Daily Papers

We introduce a fully 3D, deep learning-based approach for the joint inversion of time-lapse surface gravity and seismic data for reconstructing subsurface density and velocity models. The target application of this proposed inversion approach is the prediction of subsurface CO2 plumes as a complementary tool for monitoring CO2 sequestration deployments. Our joint inversion technique outperforms deep learning-based gravity-only and seismic-only inversion models, achieving improved density and velocity reconstruction, accurate segmentation, and higher R-squared coefficients. These results indicate that deep learning-based joint inversion is an effective tool for CO_2 storage monitoring. Future work will focus on validating our approach with larger datasets, simulations with other geological storage sites, and ultimately field data.

Confronting the escalating threat of climate change requires innovative and large-scale interventions. This paper presents a bold proposal to employ a buried nuclear explosion in a remote basaltic seabed for pulverizing basalt, thereby accelerating carbon sequestration through Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW). 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. Our analysis outlines the parameters essential for efficient carbon capture and minimal collateral effects, emphasizing that a yield on the order of gigatons is critical for global climate impact. Although this approach may appear radical, we illustrate its feasibility by examining safety factors, preservation of local ecosystems, political considerations, and financial viability. This work argues for reimagining nuclear technology not merely as a destructive force but as a potential catalyst for decarbonization, thereby inviting further exploration of pioneering solutions in the fight against climate change.

As energy systems transform to rely on renewable energy and electrification, they encounter stronger year-to-year variability in energy supply and demand. However, most infrastructure planning is based on a single weather year, resulting in a lack of robustness. In this paper, we optimize energy infrastructure for a European energy system designed for net-zero CO_2 emissions in 62 different weather years. Subsequently, we fix the capacity layouts and simulate their operation in every weather year, to evaluate resource adequacy and CO_2 emissions abatement. We show that interannual weather variability causes variation of pm10\% in total system cost. The most expensive capacity layout obtains the lowest net CO_2 emissions but not the highest resource adequacy. Instead, capacity layouts designed with years including compound weather events result in a more robust and cost-effective design. Deploying CO_2-emitting backup generation is a cost-effective robustness measure, which only increase CO_2 emissions marginally as the average CO_2 emissions remain less than 1\% of 1990 levels. Our findings highlight how extreme weather years drive investments in robustness measures, making them compatible with all weather conditions within six decades of historical weather data.

Grid decarbonization for climate change requires dispatchable carbon-free energy like nuclear fusion. The tokamak concept offers a promising path for fusion, but one of the foremost challenges in implementation is the occurrence of energetic plasma disruptions. In this study, we delve into Machine Learning approaches to predict plasma state outcomes. Our contributions are twofold: (1) We present a novel application of Continuous Convolutional Neural Networks for disruption prediction and (2) We examine the advantages and disadvantages of continuous models over discrete models for disruption prediction by comparing our model with the previous, discrete state of the art, and show that continuous models offer significantly better performance (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve = 0.974 v.s. 0.799) with fewer parameters