Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 114 posts

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#51

Post by danieltillett »

Iv wrote: post #47
danieltillett wrote: post #45

How about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to the food supply and right now if anything happens in the northern summer we are totally screwed.

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

This wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#52

Post by stevenwoo »

m_mueller wrote: post #37
stevenwoo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty good hypothesis with some backing in the genetic record and the timing of the event, the wikipedia says somewhere between 2000-20000 breeding individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory Not sure where humanity was on the evolution timeline for the last Yellowstone eruption, but our ancestors somehow got through that, too.

Wasn't it discredited with the finding of human remains above and below the ash layer in India?

The wikipedia article mentions that there are similar stone tools above and below the ash layer in India so that it may be that the Toba eruption did not kill everyone in India even though it was local to India.

So it could be could be coincidence on the timing of the Toba eruption and the genetic narrowing down of the human race at almost the same time. But something happened 70,000 years ago, if not Toba, what was it? Maybe the onset of the ice age + Toba + other things occurring close together in time.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#53

Post by abofh »

danieltillett wrote: post #51
Iv wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

This wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.

Nor would it really work in practice. Reducing the population would reduce demand (eaters), which would eventually lead to a reduction in supply (Farmers).

Moreover, wrt to the 72 days raised by ggpp, one would just shrink the surplus to 72 days for the smaller population.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#54

Post by Houshalter »

Iv wrote: post #47
danieltillett wrote: post #45

How about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to the food supply and right now if anything happens in the northern summer we are totally screwed.

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

We are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#55

Post by gldhfjcufuffi »

phkahler wrote: post #14

This just looks like an attempt to get geothermal energy from Yellowstone. The 6GW power getting out of the ground now is really nothing compared to the energy that's down there. Thermal conduction and fluid transport are what allows the energy to the surface. Adding geo-thermal power generation would increase energy dissipated but would do little to actually change the geologic situation. I suspect if you asked powe…

fwiw the amount of heat liberated will probably be about 3x the electrical power output. your point stands though

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#56

Post by danieltillett »

Houshalter wrote: post #54
Iv wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

We are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.

Us rich people will probably be fine (unless the situation was decades long), but many people in the world won't be able to pay the higher prices. If you are currently spending 70% of your income on food and prices triple then you will starve.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#57

Post by Spooky23 »

Iv wrote: post #47
danieltillett wrote: post #45

How about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to the food supply and right now if anything happens in the northern summer we are totally screwed.

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

We're good on a pretty dull razor.

Food insecurity is purely a function of the inefficiency of our society's means of food distribution.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#58

Post by Spooky23 »

exabrial wrote: post #26
yongjik wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, did you just claim centrally planned projects are disasters, and propose to use nationwide highway/pipeline network instead?

Yes! The subtle point being that our pipelines/highways already exist, and I'd love to shove something besides oil down the pipelines.

I missed where the interstate highway system was a spontaneous, uncoordinated series of projects that individual states and private entities took up on their own!

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#59

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

cstejerean wrote: post #41

I think this post does a pretty good job of addressing why the thought experiment will remain in the realm of science fiction. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/225...

I disagree. I'll take this sentence:

> When all is said and done, a massive eruption at Yellowstone, or any other caldera for that matter, isn’t a question we should answer by trying to stop it. Instead, we need to build resilience into our society to survive after such an event.

Why? This doesn't make much sense to me. Seems much better to prevent a giant catastrophe from happening in the first place than trying to pick up the pieces when it's done (an ounce of prevention and all that).

Furthermore, his arguments get totally hand-wavy when it comes to whether a power plant could remove heat fast enough to prevent an eruption. At the end of the day, all you need is a higher wattage out than in, and I see no reason that would be impossible.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#60

Post by Axsuul »

stevenwoo wrote: post #12
Axsuul wrote: post #11

The advantages may be obvious but it all comes down to unit economics. How do costs per MW compare to something like coal, hydro, wind, or solar? And let's not forget the risk assessment that needs to be done in case the supervolcano does in fact explode, or even hiccup. Will it destroy or incapacitate the energy generating facilities?

Isn't the Yellowstone eruption essentially the same as the dinosaur ending meteorite event? Wouldn't most humans die except for those that could live off of stored foods/what could be raised off of stored food for a couple of years until the sun is visible again ala The Road (besides immediately killing a large percentage of Americans)?

But what if it didn't erupt entirely and only partially erupted?
Post reply on HN