Live data from Hacker News

Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

constructionphysics.substack.com

21–30 of 191 posts

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#21
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah not to mention the construction of the plant itself! I wouldn’t want to be operating the drill that punctures the magma chambers! I’m optimistic. If we spent less time engineering society and more time engineering the earth, I think we’d all be a lot happier.

The JPL plan doesn't actually puncture the magma chambers.

I felt the ignorance in my fingers even as I typed it. That's awesome!

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#22
The article makes the common (and grating) error of conflating power (1.5 gigawatts) and energy (power over time). Put another way, "1.5 gigawatts" does not in any way describe a rate. Do they mean 1.5 gigawatts per hour? or per day? or per year?

I'm referring to this section: ...the rate that energy builds below the volcano is only around 1.5 gigawatts - less heat than a typical power plant sheds. Yellowstone currently bleeds heat at a rate of about 4.5 to 6 gigawatts, mostly through heated water moving below the surface.

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#24
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betteridge's law of headlines aside. I feel like the scale of the topic is almost completely human inconceivable when trying to tie it to a realistic engineering task. It seems like a fun what-if, but when you do that you are using making giant hand waving excuses, and not anything that looks like a factual claim.

Agreed. Geothermal energy can be cheap and awesome, but there are reasons why it's only practical in certain parts of the world.

The article states that the JPL plan only considers the energy generation to be a useful byproduct.

If the risk were truly imminent and quantifiable, I assume it would be pursued however absurdly exotic and fanciful it seemed on its face.

On the other hand, defusing a volcano on a timeline of a thousand years or longer would be politically challenging. That might see the dissolution and construction of multiple states (here, electric power generation may help assure survival). Add in that civilization can't seem to get its head on straight about comparatively faster-acting climate change, for example, and can barely prepare for an earthquake.

At least imagining an exploding apocalyptic supervolcano may elicit more visceral emotions.

Still, it doesn't appear there's much cause for worry so it's only a brainstorm.

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#25
post #22

The article makes the common (and grating) error of conflating power (1.5 gigawatts) and energy (power over time). Put another way, "1.5 gigawatts" does not in any way describe a rate. Do they mean 1.5 gigawatts per hour? or per day? or per year? I'm referring to this section: ...the rate that energy builds below the volcano is only around 1.5 gigawatts - less heat than a typical power plant sheds. Yellowstone curren…

Watts are a rate. Joules per second.

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#26
post #22

The article makes the common (and grating) error of conflating power (1.5 gigawatts) and energy (power over time). Put another way, "1.5 gigawatts" does not in any way describe a rate. Do they mean 1.5 gigawatts per hour? or per day? or per year? I'm referring to this section: ...the rate that energy builds below the volcano is only around 1.5 gigawatts - less heat than a typical power plant sheds. Yellowstone curren…

You made a correct assertion initially "power (1.5 gigawatts) and energy (power over time)," but then failed to use it correctly. 1.5 gigawatts is a rate, of 1.5 billion joules per second.

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#27
post #22

The article makes the common (and grating) error of conflating power (1.5 gigawatts) and energy (power over time). Put another way, "1.5 gigawatts" does not in any way describe a rate. Do they mean 1.5 gigawatts per hour? or per day? or per year? I'm referring to this section: ...the rate that energy builds below the volcano is only around 1.5 gigawatts - less heat than a typical power plant sheds. Yellowstone curren…

[deleted]

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#28

"If heat could be bled off of the magma chambers, cooling and solidifying them, not only would that stop the volcano from erupting..." Where does the confidence to make this claim come from? I can imagine that the consequence of this might actually just be strengthening the "barrier" the magma has to erupt through, and when it finally builds up enough energy to do that, it'll be stronger in proportion to how strong t…

> I can imagine that the consequence of this might actually just be strengthening the "barrier" the magma has to erupt through, and when it finally builds up enough energy to do that, it'll be stronger in proportion to how strong the newly cooled down barrier had become? Certainly the movie version has the one rogue scientist working late into the night redoing the calculations and realizing that as soon as the plant…

> Certainly the movie version has the one rogue scientist working late into the night redoing the calculations and realizing that as soon as the plant goes live it will trigger the volcano.

Jor El in any number of them.

Re: Could we stop Yellowstone from erupting with a giant geothermal power plant?

#29
post #4

"If heat could be bled off of the magma chambers, cooling and solidifying them, not only would that stop the volcano from erupting..." Where does the confidence to make this claim come from? I can imagine that the consequence of this might actually just be strengthening the "barrier" the magma has to erupt through, and when it finally builds up enough energy to do that, it'll be stronger in proportion to how strong t…

Yeah not to mention the construction of the plant itself! I wouldn’t want to be operating the drill that punctures the magma chambers! I’m optimistic. If we spent less time engineering society and more time engineering the earth, I think we’d all be a lot happier.

> I wouldn’t want to be operating the drill that punctures the magma chambers!

Years of Dwarf Fortress have prepared me for this moment.

Post reply on HN