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

161–170 of 191 posts

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

#161

Post by smegger001 »

magicalhippo wrote: post #151
elcritch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still concrete will still last longer than most other materials. The biggest issue with modern concrete construction is the usage of reenforced concrete using iron or steel rebar which tends to corrode quickly. Reenforced concrete seems to have a half life of ~50 years.

Will be interesting to see how carbon-fiber reinforced concrete[1] fares in comparison. [1]: https://www.compositesworld.com/news/tprc-research-studies-v...

stainless steel rebar and polymer coated rebar are also options for reinforcing concrete that have a lot of potential, as the issues is moister induced rusting of the rust rebar expanding and cracking the concrete there are multiple solutions that i don't know that we have data on the long term durability of yet. I wonder how one would go about artificially aging something embedded within a block of concrete to test for that.

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

#162

Post by koheripbal »

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,…

The issue is drilling into a very deep magma chamber. It's not like drilling the edge of a balloon. It's more like drilling into progressively softer jello. The hole will collapse on itself before you can release a useful amount of heat.

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

#163

Post by koheripbal »

bee_rider wrote: post #143

I’m in favor of free geothermal energy, but we should consider the risks—imagine if we built a big geothermal plant, only to find that we messed with the pressure too much and prevented a giant eruption that could have saved us from Wyoming, Iowa, and Montana.

It's neither shallow enough to make geothermal energy , nor fragile enough to risk a "burst"

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

#164

Post by maxerickson »

wongarsu wrote: post #159
nonethewiser wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are you suggesting a non corrosive material would outlast stainless steel? Otherwise I don’t see the point in your distinction. Obviously your example of glass wouldn’t. I guess I would have thought stone would last longer.

We have a lot of stone or concrete buildings from 2000 years ago still standing, and even more from 1000 years ago, so those would be safe bets. No surprises there. There's a glass window just shy of 1000 years old in a Cathedral in Germany, and other slightly younger ones scattered here and there, so glass definitely can make it. It just isn't very impact resistant, and it's also a fairly new material so there are f…

The really impressive ones haven't even had any maintenance done.

(Of course they have all had lots of maintenance done...)

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

#165

Post by rurp »

iudqnolq wrote: post #141
xg15 wrote: post #134

I found the whole issue of Yellowstone being "overdue" becoming significantly less urgent when I learned that by that definition, it was already overdue back when humans were still hunting wooly mammoths with sticks.

The whole overdue thing is also a logically fallacy. If something has an x% chance of happening per year and it hasn't happened for many years it has an x% change of happening next year, not some greater percentage.

The odds of some natural event happening aren't always independent from year to year. If a volcano eruption is caused by a buildup of pressure past a certain threshold, and pressure is actively building in an area, then going longer than expected without an eruption absolutely would increase the chances for upcoming years.

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

#167

Post by zzzeek »

_uhtu wrote: post #132
zzzeek wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Kinda weird to just go for an argument of authority huh? I'd recommend watching the video for a non-authority based series of arguments based on multiple sources and a lot of data. Anyway, the reason they wrote that paper is probably because they are talking about extreme hypotheticals themselves. Notice how their comparison is that it's twice as likely as a 2km asteroid impact, which are once in every few million ye…

I watched it and sure it makes sense but I'm an idiot, and so do climate change denial videos if I don't look up counterarguments.

That's what I didn't get about that video, all these laypeople are like "great!". Like sure, a once in a 600k year event, and maybe not even that, great . Doesn't mean some generation of humans or otherwise arent going to get whacked someday

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

#169

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

It’s funny because many buildings exist for 500-3000 years in various forms, and they are all some variant of brick, compressed earth or stone.

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

#170

Post by Spooky23 »

breischl wrote: post #111
roywiggins wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stone and adobe, in the right conditions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_Puebloan_dwellings

In those conditions even plain, untreated wood lasts a long time. Many of those structures still have wood beams in pretty good condition. ie, the durability of those structures is more due to where they are, than what they are made of.

It depends on whether they are occupied or not. I worked on an upstate New York farm with a barn that was post and beam, with a stone foundation. It was ~350 years old but had a good roof for that entire time.
Post reply on HN