SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A NASA plan to stop a supervolcano from erupting would also be a source of geothermal energy:
Beneath Yellowstone National Park is a giant volcano. The heat from this volcano powers all of the park's famous geysers and hot springs, so most tourists probably don't worry about having tons of hot magma under their feet. But perhaps they should: The Yellowstone supervolcano is a disaster waiting to happen.
The supervolcano erupts about every 600,000 years, and it's been about that long since the last eruption. That means the volcano could erupt any day now, and if it does it'll send enough dust and ash into the sky to blot out the sun for years, along with blowing a 25-mile-wide crater in the western U.S. That's why a group of NASA scientists and engineers are developing a plan to prevent an eruption by stealing the volcano's heat.
[...] NASA's plan is to drill a hole into the side of the volcano and pump water through it. When the water comes back out, it'll be heated to over 600 degrees, slowly cooling the volcano. The team hopes that given enough time, this process will take enough heat from the volcano to prevent it from ever erupting.
As a bonus, the scientists are proposing to use the heated water as a source of geothermal energy, potentially powering the entire Yellowstone region with heat from the volcano that wants to destroy it. A geothermal generator could produce energy at around $0.10 per kWh, competitive with other energy sources.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by aristarchus on Monday August 21 2017, @09:32AM
No Comments
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Monday August 21 2017, @09:37AM (8 children)
So how is this going to be allowed when there is coal to be burnt? Perhaps if they promise not to try to sell the energy...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 21 2017, @09:46AM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Touché) by turgid on Monday August 21 2017, @10:07AM
Never mind, I'm sure the Market and the billionaire philanthropists will come up with the optimal solution at the right time.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Funny) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday August 21 2017, @10:19AM (5 children)
Simple. Throw the coal into the volcano.
That way nobody can complain that this is some kind of "clean, green energy" socialist hippy bullshit, since the water is now heated (at least in in part) by burning coal. This keeps the dinofuel industry happy, and will probably make the project eligible for billions in tax rebates and government grants.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 21 2017, @04:30PM (4 children)
I guess I had it all wrong. https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/4ujuce/people_used_to_throw_virgins_into_a_volcano_heres/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 21 2017, @04:59PM (3 children)
Would people notice if scientists burnt the coal before the ceremony, the same way that priests discreetly took part of the food and fucked the girl before destroying the evidence?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday August 21 2017, @09:44PM (2 children)
So, you're telling me I can study volcanoes, receive investments from big coal, receive grants for alternative energy, and enjoy the benefits of being a cult priest? Where do I sign up?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday August 21 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)
Good luck finding virgins, though...
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:55AM
Ah shucks, I knew it sounded too good to be true.
I guess my cult volcano goddess will have to be like the fat slob at the bar--not too picky and accepting of whatever woman I shove down her caldera. Perhaps I should toss a few bottles of cheap whiskey over the cliff before pushing over the girl for good measure. You know, to liquor up the goddess a bit so she's less likely to reject my offering.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fraxinus-tree on Monday August 21 2017, @09:53AM (17 children)
Supervolcano is bad. Missing your target by a few orders of magnitude is worse. Depleting water sources around is bad, too. Why don't they try with some less powerful volcano, just to prove the concept? BTW there is a lot of electricity production running in Iceland (and few other places) doing the same.
(Score: 3, Funny) by lx on Monday August 21 2017, @09:57AM (3 children)
Nothing to worry about.
They only want to tickle the dragon's tail a little.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 21 2017, @05:11PM (2 children)
Have you seen that balloon? It's a great balloon, but it's getting inflated very slowly, and maybe it will pop in the next 100000 years, and that will be bad.
Now, if I took that microscopic needle and carefully tried to bleed the balloon, what would happen?
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday August 21 2017, @11:34PM (1 child)
Your analogy would break down?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:23AM
If I tried to make the analogy about drilling the lid of a pressure cooker, therefore affecting structural integrity of the thing containing the pressure, I'd get a cease-and-desist from Seb arguing that pressure cookers don't explode.
And going for the "geeze, will they remove the safety valves after a while, as in Porter Ranch" won't speak to many people.
(Score: 5, Informative) by RamiK on Monday August 21 2017, @10:30AM (12 children)
The desired temperatures are in the margins of hundreds of degrees Celsius while the area for laying down pipes is many kilometers wide and hundreds of meters deep. Moreover, you can always increase and reduce the water flow to adjust the temperatures. Most importantly, there's no danger in over-cooling the magma unless you pour down an ocean's worth so the worst that could happen is for them to not cool it enough. Which is better off then what they're doing now: Waiting for the thing to blow.
Asked and answered. Or to de-whoosh your reasoning, they already use volcano geothermal power in Iceland and have witnessed the beneficial side-effects on seismic activity so it's tested to work.
The water in steam-electric (coal and geothermal) generators is recovered via the surface condenser.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 21 2017, @11:53AM (7 children)
Unless you use this system for district heating. One you remove steam from the plant to heat you lose that water. You can think of district heating as a distributed condenser without a feedwater return.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 21 2017, @05:03PM (4 children)
The bears, bison and elks of Yellowstone are already privileged bastards enjoying a librul no-gun zone, and now you want to use my tax dollars to bring them renewable heat?
