10 ms·
NASA's plan to save Earth from a supervolcano
- farseer 9y agoThe Afghanistan campaign costs about 3 billion a month, so drilling a volcano for a similar amount shouldn't break the bank. This will contribute far more to our security!
- justicezyx 9y agoWell the enlightened human being are so small a fraction of the population, that this argument probably doesn't even ends up being made aware to the vast majority of this nation...
- wallace_f 9y agoWolf Blitzer at CNN tells us that it's actually a moral problem to stop funding war because defense contractors will lose jobs. Source: https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-defense-contractors-will-lose-jobs-if-u-s-stops-arming-saudi-arabia/ https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried-...
- aw3c2 9y agoThe cost of empire! http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175627/tomgram%3A_david_vine%2C_the_true_costs_of_empire/ http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175627/tomgram%3A_david_vine... might be an article on it.
- castle-bravo 9y agoI find it amazing that CNN has been able to remain dominant in television news broadcasting. They're a vicious clique of bloodthirsty warmongering propagandists. You'd think people would have grown disgusted at some point in the last 30 years and tuned out.
- afsina 9y agoOr, maybe this is just another attempt from NASA to prevent budget cuts. And in a cunning way. Pump fear, look cool, create a long term very expensive very difficult project, keep money coming. IMO, moving money from war machine to risky projects is hardly justified. Both should be gone.
- Freestyler_3 9y agoSo they need to re-drill constantly? (after each m3.)
- khazhoux 9y agoI 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.
- beambot 9y agoCubic meter?
- quicklyfrozen 9y agoProbably refers to earthquakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale).
- mos_basik 9y agoI think GP is referring to this sentence near the end of the article: >Cooling Yellowstone in this manner would happen at a rate of one metre a year, taking of the order of tens of thousands of years until just cold rock was left. And I think that sentence is vague enough that any argument using only it as a basis will be pretty weak.
- Freestyler_3 9y agocubic meter.
- transverse 9y agoNope. Once its energy is drained, it will become dormant. This will take a lot of gradual deep drilling.
- transverse 9y agoUnfortunately, any project to drain the supervolcano's energy will meet with immense resistance from various groups of humans with limited intelligence who don't realize its power and the extinction-level destruction its explosion will cause. The article lists at least two ways of safely extracting the supervolcano's power without risking the triggering of an explosion, but this won't be enough to convince the idiotic naysayers. By harnessing its energy, we can have clean energy for millennia.
- justicezyx 9y agoI think this government failed to educate people the important lessons
- flareback 9y agoSo it's limited intelligence to read an article that states "But drilling into a supervolcano does not come without certain risks. Namely triggering the eruption you’re intending to prevent."? They state that it could cause an eruption, yes they have an idea for how to minimize the risk but that doesn't mean no risk. As much as we may not like it, some people don't like taking risks at all. They'd rather do nothing and take their chances than take a risk.
- tempestn 9y agoOf course, there is a risk to doing nothing as well. (Literally, 'take their chances'...)
- condiment 9y agoSeems like it might be prudent to first try extracting 35% of the heat from a volcano smaller than the Yellowstone Caldera. We might learn some things, and if we get it wrong the consequences don't result in widespread starvation. That said, it's obvious that this plan is just the start of serious investigation into how we can engineer mitigations to an eruption at Yellowstone. I would be interested in seeing a model of the impact that surface-level cooling would have on the pressures deeper in the system. If we prevent an eruption now, are we making it worse in the future? Other solutions I can envision might be to deliberately trigger smaller eruptions over longer timescales at the boundaries of the caldera. We could also look at large-scale mitigations for volcanic particulates in the atmosphere, including solutions that may require several hundred or thousand years of advanced preparation for success. If we could control the impact of a significant yellowstone eruption to a single hemisphere, or limit the duration to a single summer, most ecosystems would be able to recover quickly.
- ScottBurson 9y agoI 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 coming out of solution, which is what starts the eruption process. That, at least, is my non-expert understanding.
- kobeya 9y agoSo releasing the pressure will cause the dissolved gasses to come out of solution, triggering the actual eruption? Sounds dangerous.
- YokoZar 9y agoThere 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.
- Axsuul 9y agoThe advantages may be obvious but it all comes down to unit economics. How do costs per MW compare to something like coal, hydro, wind, or solar? And let's not forget the risk assessment that needs to be done in case the supervolcano does in fact explode, or even hiccup. Will it destroy or incapacitate the energy generating facilities?
