3 ms·
I don't think that it would. How much energy would we have to extract to make sure it is not a threat? The article states that 6GW of heat is already leaking fr
by takk309 9y ago
I don't think that it would. How much energy would we have to extract to make sure it is not a threat? The article states that 6GW of heat is already leaking from Yellowstone. How much impact can we really have pulling another 6GW? The article may be to brief and I need to do more research into the topic but is there some amount of energy that must be extracted to put the chance of an explosion into an acceptable range?
- tempestn 9y agoAs the other replies to this comment state, these things were very clearly stated in the article itself. On what basis do you disagree with the assessments there? What value is there in stating your disagreement without addressing the contradiction with the article, or presenting any evidence?
- caf 9y agoNasa estimates that if a 35% increase in heat transfer could be achieved from its magma chamber, Yellowstone would no longer pose a threat. The only question is how?
- elihu 9y agoFrom the original BBC article: > Yellowstone currently leaks about 60-70% of the heat coming up from below into the atmosphere, via water which seeps into the magma chamber through cracks. The remainder builds up inside the magma, enabling it to dissolve more and more volatile gases and surrounding rocks. Once this heat reaches a certain threshold, then an explosive eruption is inevitable. > But if more of the heat could be extracted, then the supervolcano would never erupt. Nasa estimates that if a 35% increase in heat transfer could be achieved from its magma chamber, Yellowstone would no longer pose a threat. The only question is how? So, two or three GW of heat loss should be sufficient to keep the magma chamber from heating any further if NASA's estimates are accurate.