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday August 21 2017, @06:09PM (3 children)
Plus those bears flaunt their civil disobedience by breaking all public urination laws... they go so far that the bears even shit in the woods.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday August 21 2017, @07:06PM (1 child)
Between that Smokey's arson protection racket, Yogi's repeated picnic box thefts and Pedo's multiple arrests for child-molestation, I say those fucking bears have it coming.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday August 21 2017, @09:47PM
It's all a conspiracy. Every bear is a Russian agent!
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday August 21 2017, @08:46PM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @08:07PM (1 child)
That's not how district heating work. There's a heat exchanger between the steam cycle and the distribution network, there's also heat exhangers on the consumer side.
The steam cycle use really clean water with some added chemicals(cleaning agents, ph control etc).
The distribution network uses water and antifreeze(so it doesn't freeze on the way back, or if a pump breaks down.)
At the consumer there's heat exhangers to heat the tapwater and exhangers connected the heating system.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 21 2017, @11:19PM
I'm going off of the Con Edison steam system here in New York City. It's a one way steam system with no return. You receive steam the same way a customer would receive gas; a pipe is tapped, main bought to customers premises and a meter is installed along with appropriate plumbing. The customer is responsible for disposing of condensate.
Most of the steam comes from dedicated steam boilers without generators. Those plants are the 59th street station (formerly the IRT Powerhouse), Ravenswood A house, and a plant in The Brooklyn Navy yard that is contracted after it was sold off during deregulation. I do know steam from the 14th street station and east river plant (74th street station) have generation and I believe the 60th street station under/next to the 59th street bridge. Whether or not they use turbine exhaust is unknown. One or more of those are gas turbine co-gen systems. So I might be wrong about using turbine exhaust.
Cool system. I have seen the steam rooms of a few buildings including the Metropolitan Museum of Art. All you need is a small room with a big white insulated pipe coming in to some steam metering and traps then off to a big valve manifold which distributes the steam to the different heating circuits along with more steam traps. Condensate returns drained off to a sewer grate on the ground. Was there in winter so that room was a sauna.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fraxinus-tree on Monday August 21 2017, @12:15PM (2 children)
The precious purified and doped water in steam-electric generators is recovered in condensers that are generally cooled by some large natural or artificial water body by evaporating part of it. That's why we see steam clouds above the cooling towers and lakes. I am not aware of any industrial-scale power plants that are only air-cooled. District heating helps, but only when it is the more favorable season.
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Monday August 21 2017, @02:11PM (1 child)
Stop looking in the US. These environmental concerns are relatively new and the US hasn't been meaningfully investing in infrastructure, let alone green infrastructure, for about 3 decades now. Look up closed circuit dry cooling plants in Asia, Africa and Europe. Start here: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-coal [ucsusa.org]
Some real world examples are mentioned here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx [world-nuclear.org]
The tech is there. It's not even that expensive. And it's not like you care about efficiency when the fuel is free...
compiling...
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:18AM
Thanks for the links.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @03:48PM
Or to de-whoosh your reasoning, they already use volcano geothermal power in Iceland and have witnessed the beneficial side-effects on seismic activity so it's tested to work.
Well then this is one giant reason we simply *cannot* do this here in the US. It's utterly impossible for us to do something here which has been done successfully somewhere else.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday August 21 2017, @11:47AM (4 children)
apparently, the supervolcano eruption could do quite a large amount of damage..
90K deaths in one story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3189619/What-happen-Yellowstone-s-supervolcano-erupted-Experts-warn-90-000-immediate-deaths-nuclear-winter-US.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Or two thirds of the US devastated http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/prediction-23-of-u-s-could-be-devastated/ [wnd.com]
https://me.me/i/possible-yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption-kill-zone-primary-new-york-ash-15828120 [me.me]
Does self-preservation ever trump greenie-bashing in the US?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @12:05PM (2 children)
Most likely the super volcano was destined to go off during Trumps presidency as the United States celebrates its grand finale. It's been a great 240+ years. I for one welcome the end of America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:00PM
In 2042, Yellowstone has still not erupted.
To put geological time scales into perspective, the last time Yellowstone erupted, Neanderthal man and Denisovan man had not yet evolved. Heidelberg man would have been affected by the explosion. From what I read, it sounds like such an eruption would make the year from hell seem like a cake walk. Man can destroy his cities in a day and blot out the sun for a year. Nature's power is yet an order of magnitude more.
By the time Yellowstone does finally go off again, we can hope that men will have taken yet another evolutionary step towards becoming angels.
Men go and come, but Earth abides. Even so, having a spare gas can is not a bad idea.
(Score: 3, Funny) by stretch611 on Monday August 21 2017, @06:14PM
Sounds true... after all, hurricane katrina happened during Bush's watch... mother nature has something special planned for Trump.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Monday August 21 2017, @09:03PM
Does self-preservation ever trump greenie-bashing in the US?
