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: 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.