 "How a researcher plans to save the planet by detonating a nuke on the ocean floor")
An out-of-the-box idea to counter climate change has surfaced from an unlikely source — Andy Haverly, a 25-year-old software engineer with no formal background in climate or nuclear science.
Published in January earlier this year on the open-access platform arXiv, Haverly’s paper puts forward an extreme method: burying and detonating a nuclear device deep beneath the seafloor to trigger a massive carbon capture process.
“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 states.
The method revolves around using the raw power of a nuclear detonation to pulverise basalt rock — abundant on the ocean floor — thereby accelerating a natural process known as Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), which binds carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into solid minerals.
What is the proposal?
At the heart of the proposal lies the unprecedented yield of the nuclear device Haverly envisions.
The study calls for a blast of 81 gigatonnes, which is more than 1,600 times the explosive force of the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated, tested by the Soviet Union in 1961.
The target for this operation is the Kerguelen Plateau, a remote basalt-rich region in the Southern Ocean. According to the study, the nuclear device would need to be buried 3 to 5 kilometres into the basaltic seabed, which itself lies 6 to 8 kilometers beneath the ocean surface.
This depth, combined with water pressure of up to 800 atmospheres, would act as a natural buffer, containing the explosive force and localising its effects.
“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.
The method’s core aim is to accelerate basalt’s chemical interaction with CO₂, a process that already occurs in nature over geological time scales. Haverly proposes artificially speeding it up on an enormous scale.
What will the plan require?
Haverly’s calculations are based on several key assumptions drawn from existing scientific literature.
The model assumes that humanity emits approximately 36 gigatonnes of CO₂ annually and aims to sequester 30 years’ worth of these emissions — around 1.08 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
To accomplish this, the paper estimates that 3.86 trillion tonnes of basalt would need to be pulverised.
This figure is derived using ERW models, which suggest that one ton of basalt can sequester 0.28 tonnes of CO₂. Pulverising this much basalt would require an estimated 3.05 × 10²⁰ joules of energy — equivalent to an 81-gigatonne nuclear explosion.
The detonation’s efficiency is assumed to be 90 per cent in pulverising basalt, based on past modelling of nuclear impacts on geological material.
Is there previous research on this?
The proposal echoes mid-20th-century nuclear research. Between 1957 and 1977, the United States pursued Project Plowshare, a programme that tested the application of nuclear explosions for civil engineering.
One of the most famous events, the 1962 “Sedan” test, created a crater more than 300 metres wide and spread radioactive fallout across several states.
Project Sedan, a Plowshare Program test, left quite the mark! 😲
— Atomic Museum (@AtomicMuseum) January 29, 2024
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) created The Plowshare Program, in June 1957, to explore the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Project Sedan became the 2nd and largest Plowshare experiment. pic.twitter.com/tdn7nnvQcC
Project Plowshare intended to create artificial harbours, canals and mine pits. Despite its ambition, it was eventually discontinued due to public opposition, environmental consequences and limited success.
Haverly’s plan draws conceptually from these tests but differs in its specific aim — carbon capture through rock pulverisation, rather than excavation.
What about safety concerns?
Although the proposed detonation would dwarf previous nuclear tests, the study insists that the risk to human life and global ecosystems is manageable — if not minimal.
The paper states: “Few or no loss of life due to the immediate effects of radiation.” It also includes a disclaimer about long-term consequences, admitting the project “will impact people and cause losses.”
Nonetheless, Haverly downplays the scale of fallout, stating, “this increase in radiation would be, according to Haverly, ‘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 mitigate radiological impact, the paper recommends using a standard fission-fusion hydrogen bomb, optimised to reduce persistent radioactive contamination. The surrounding basalt is expected to trap and contain most of the emitted radiation locally.
Even so, the detonation would render a section of the seabed “uninhabitable for decades”, according to the study.
The total affected area would be restricted to a few dozen square kilometres, minimising ecosystem destruction compared to the widespread environmental disruption projected from unchecked climate change.
Is it worth the risk in the long term?
The proposal positions this destruction as a tolerable trade-off when compared to the catastrophic effects of a warming planet. The report argues that climate change will pose a far more extensive and persistent threat to global ecosystems by the year 2100.
Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and extreme weather events are already contributing to biodiversity loss and food insecurity.
In this context, the local environmental cost of the explosion, the study suggests, is justified by the potential for large-scale carbon sequestration.
The idea has emerged as the world increasingly entertains controversial geoengineering solutions. The United Kingdom’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) has backed an experimental programme worth £50 million to explore sunlight-dimming methods, including stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening.
These strategies aim to temporarily cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or enhancing the reflectivity of oceanic clouds.
How much will the plan cost?
Beyond environmental trade-offs, Haverly’s proposal touts its cost-effectiveness.
According to the study, the nuclear device would cost approximately $10 billion, while climate change-related damage is projected to exceed $100 trillion by the year 2100, based on estimates by IPCC and economists like Nicholas Stern.
“This is a 10,000x return on investment,” the paper argues. The author suggests that even though the proposal is “radical,” it offers immense economic value, particularly if executed in time to prevent worst-case climate scenarios.
Haverly also sets a tight timeline, proposing that the explosion could be deployed within a decade, pending testing, design and political approval.
Can this method succeed?
The study lays out several conditional assumptions necessary for the success of this idea:
That the detonation will not trigger a global catastrophe.
That the device is too large for military use and would not escalate global tensions.
That current climate trajectories continue without major decarbonisation breakthroughs.
That the explosion can sequester 30 years of CO₂ emissions.
Haverly maintains that this proposal must be evaluated seriously, not as an act of desperation, but as a calculated intervention. “This is not to be taken lightly,” he warns in the study, acknowledging both its potential and its dangers.
The conclusion summarises the proposition as a scientifically structured yet radical climate mitigation strategy. “By specifying the necessary parameters, we demonstrate the potential for effective carbon sequestration while minimising adverse side effects,” the paper states.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
