It doesn't seem to depend on where the carbon came from. It seems to depend only on the quantity of sedimentary rock formed.
She describes the supposed problem 15 minutes in. The quantity matters because of the amount of calcite (carbonates) that need to form, a slightly exothermic process. Where those carbonates are sourced is different for her model than for Walt Brown's, but she doesn't make the adjustment.
The estimate they give for this sedimentary rock formation and hardening is one trillion megatons TNT.
That's also assuming it all happened at the surface.
So how does that heat emission not cause true, non-survivable climate change (as opposed to all the fake survivable climate change hysterics common today)?
Because it does not appreciate the assumptions of HPT. The carbonates were precipitated in a sealed, subterranean chamber, not from organisms, as the evolutionary model assumes. The heat went into the water sealed inside the planet and converted to kinetic when it escaped.
That's why I suggested that the ocean basins were so hot that they instantly vaporized a lot of water up into the upper atmosphere, giving up heat to space, and condensing and falling back down as regular rain, perpetuating the Flood, until the heat from forming all that new limestone was gone.
The energy went to kinetic, not heat.
If you boil a pot of water and pour it on your hand, it'll hurt.
If you boil the water in a sealed container with a tiny nozzle and open the nozzle so that it sprays out (given the pressure), it will not burn you (as long as you're not right at the opening).
The energy went to kinetic.
But like I said it would take a miracle to keep the Flood going on the continents for 150 days, it would require the Flood wasn't entirely natural.
Why?