- stevenwoo 9y agoIsn't the Yellowstone eruption essentially the same as the dinosaur ending meteorite event? Wouldn't most humans die except for those that could live off of stored foods/what could be raised off of stored food for a couple of years until the sun is visible again ala The Road (besides immediately killing a large percentage of Americans)?
- m_mueller 9y agoI don't think it's on that magnitude. Humanity lived through an even larger eruption (Toba). I don't think anything but small animals living underground could have survived that asteroid.
- tempestn 9y agoRegardless, the parent's point stands, that the overall benefit would be enormous - far greater than just the value of the electricity generated.
- weberc2 9y agoDidn't toba reduce humanity to something like 2000 people?
- stevenwoo 9y agoIt's a pretty good hypothesis with some backing in the genetic record and the timing of the event, the wikipedia says somewhere between 2000-20000 breeding individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory Not sure where humanity was on the evolution timeline for the last Yellowstone eruption, but our ancestors somehow got through that, too.
- phkahler 9y agoThis just looks like an attempt to get geothermal energy from Yellowstone. The 6GW power getting out of the ground now is really nothing compared to the energy that's down there. Thermal conduction and fluid transport are what allows the energy to the surface. Adding geo-thermal power generation would increase energy dissipated but would do little to actually change the geologic situation. I suspect if you asked power companies if they'd go for it they would jump at the opportunity, but TFA jumps the gun and suggests that the government may need to offer incentives to get started. In short: Let's use peoples fear of global calamity to get them to allow drilling and building in a national park and get free money from the government too.
- gldhfjcufuffi 9y agofwiw the amount of heat liberated will probably be about 3x the electrical power output. your point stands though
- mrschwabe 9y agoIndeed, as it seems NASA's best capability is to 'get free money from the government' (not volcano nor space exploration as many would expect).
- 90s-socal-kid 9y agoAny agency primarily funded by government that survives past 10-15 years will have that as their primary competency. It's more fair to judge NASA's space capabilities against all the other groups that take gov't money. They are much better at space than, say, the Department of Labor. Just because there are recent, private entrants, who built much of their technology on the foundation work done by NASA, does not mean NASA should be mocked in this manner.
- YokoZar 9y agoThe article says that we don't want to drill in the national park itself, which is too close to the magma chamber and might trigger an eruption. Instead it says we should extract the heat along the periphery, well outside the park's boundaries.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- exabrial 9y agoThe other problem not mentioned: Yellowstone is the middle of fricken nowhere. Electricity is hard to send long distances and central planning projects have shown to be their own disasters time-and-time again through history. "This time around though" we have more established population centers so maybe we can pull it off? Not sure! If the power could be produced cheap enough, it might pay off to maintain the massive power grid to send electricity to population centers... What would truly be revolutionary is phase change electricity storage mechanism! Imagine being able to "ship" electricity on conventional roads, or even in existing pipelines, much the way we do with hydrocarbons. Batteries charge roughly at the same rate they discharge, making electric cars a PITA. A conventional automobile can be "charged up" with enough potential energy in 8 mins in what takes the fastest chargers 75mins.
- foota 9y agoI'm ignorant, what does phase change have to do with energy storage?
- grzm 9y agoMatter phase changes either require or release energy. For example, liquifying ice requires energy (which is why ice makes your drink cold when it melts), and the energy used to transform liquid water into steam can be reclaimed as useful work in steam engines. Phase change is one potential storage mechanism for, say, excess electricity production.
- foota 9y agoI hadn't thought of that. Thanks! Maybe someday we'll have steam pipelines instead of gas pipelines?
- grzm 9y agoIt comes down to efficiency of transfer. I've heard of steam being used for power in machine shops and for heat in cities. I doubt the efficiencies make sense over much distance. I used water as only an example. I don't think steam is generally thought of in terms of energy storage.
- javajosh 9y agoWhat about radiating the heat into space?
- ams6110 9y agoWhy do that when it could be usefully used on the ground to generate electricity?
- milesf 9y agoThe idea of any group of humans "saving the Earth" is neighbouring on hubris. It's fine for the plot line of a Hollywood movie, but pragmatically we can't even engage in civil discourse anymore. Tampering with systems like plate tectonic without the ability to even predict the effects of oil shale fracking means we still have a lot to learn. If the concern of the Earth being wiped out is legitimate, then focus instead on colonizing Space. The end result is the same: preserving human civilization.
- hyperdunc 9y agoAchieving the technology required to colonize space would also allow us to maintain our existence on Earth.
- milesf 9y agoExactly my point.