I thinkn you will fine Trump trumps self-preservation. Its the American way.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 21 2017, @03:46PM (6 children)
I remember this subject coming up years ago (probably 5-10) and I suggested this very thing. The prevailing dogma at the time (not just from random internet commenters, but from actual scientists IIRC) was that there was no way humans could possibly siphon enough heat off the magma pocket to avoid a supervolcano eruption, and that it was an utterly silly idea.
I say we shouldn't even bother trying. It's been thought of before and rejected out-of-hand; we shouldn't revisit that decision.
Besides, when it erupts and blots out the sun for years, this will help reverse the effects of global warming.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:00PM
Consider the Earth is 12000 km across and the average depth of the Ocean is 4km. I could work out the volumes using spheres and heat capacities of rock and water.... but with those numbers, any you look at it, if the Earth opened a hole and blew out the tiniest fraction of its interior, it would boil off all the oceans.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:47AM (3 children)
The key word here is "dogma". This belief is not based on fact or evidence and hence, not scientific. Just because a problem is hard doesn't make it impossible.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 22 2017, @03:48PM (2 children)
The key word here is "dogma". This belief is not based on fact or evidence and hence, not scientific. Just because a problem is hard doesn't make it impossible.
I agree, but just because something is possible doesn't mean we should try it. Once we've already made a decision, even though it's done without any real evidence or fact, we should stick to it, no matter the consequences. This idea was thought of before and laughed off. It should therefore be prohibited from being examined more seriously, at least until all the people who laughed at it are identified and publicly recant.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:34AM (1 child)
Oh gosh, my apologies. I read your previous post and missed the part where you "suggested this very thing" 5-10 years ago. Reading comprehension fail. For what it's worth, I've suggested similar things on the Green site in about that time frame as well. Mother nature might have a lot of power at its disposal, but given enough lead time and enough engineering you can prepare for any outburst, no matter how powerful.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:57AM
Yep, that was my reasoning too, but I was roundly laughed out of the room when I made such a suggestion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:53AM
I also suggested it a while back, got no mod points. It was doubtful humans could remove enough heat to make a difference.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 21 2017, @03:47PM (3 children)
We know the shit really hits the fan if it erupts, but how dangerous is pumping stuff into it? Poking a sleeping bear, if you will.
Reminds me of the Stargate Atlantis episode [wikia.com] where they run into a planet where the Ancients built a city in the caldera of a supervolcano to harness the energy from the magma. The team finds out these people have been running the city shield continuously for a year, which...erm...*technobabble about the magma becoming unstable.* You can probably guess what happens.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @04:02PM
If we call it energy exploration and have BP do it as a commercial operation on the cheap, I don't see any problem getting this approved.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Monday August 21 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
It is going to erupt either way.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 21 2017, @07:37PM
Maybe I'd prefer not to *make* it erupt while I'm still around.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday August 21 2017, @09:26PM (2 children)
If the heat is siphoned off and released above ground it will add to global warming. Which is bad, no?
If the super-volcano erupts the planet will go into a temporary global "nuclear" style winter, causing temperatures to fall and reversing much of the warming damage done by humans in the last few centuries. Should it be encouraged to erupt?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:37AM
Not feeling the badness myself. The Earth has fairly efficient mechanisms for radiating excess heat to space.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:04AM
If the heat is siphoned off and released above ground it will add to global warming. Which is bad, no?
If it's used for generating power, the alternative is to leave the heat in the ground, and generate that same amount of power by burning fossil fuels, which not only releases a lot of heat into the environment, but also a lot of emissions (both toxic (NOx etc.) and global warming (CO2)).
If the super-volcano erupts the planet will go into a temporary global "nuclear" style winter, causing temperatures to fall and reversing much of the warming damage done by humans in the last few centuries. Should it be encouraged to erupt?
Personally, I think this might be the better option. It'll probably cause complete destruction of modern civilization, but we honestly deserve it at this point, so not only will it reverse the warming damage done by humans in the last few centuries, it'll roll back our societies 500-1000 years or more too, leaving us with much less population too. It'll also be a great case study for alien archaelogists which they can use in their classes to show how stupid races end up being destroyed (or at least set way, way back so they can't achieve interstellar flight) because they're too dumb to do anything about existential threats to their existence even after their smarter members identify such threats along with workable solutions, mainly because they're too greedy and shortsighted to invest the necessary resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:01AM (1 child)
This sounds like fracking. Which has been associated with seismic events, not desirable around a supervolcano.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @12:52PM
By that logic we ought to be having earthquakes all over the planet due to people drilling water wells. Fracking is a very different thing...
First off, in fracking it's not really water that they're pumping down there -- the water is there to carry the sand and abrasives and hundreds of assorted chemicals. If you wanna break up rocks, you need to do that. If you want to generate electricity, that's just going to fuck up your turbine. They won't be pumping in all the "additives" here.
Also, fracking is done under high pressure -- high enough to break up the rocks. In this situation you'd want the opposite -- if the rocks break apart, that creates more places the steam and water can escape, resulting in less steam to generate power! The only pressure here should be the steam pressure, and there would have to be some kind of release valves so the pressure doesn't blow up the equipment that's trying to harvest energy from it.