in the soil would otherwise eventually wash into rivers and the sea, where acidification leads to the release of carbon dioxide. If the rock neutralises that acid in the soil, "you've prevented carbon dioxide being released from the water into the atmosphere downstream", said Nelson. The scale of those possible "prevented" emissions is not yet clear, however. What are the risks? ERW is broadly considered safe since it merely speeds up an existing natural process. However, some quick-weathering rocks have high levels of potentially poisonous heavy metals. Scattering finely ground rock also requires appropriate protective gear for those involved. But the main risk is that incorrect measurements overestimate captured carbon. Some projects are already selling carbon credits from ERW. If a company buys an ERW credit to "offset" its emissions but the process captures less than projected, it could result in net higher carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere. Where is ERW being done? Projects are happening in most parts of the world, including Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia. Earlier this year, a project in Brazil announced it had delivered the first-ever verified carbon-removal credits from an ERW project. The process is being used or trialled in agricultural settings from tea plantations in India's Darjeeling to US soy and maize fields. What investor interest is there? An ERW startup -- Mati Carbon, working in India -- won the $50 million X Prize for carbon removal projects earlier this year. In December, Google announced what was then the world's biggest ERW deal, for 200,000 tons of carbon removal credits, to be delivered by the early 2030s by startup Terradot. The cost of the deal was not disclosed but a separate agreement by Terradot with a company representing firms including H&M sold 90,000 tons for $27 million.
Time of India
10-06-2025
- Science
- Time of India
Could a giant nuclear bomb save the climate? One engineer thinks so, sparks viral debate
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.