- tempestn 9y agoI wouldn't say the end result is the same just because humanity survives. I mean, say the eruption occurs and as a result only a few billion people ultimately die. Well, human civilization is preserved. But it would be a lot more pleasant to prevent it happening at all.
- lumberingjack 9y agoI 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!?"
- pasbesoin 9y agoI don't know what displays they have there. But I'll mention that it's very interesting to see the "trail" it has etched across the western side of the continent. Vast geological topology and constructs are now attributed to it. As well, its forecast future path is interesting. Just like the Hawaiian spot has left a chain of islands and sea mounts in its wake, the Yellowstone hotspot is -- slowly -- on the move. IIRC, there was another spot that moved through the southern U.S. and broke the then extant mountain chain that curved westward from the current Appalachian chain. The famous open-air "you pick it" diamond mine in Arkansas might be attributable to it. On a separate note, its National Aeronautic and Space Administration. Not just "Space". The next time some political bozo complains about the Earth "not being its mission. As well, studying the Earth provides NASA and others insight into what they encounter and will encounter on other planets -- out there in space. Meaning not just direct visitations, but also interpreting collected signals (telescopes et al.) Anyway, in addition to that, I'm glad SOMEBODY is studying the Earth. We didn't develop our modern society by turning away from the facts and experience in front of our eyes.
- kobeya 9y ago> I don't know what displays they have there. But I'll mention that it's very interesting to see the "trail" it has etched across the western side of the continent. Vast geological topology and constructs are now attributed to it. As well, its forecast future path is interesting. There's a good display of this at one of the visitors centers within the park.
- Crisco 9y agoI 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.
- cstejerean 9y agoI think this post does a pretty good job of addressing why the thought experiment will remain in the realm of science fiction. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/2250904/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/225...
- hn_throwaway_99 9y agoI disagree. I'll take this sentence: > When all is said and done, a massive eruption at Yellowstone, or any other caldera for that matter, isn’t a question we should answer by trying to stop it. Instead, we need to build resilience into our society to survive after such an event. Why? This doesn't make much sense to me. Seems much better to prevent a giant catastrophe from happening in the first place than trying to pick up the pieces when it's done (an ounce of prevention and all that). Furthermore, his arguments get totally hand-wavy when it comes to whether a power plant could remove heat fast enough to prevent an eruption. At the end of the day, all you need is a higher wattage out than in, and I see no reason that would be impossible.
- throwaway2048 9y agoInfinitely more things than yellowstone can go wrong
- Dance 9y agoI 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.
- throwaway2048 9y ago"Instead, we need to build resilience into our society" is the key here, many many things can happen.
- 9y ago
- necessity 9y agoBBC.com as of late has been turning into Clickbait.com
- danieltillett 9y agoHow about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to the food supply and right now if anything happens in the northern summer we are totally screwed.
- Iv 9y agoOr similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.
- danieltillett 9y agoThis wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.
- abofh 9y agoNor would it really work in practice. Reducing the population would reduce demand (eaters), which would eventually lead to a reduction in supply (Farmers). Moreover, wrt to the 72 days raised by ggpp, one would just shrink the surplus to 72 days for the smaller population.
- Houshalter 9y agoWe are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.
- danieltillett 9y agoUs rich people will probably be fine (unless the situation was decades long), but many people in the world won't be able to pay the higher prices. If you are currently spending 70% of your income on food and prices triple then you will starve.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoSounds like we just need to convince some high tech billionaire that they need a supervillain lair powered by geothermal energy. Maybe power a data center or something. Put that excess heat to good use :-)
- 90s-socal-kid 9y agoToo bad Kim Dotocm isn't wealthy enough (anymore?) to do this. I'm picturing him as the supervillain who builds out an encrypted data storage facility, like out of Cryptonomicon.
- torpfactory 9y agoIs anyone else surprised by the excess heat number? 6GW? The reactors at Chernobyl were 3.2GW thermal designs and they had four of them. I guess I would have thought a super volcano that can cause human mass extinction would be... more powerful?
- imafish 9y agoDid anyone else hear joint venture between the boring company and tesla? Volcano powered cars!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 11235813213455 9y agoSaving the Earth in long term is also more limiting people to one child max, preserving nature, etc..
- honestoHeminway 9y agoIs there any research not on pre-emptive cooling, but about how to fast clean the atmosphere, to prevent a lasting nuclear winter, once the disaster happend?
- honestoHeminway 9y agoIf global warming decreases heat transportation to the surface, wouldnt the atmosphere and the volcanos form a self-regulating plant?