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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by erdle »

Iv wrote: post #49
exabrial wrote: post #18

The other problem not mentioned: Yellowstone is the middle of fricken nowhere. Electricity is hard to send long distances and central planning projects have shown to be their own disasters time-and-time again through history. "This time around though" we have more established population centers so maybe we can pull it off? Not sure! If the power could be produced cheap enough, it might pay off to maintain the massive…

We know how to transmit power over long distance with 10-15% loss.

dont say it

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

#72

Post by elihu »

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.

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation?

I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them.

Long term, it's all about being able to have enough indoor hydroponic/aeroponic space to grow enough food for ~7.5 billion people, which sounds really difficult and impractical.

I find it interesting that one possible benefit of Elon Musk's Mars plan is that the same space/energy/resource efficient food production technology that will be needed on Mars is the same technology we would need on Earth in order to ride out certain catastrophes. By creating an interplanetary "insurance policy" to ensure human survival, we may improve our ability to survive on Earth.

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

#73

Post by njarboe »

Reason077 wrote: post #28
exabrial wrote: post #18

The other problem not mentioned: Yellowstone is the middle of fricken nowhere. Electricity is hard to send long distances and central planning projects have shown to be their own disasters time-and-time again through history. "This time around though" we have more established population centers so maybe we can pull it off? Not sure! If the power could be produced cheap enough, it might pay off to maintain the massive…

"Imagine being able to "ship" electricity on conventional roads, or even in existing pipelines, much the way we do with hydrocarbons." That's why people get excited about Hydrogen. Surplus energy can be used to produce H2 via electrolysis. The process is pretty inefficient, but that perhaps doesn't matter if the energy source is abundant enough. However, the infrastructure required for H2 distribution would be expens…

You can also produce hydrocarbons from water and air and use the existing infrastructure and vehicles.

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

#74

Post by mrschwabe »

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…

Indeed, as it seems NASA's best capability is to 'get free money from the government' (not volcano nor space exploration as many would expect).

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

#75

Post by wallace_f »

farseer wrote: post #2

The Afghanistan campaign costs about 3 billion a month, so drilling a volcano for a similar amount shouldn't break the bank. This will contribute far more to our security!

Wolf Blitzer at CNN tells us that it's actually a moral problem to stop funding war because defense contractors will lose jobs.

Source: https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-...

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

#76

Post by danieltillett »

elihu wrote: post #72
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.

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them.…

The alternative is we build up a stockpile of food in a similar way to the US strategic oil stockpile. If oil is worth having in storage in case something bad happens it would seem obvious that food should be in the same category.

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

#77

Post by petre »

Reason077 wrote: post #28
exabrial wrote: post #18

The other problem not mentioned: Yellowstone is the middle of fricken nowhere. Electricity is hard to send long distances and central planning projects have shown to be their own disasters time-and-time again through history. "This time around though" we have more established population centers so maybe we can pull it off? Not sure! If the power could be produced cheap enough, it might pay off to maintain the massive…

"Imagine being able to "ship" electricity on conventional roads, or even in existing pipelines, much the way we do with hydrocarbons." That's why people get excited about Hydrogen. Surplus energy can be used to produce H2 via electrolysis. The process is pretty inefficient, but that perhaps doesn't matter if the energy source is abundant enough. However, the infrastructure required for H2 distribution would be expens…

H2 can be converted to DME (dimethylether) and then transported like LPG. DME is a much cleaner diesel replacement.

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

#78

Post by elihu »

danieltillett wrote: post #76
elihu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them.…

The alternative is we build up a stockpile of food in a similar way to the US strategic oil stockpile. If oil is worth having in storage in case something bad happens it would seem obvious that food should be in the same category.

That does seem like a sensible plan.

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

#79

Post by BinaryIdiot »

danieltillett wrote: post #76
elihu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them.…

The alternative is we build up a stockpile of food in a similar way to the US strategic oil stockpile. If oil is worth having in storage in case something bad happens it would seem obvious that food should be in the same category.

Food spoils so a stockpile like that isn't quite feasible. Sure we'll be able to get some foods that store well and can last for years but that's a small subset of food and even that food not all of it lasts for more than two years.

It's just not realistic. Sure we can significantly enlarge our buffer but two or more years? I can't see that happening in any practical sense.

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

#80

Post by BinaryIdiot »

elihu wrote: post #72
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.

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them.…

> Long term, it's all about being able to have enough indoor hydroponic/aeroponic space to grow enough food for ~7.5 billion people, which sounds really difficult and impractical.

I can't find the research I read a few years ago but from what I understand growing indoors is crazy practical. Plants need less sun light, essentially zero pesticides, can grow much faster and if you build your structures vertically you'll be able to farm the same amount of food on orders of magnitude less space.

I don't know if we're at the point where it can be practical today, especially with so much subsidy in farming, but I'm very optimistic about it moving to automated systems within buildings that wouldn't even need the sun.

Post reply on HN