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

Post by WhatIsDukkha » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

avodonosov wrote: post #79

dieselgate wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust any engineer who responds with an “it depends..” over someone who has an absolute answer. Stainless would probably do ok but I’d assume stone or fiberglass/FRP would be superior over time out in the elements. But not the best stuff to build a house with. Oh what about titanium? Edit: lol oh well even timber structures Can last a millenium if maintained

Why not simply use gold?

Post by roywiggins » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:48 PM UTC

dieselgate wrote: post #75

elil17 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I trust any engineer who responds with an “it depends..” over someone who has an absolute answer. Stainless would probably do ok but I’d assume stone or fiberglass/FRP would be superior over time out in the elements. But not the best stuff to build a house with. Oh what about titanium? Edit: lol oh well even timber structures Can last a millenium if maintained

Post by elil17 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:49 PM UTC

dieselgate wrote: post #75

elil17 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I trust any engineer who responds with an “it depends..” over someone who has an absolute answer. Stainless would probably do ok but I’d assume stone or fiberglass/FRP would be superior over time out in the elements. But not the best stuff to build a house with. Oh what about titanium? Edit: lol oh well even timber structures Can last a millenium if maintained

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

dieselgate wrote: post #75

elil17 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I trust any engineer who responds with an “it depends..” over someone who has an absolute answer. Stainless would probably do ok but I’d assume stone or fiberglass/FRP would be superior over time out in the elements. But not the best stuff to build a house with. Oh what about titanium? Edit: lol oh well even timber structures Can last a millenium if maintained

Post by 77pt77 » Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

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…