4 ms·

Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, wrote a response in Discover Magazine after news outlets reported about the NASA pro

Erik Klemetti, an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University, wrote a response in Discover Magazine after news outlets reported about the NASA project in August. His article discusses the notion of an overdue Yellowstone eruption, the context for the NASA exercise, and the state of existing technology. Klemetti concludes, "It is a fun science fiction short story...but it isn’t any sort of real plan to save the planet from Yellowstone." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/2250904/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/rockyplanet/2017/08/31/225... As an aside, I hold a Master's in Geoscience with an emphasis in hydrogeology, and have studied the Yellowstone geothermal system since about 2000. The NASA thought exercise is certainly worth considering in the very long term, and we should aspire to advance technology and our understanding of the associated environmental systems to afford it. However, more immediately, there has been immense political pressure to allow geothermal energy exploitation outside the national park -- with unknown and poorly understood consequences for the geysers and thermal system inside the park. In 1994, a law that would cease any nearby geothermal drilling if Old Faithful Geyser was disrupted failed to pass in Congress. I worry that this type of article, the original post, is being floated to promote that drilling agenda: a near-term excuse for private industry gains under the guise of saving humanity and at the expense of one of the world's most fantastic landscapes.

YokoZar 9y ago
Erik's argument seems to be: - It's not erupting within our lifetimes - If it were showing signs of actively erupting soon, it would take infeasible amounts of drilling and cooling to prevent - Therefore, we should make contingency plans for an eruption but no plans to prevent. This sounds like sheer madness to me. The problem of cooling down Yellowstone is much easier if you spread the task over a few thousand years rather than postpone it until an eruption is imminent. Yet he doesn't even consider such an option, despite the clear upside of thousands of years of extracted geothermal energy.
- acqq 9y ago
  The geologists are aware of the potential risks and the magnitude of the damage potentially induced. The madness is making unnecesessary world-affecting damage.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  I found the argument reasonable. My summary of this article would more read: it would be hugely super expensive to explore this plan, there are many unknown assumptions, at this point the technology is not sufficient due to the depth of the magma and quantity of water required, and VEI8 explosions actually don't typically lead to mass extinction anyways. I personally give more weight to opinions from those with stronger backgrounds in geology. Things I would add: Yellowstone is in an extremely rural area, so transmission costs and infrastructure would have to be considered in any geothermal project. Yellowstone the park attracts four million people a year now, making up a significant portion of Wyoming's GDP, and geysers are a big reason for this; mucking with this ecosystem should be done cautiously. Aside from aesthetics, there are some potentially very valuable insights on life and science that are perhaps possible within a protected geyser ecosystem. To give an example, this thermophilic bacteria's enzyme plays a very important role in PCR DNA amplification, and it was discovered in Yellowstone's Lower Geyser Basin -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus The other thing I see is that there are many other volcanic systems out there. So as far as the risk of a supervolcano explosion is concerned, I'm not sure how much reducing one potential VEI8 explosive zone matters from a humanity risk perspective. Taupo actually has had 3 VEI8s in 1 million years compared to just 1 in Yellowstone. The worst VEI8 explosion in the last million years (as far as ejecta) was not Yellowstone, but Lake Toba. Other than Taupo and Yellowstone, most of the other VEI8 explosions seem to be at pretty random locations, so it seems like mitigating all supervolcano risk from drilling projects would be difficult. One can argue that doing something is better than nothing, but the cost / benefit ratio might be quite a lot better with things explained in the article like seed banks (which would protect from multiple disaster types occurring in any location, not just one volcanic one).
Retric 9y ago
Yea, this seems like poor planning. If you want to be able to survive a super volcano then leave the area hand have ~10 years food supply for humanity would be plenty. Remember, in the past they don't cause mass extinctions. So, both plant and animal species tend to survive it.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > have ~10 years food supply for humanity would be plenty I think we (humanity) are sitting at a couple months now, on average. So... room for improvement!

YokoZar 9y ago

Erik's argument seems to be: - It's not erupting within our lifetimes - If it were showing signs of actively erupting soon, it would take infeasible amounts of drilling and cooling to prevent - Therefore, we should make contingency plans for an eruption but no plans to prevent. This sounds like sheer madness to me. The problem of cooling down Yellowstone is much easier if you spread the task over a few thousand years rather than postpone it until an eruption is imminent. Yet he doesn't even consider such an option, despite the clear upside of thousands of years of extracted geothermal energy.

acqq 9y ago
The geologists are aware of the potential risks and the magnitude of the damage potentially induced. The madness is making unnecesessary world-affecting damage.
soundwave106 9y ago
I found the argument reasonable. My summary of this article would more read: it would be hugely super expensive to explore this plan, there are many unknown assumptions, at this point the technology is not sufficient due to the depth of the magma and quantity of water required, and VEI8 explosions actually don't typically lead to mass extinction anyways. I personally give more weight to opinions from those with stronger backgrounds in geology. Things I would add: Yellowstone is in an extremely rural area, so transmission costs and infrastructure would have to be considered in any geothermal project. Yellowstone the park attracts four million people a year now, making up a significant portion of Wyoming's GDP, and geysers are a big reason for this; mucking with this ecosystem should be done cautiously. Aside from aesthetics, there are some potentially very valuable insights on life and science that are perhaps possible within a protected geyser ecosystem. To give an example, this thermophilic bacteria's enzyme plays a very important role in PCR DNA amplification, and it was discovered in Yellowstone's Lower Geyser Basin -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus The other thing I see is that there are many other volcanic systems out there. So as far as the risk of a supervolcano explosion is concerned, I'm not sure how much reducing one potential VEI8 explosive zone matters from a humanity risk perspective. Taupo actually has had 3 VEI8s in 1 million years compared to just 1 in Yellowstone. The worst VEI8 explosion in the last million years (as far as ejecta) was not Yellowstone, but Lake Toba. Other than Taupo and Yellowstone, most of the other VEI8 explosions seem to be at pretty random locations, so it seems like mitigating all supervolcano risk from drilling projects would be difficult. One can argue that doing something is better than nothing, but the cost / benefit ratio might be quite a lot better with things explained in the article like seed banks (which would protect from multiple disaster types occurring in any location, not just one volcanic one).

Retric 9y ago

Yea, this seems like poor planning. If you want to be able to survive a super volcano then leave the area hand have ~10 years food supply for humanity would be plenty. Remember, in the past they don't cause mass extinctions. So, both plant and animal species tend to survive it.

ethbro 9y ago
> have ~10 years food supply for humanity would be plenty I think we (humanity) are sitting at a couple months now, on average. So... room for improvement!