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

NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#91

Post by YokoZar »

kobeya wrote: post #39
ScottBurson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we dare trigger any eruptions at Yellowstone, ever ever ever. My understanding is that there's a positive feedback loop that kicks in; there's just no way to know the whole thing won't go up. But the plan of drilling into the bottom of the magma chamber from the sides sounds like it might be safe enough. The pressure is much higher there, which ironically is safer because it keeps dissolved gases from c…

So releasing the pressure will cause the dissolved gasses to come out of solution, triggering the actual eruption? Sounds dangerous.

There should be a way to pull energy out of it without risking releasing the current pressure. The hot solid rocks above are pretty good at transferring heat, and you only need to drill part of the way into them. A very small hole can move a lot of energy.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#93

Post by throwaway2048 »

Dance wrote: post #87
throwaway2048 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infinitely more things than yellowstone can go wrong

I don't know what your definition of infinite is but that doesn't sound right at all, and further your argument applies equally to all existential risks, so it doesn't really tell you that you shouldn't work on this particular one.

"Instead, we need to build resilience into our society" is the key here, many many things can happen.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#94

Post by goblin89 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #93
Dance wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what your definition of infinite is but that doesn't sound right at all, and further your argument applies equally to all existential risks, so it doesn't really tell you that you shouldn't work on this particular one.

"Instead, we need to build resilience into our society" is the key here, many many things can happen.

Building resilience instead of preventing a catastrophe sounds like a false dichotomy.

A mark of a resilient society could be the ability and will to (1) predict the development of events and sense probable future catastrophes long in advance, and to (2) invest into preventive measures that would show effectiveness many lifetimes later.

Concrete actions might range from cooling down volcanoes like per TFA, to colonizing other worlds, to systematic construction and maintenance of contingency infrastructure, to deliberate collective mindset shifts.

Perhaps what we both can agree on is that it’s this long-term consciousness that we (as humanity) may be lacking.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#95

Post by Retric »

danieltillett wrote: post #88
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Long term, it's all about being able to have enough indoor hydroponic/aeroponic space to grow enough food for ~7.5 billion people, which sounds really difficult and impractical. I can't find the research I read a few years ago but from what I understand growing indoors is crazy practical. Plants need less sun light, essentially zero pesticides, can grow much faster and if you build your structures vertically you'll…

This is the solution if we have a decade long event, but we need time to implement this - you can't just set up millions of acres of indoor growing space overnight. Ideally, we need a couple of years food in storage together with detailed plans for how to grow food indoors (if needed).

Space is not an actual problem with farm land. Setting up LED lights outside is a vastly easier solution. Remember, there would still be natural light, just significantly less.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#96

Post by steve19 »

Crisco wrote: post #33
lumberingjack wrote: post #29

I was just in Yellowstone so much is still unknown about it and the more I read about it and saw the more afraid I became of it. At one point we saw a crater the size of a city block it was a geyser then in the 80s exploded and killed a few people. I got to thinking "WTF are we doing here this thing is going to blow at any time!?"

I live near Yellowstone (as in going there, seeing the sights and going home is a day trip with time to spare) and always tell people that we're the lucky ones. If the Yellowstone volcano ever goes in our lifetime we'll die instantly. If it goes off, most of the populated world is going to die anyways, might as well be the first.

Serious question: is your house insured against volcano?

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#97

Post by phyller »

danieltillett wrote: post #86
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food spoils so a stockpile like that isn't quite feasible. Sure we'll be able to get some foods that store well and can last for years but that's a small subset of food and even that food not all of it lasts for more than two years. It's just not realistic. Sure we can significantly enlarge our buffer but two or more years? I can't see that happening in any practical sense.

Most grains can be stored for years under the right conditions. Sure the quality will decline over that time, but given we are feeding a large amount of grain to livestock this decline is manageable. Even having a single years buffer would be very worthwhile. As I mentioned in the OP if we have a catastrophic event in the northern summer the poor are in serious trouble.

The problem is the food you are storing is constantly going bad. So you need to recreate the entire massive food stockpile every year or so, in order to have it ready when the time comes. We'd have to find a way to efficiently cycle food through the stockpile and back to consumers before it became useless. But I doubt consumers are going to be lining up to buy old food. The food would be expensive to buy fresh, then wouldn't sell for much when it is old. It would be a crazy expensive program, and it would increase the price of fresh food for everyone.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#99

Post by Freestyler_3 »

khazhoux wrote: post #8
Freestyler_3 wrote: post #3

So they need to re-drill constantly? (after each m3.)

I have no idea what you mean by "m3", and I did some google searches ("m3 volcano" "m3 drilling") and it's still not clear. If "m3" is jargon related to volcanos, geology, drilling, or geothermic power generation, I submit to you that most HN readers will be unfamiliar with the term. Or maybe it's just me.

cubic meter.

Re: NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano

#100

Post by Crisco »

erdle wrote: post #70
Crisco wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live near Yellowstone (as in going there, seeing the sights and going home is a day trip with time to spare) and always tell people that we're the lucky ones. If the Yellowstone volcano ever goes in our lifetime we'll die instantly. If it goes off, most of the populated world is going to die anyways, might as well be the first.

what are property taxes like?

Something like 0.79% assessed value in my country on average. It's supposedly one of the lowest in the nation. The general cost of living is pretty low when compared to most places in the States and being so close to Yellowstone and other national and state parks is nice.
Post reply on HN