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

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

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 191 posts

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

#31

Post by phkahler »

jdblair wrote: 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…

>> Do they mean 1.5 gigawatts per hour? or per day? or per year?

1.5 gigawatts is 1.5 billion joules per second. If you sustain that power for 2 hours it will produce 3 gigawatt-hours of energy.

1 watt-hr is 3600 joules because 1J/s for 3600 seconds.

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

#32

Post by mlsu »

jdblair wrote: 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…

Huh? A watt is a joule per second, [energy/time]. They are describing rates.

If you build a 1.5 GW heat engine on top of Yellowstone (assuming it's possible) the energy that builds below the volcano is 0, because you captured it and turned some of it into electricity, and dumped the waste heat into a river or the atmosphere.

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

#34

Post by [deleted] »

jdblair wrote: 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?

#35

Post by [deleted] »

jdblair wrote: 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?

#36

Post by elil17 »

its_ethan wrote: post #2

"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 have a lot of skepticism about anything I read from constructionphysics.substack.com. I'm a mechanical engineer, not a civil engineer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but it reads like it's written by someone who does not have a solid understanding of engineering fundamentals. For example, they suggested in their "How to design a house to last for 1,000 years" series that you'd want to build such a house out of stainless steel because it "has extremely high corrosion resistance." Even my introductory courses in materials science it is very clear that stainless steel might last for 1,000 years, but it would depend entirely on the environmental conditions and the type of stainless used.

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

#38

Post by wlesieutre »

jdblair wrote: 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…

Gigawatts is a rate, which gets multiplied by an amount of time to measure an amount of energy.

That's why your energy bill is based on kilowatt-hours. If you have a device that consumes power at a rate of one kilowatt (say a toaster oven) and you run it for one hour, that's one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy.

Post reply on HN