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

91–100 of 191 posts

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

#91

Post by thesis »

GuB-42 wrote: post #65

Short answer: no For a slightly longer answer, here is the conclusion of the article: Trying to build an enormous geothermal power plant and associated transmission lines(!) in one of the most beloved National Parks(!!), which there’s specifically a law against (!!!), and which could potentially trigger a civilization-destroying volcanic eruption (!!!!) is like the final boss of the permitting reform movement. Also,…

Anytime soon is one thing, but "If at all"? It's been happening for millions of years, and it sure seems like there still "activity" there.

Not sure what kind of scientist could say they don't expect it to ever erupt again?

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

#92

Post by rurp »

elil17 wrote: post #36
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 o…

Not to mention, we know how to build structures that can last 1,000 years because it has already been done before! Using a dubious material in place of a known good one is not the best engineering approach.

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

#93

Post by elil17 »

sbierwagen wrote: post #55
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 mean, it would be exposed to the normal conditions any residential construction is exposed to. How often is your house dunked into seawater? 800 years from now something terrible could happen that turns all the rain into sulfuric acid but then all residential buildings everywhere are screwed.

Over that long a time period it could be damaged just by rain - it's hard to say because corrosion tests aren't done with respect to a 1000 year operating life in mild conditions. I'm sure an expert could figure that out, but it would require looking at the corrosion rate of the specific steel, the exposure to any kind of forces that could damage the oxide layer (e.g. scratches), and the thickness of the member.

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

#94

Post by tvb12 »

elil17 wrote: post #36
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 o…

Straying off topic, are there any discussions going the opposite way? Is it possible to build a structure that lasts maybe 10 or 15 years, then either disassembles or decomposes without too much damage to the surrounding area? Something actually livable, and nicer than a tent.

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

#95

Post by Arrath »

tvb12 wrote: post #94
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…

Straying off topic, are there any discussions going the opposite way? Is it possible to build a structure that lasts maybe 10 or 15 years, then either disassembles or decomposes without too much damage to the surrounding area? Something actually livable, and nicer than a tent.

Mud bricks, wattle and daub, thatch, and the like? Then build out the interior with rough sawn planks.

What's old is new again!

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

#96

Post by mikem170 »

elil17 wrote: post #86
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

Fiberglass/FRP is an interesting one. I believe the limiting factor there would be that the polymers used would slowly degrade/weaken over time due to chemical aging. Fiberglass boats last up to 50 years but that is in a harsher environment - not sure how long you could go on land. Perhaps some polymers could be formulated to last that long, I'm not sure.

UV from sunlight degrades fiberglass/FRP over time. I believe that boats are painted to protect them from this, and need to be recoated periodically because the uv sunlight will degrade the paint eventually, also.

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

#97

Post by elil17 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #59
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…

> because it "has extremely high corrosion resistance." Isn't this true though? Especially relative to other materials that can corrode? It seems like you're reacting as if he said it _cant_ corrode.

In general, it's true compared to other metals. Compared to other materials in general (e.g., glass) it's certainly not true. Over the scale of a thousand years, there could be a big difference between something that is corrosion resistant (stainless steel) and something that doesn't corrode at all.

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

#98

Post by dexwiz »

dylan604 wrote: post #52
erulabs wrote: 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.

>I wouldn’t want to be operating the drill This is where AI applications could actually be of benefit. Also, instead of sending Harry Stamper and a bunch of misfit roughnecks to some asteroid of doom, we could just train AI on Harry's knowledge of deep well drilling. It'll be fine.

Why do we need AI for this when remote controlled operations would work just fine, especially terrestrially?

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

#99

Post by zzzeek »

_uhtu wrote: post #77

Just so everyone knows, the whole "Yellowstone is a supervolcano that could erupt any minute and cause cataclysmic effects on the planet" is just not true. It was made up for TV "documentaries". Yellowstone does not pose any real threat to society at large. Volcanologists are practically unanimous in that belief. See this video for more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypn3Fe_PLts

why did what we would presume are fairly professional level engineers and scientists at JPL (at least not working for TV "documentaries") write a whole paper called "DEFENDING HUMAN CIVILIZATION FROM SUPERVOLCANIC ERUPTIONS" which has all of its emphasis on Yellowstone?

https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/file...

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

#100

Post by Quillbert182 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #63
Quillbert182 wrote: post #60

Even if we could, to do so would be an ecological disaster, and it would destroy the natural wonders of Yellowstone.

Ultimately it's a giant volcano that's going to eradicate anything within a few hundred miles with the force of a nuclear blast. As ridiculous as it sounds, if we can find a way to diffuse it that does a lot more for both the natural world, and for the humans that live in proximity to it.

If the chances of that happening in the next 1000 years are one in a million, I would say it is absolutely not worth it.
Post reply on HN