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

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

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 137 posts

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

#81

Post by jacquesm »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #52
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. The reason is that even though we are probably capable of doing so we lack the responsibility required to do this without the chance of massive negative side effects. Every time we've upped the scale in our abilities it has only resulted in more damage, not quite balanced out by more progress. This is a real problem: we can get ourselves into the kind of trouble that we don't seem to be able to get ourselves…

The problem is that inaction is also fraught. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Some time ago scientists were concerned that the Earth was headed into another ice age. Then we started burning all of this carbon, so that's not happening anymore. Great, catastrophe averted. Now we're burning way too much and going hard the other way. Damn it. Okay, so the status quo is no good, maybe we shoul…

That's a fair point, however, action has often much clearer short term consequences than inaction, and the consequences of inaction can be studied at leisure because action always is still an option. But once you've done your action thingy you can't go back to what it was like before.

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

#82

Post by bondarchuk »

jtriangle wrote: post #16
fooker wrote: post #8

Could we trigger an eruption by extensive drilling in/around the magma chamber?

No, it's not like a balloon, an eruption isn't the earth popping, it's an upheaval from the mantle eventually surfacing through a weak spot that causes it.

"an upheaval from the mantle eventually surfacing through a weak spot" sounds like a more technical way of saying "the earth popping like a balloon". I'm prepared to believe there are differences but your explanation doesn't really convey them to me.

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

#83

Post by Someone »

habinero wrote: post #69
fooker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upheaval is the load bearing word in your sentence. This is what causes the extreme pressures. Anything to relieve the pressure can, by definition, cause an eruption if there is an inadvertent feedback loop.

I've seen several professional geologists answer this question, and no, really, volcanos don't work that way. For one, the scale is way, way too big. It's like stabbing an elephant with a needle and expecting it to bleed out. Also, the dangerous type of magma is extremely viscous and gas-rich. It doesn't flow like Hawaiian lava does.

But in this case, we want the elephant to (significantly) bleed out, so won’t we need a BIG needle?

If you want to move lots of heat away fast, you either need a big pipe or a very high flow rate.

“Gas-rich”, to me, also sounds as if it would be more dangerous.

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

#86

Post by pram »

jconnop wrote: post #36
michaelbrave wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

half jokingly I thought "so we just need 160 power plants to bring it down to 100 years"

In the article it's said the proposal already included 160 plants in a big ring around yellowstone, resulting in the 16,000 years figure. So to get it down to 100 years you'd need 160^2 = 25,600 geothermal plants. Perfectly reasonable, let's do it.

The Factorio method of problem solving, I like it.

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

#87

Post by Denote6737 »

Maxion wrote: post #48
pacificmint wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus you’d take a great step towards solving our energy problems.

We'll except the fact that deep geothermal plants are completely theoretic as a means of production - the final cost of power is a big ???. Most people want cheap power. Anything over around 20 cents a kWh makes it uncompetitive to fossile equivalents (e.g. wood / oil / gas heating).

"Anything over around 20 cents a kWh makes it uncompetitive"

Cries in European

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

#88

Post by ehnto »

jacquesm wrote: post #19
ehnto wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a sense of the scale you are talking, but I would love to see more megaprojects. Truly mega. When we aren't getting in our own way, humans do some pretty awesome stuff.

I don't. The reason is that even though we are probably capable of doing so we lack the responsibility required to do this without the chance of massive negative side effects. Every time we've upped the scale in our abilities it has only resulted in more damage, not quite balanced out by more progress. This is a real problem: we can get ourselves into the kind of trouble that we don't seem to be able to get ourselves…

Perhaps surprisingly I do agree with you, I often talk about civilization having a Peak Comfort and that we should try to find contentment and sustainability over driving for progress toward some yet defined goal.

Two things come into the conversation though, while some of us have probably hit peak comfort it is not exactly universal. The second is we still haven't solved the energy problem, and it is us getting in our own way that is doing it. A megaproject of some kind can kind of sublime the status quo and make grand leaps forward in spite of ourselves. Maybe not a geothermal plant harnessing the earths's subterranean magma, but truly massive renewables installations or just actually doing nuclear power at last.

I hear what you are saying though. I would love to see some kind of utopian near future megaprojects solve the energy problem, but that is with the assumption that we did our homework, and our current track record is pretty bleak in that regard.

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

#89

Post by Kuinox »

Denote6737 wrote: post #87
Maxion wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll except the fact that deep geothermal plants are completely theoretic as a means of production - the final cost of power is a big ???. Most people want cheap power. Anything over around 20 cents a kWh makes it uncompetitive to fossile equivalents (e.g. wood / oil / gas heating).

"Anything over around 20 cents a kWh makes it uncompetitive" Cries in European

Don't mistake price of production and selling price. When it takes times to construct additional production, you can sell the electricity at very high cost but have a low production cost.

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

#90

Post by jacquesm »

ehnto wrote: post #88
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't. The reason is that even though we are probably capable of doing so we lack the responsibility required to do this without the chance of massive negative side effects. Every time we've upped the scale in our abilities it has only resulted in more damage, not quite balanced out by more progress. This is a real problem: we can get ourselves into the kind of trouble that we don't seem to be able to get ourselves…

Perhaps surprisingly I do agree with you, I often talk about civilization having a Peak Comfort and that we should try to find contentment and sustainability over driving for progress toward some yet defined goal. Two things come into the conversation though, while some of us have probably hit peak comfort it is not exactly universal. The second is we still haven't solved the energy problem, and it is us getting in o…

That's all agreed on, but in principle the energy problem is solved: we're quite literally bathing in energy for 12 hours every day for half the planet on average. We just suck at collecting that energy. And that is a problem that you might be able to solve without such massive environmental impact as what we've seen so far. More so if we focus on conservation first, so those 'massive renewables installations' are exactly where it is at in my book.

And your point that comfort (and even food) isn't universal is also well taken, if anything that should be our first order of battle: to establish some stable and sustainable quality of life and then to go about ensuring that everybody has access to that level. Of course our political and financial institutions are not well geared towards such solutions and that is where most of the challenge will come from. On a technical level I don't think that's unsolvable if you focus on quality and sustainability.

Post reply on HN