Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Plan To Stop A Supervolcano from Destroying The Earth's Climate (news.com.au)
Long-time walterbyrd shared a new article about NASA's contingency plan for "vast quantities of searing magma and clouds of fumes" erupting from a Wyoming supervolcano and slowly "burying much of the United States under a thick coat of ash and lava...enough to change the climate of the world for several centuries."
NASA believes the Yellowstone supervolcano is a greater threat to life on Earth than any asteroid. So it's come up with a plan to defuse its explosive potential... NASA scientists propose, a 10km [6.2 miles] deep hole into the hydrothermal water below and to the sides of the magma chamber. These fluids, which form Yellowstone's famous heat pools and geysers, already drain some 60-70 per cent of the heat from the magma chamber below. NASA proposes that, in an emergency, this enormous body of heated water can be injected with cooler water, extracting yet more heat. This could prevent the super volcano's magma from reaching the temperature at which it would erupt.
A member of NASA's Advisory Council on Planetary Defense told the BBC he'd concluded "the super volcano threat is substantially greater than the asteroid or comet threat."
A member of NASA's Advisory Council on Planetary Defense told the BBC he'd concluded "the super volcano threat is substantially greater than the asteroid or comet threat."
NASA's proposed solution may very well trigger the damned thing.
for science
Hunter gatherers most likely to survive cataclysm @joerogan @Graham__Hancock @SacredGeoInt http://bit.ly/2vBecTZ
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
You said it yourself. Vulcans. Duh!
I had a sucky sig.
then why not tap it for hydrothermal energy to generate electricity using the heat (steam powered) turbines to turn generators, because they need the electricity to run the water pumps, and extra electricity can be put in to the grid
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
<SARCASM>
Let it blow, and have the nuclear winter effect cancel out global warming!
</SARCASM>
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
But, if it blows, nobody will live long nor prosper.
Table-ized A.I.
since the comet that killed the North American mega fauna is coming back around again.
No expert on volcanoes beyond building a model one in elementary class. But have to wonder if injecting cooler water could cause the magma chamber to shift location. Potentially to a weaker area of the crust leading to an eruption. Or alternatively, even if the cold water strategy works perfectly, it could be setting the stage for an even worse eruption at some point in the future.
Surely, the scientists have consider these possibilities among numerous others, but still seems overly risky given the lousy track-record of attempting to mitigate natural disasters. Houston is a prime example with inadequate flood control despite numerous upgrades over the past century. Seems no matter how high one builds a levee, nature finds a way to top it. Hopefully, NASA scientists have better success with controlling magma than government agencies do with controlling water.
On a related note, in my view, nuclear weapons remain the top threat. Far beyond that of asteroids, comets, and super volcanoes. Not to say the government can't pursue more than one threat at once, but to put it in perspective. With that said, if a super volcano were to erupt, that would be a disaster of an unprecedented scale in recent times. So it's great many are researching the issue, but seems far premature to actually carry out any mitigation activities until far more is known.
Yellowstone supervolcano is a greater threat to life on Earth than any asteroid
Any asteroid? Regardless of size? How about Ceres, 500+ miles in diameter? I'll bet that wipes out all humans and every animal species larger than a rat.
Yellowstone on the other hand has erupted before, most recently 640,000 years ago, and at least some of the primitive hunter-gathering humans were able to survive it.
Drilling holes into a super volcano is risk-free. Just ask any expert.
Becoming a power utility would certainly bring in money at least, especially when it's geo-thermal.
I am a little confused here (actually, have been for some time). By the way, this is totally apart from the argument of whether this is a good idea or not - I express no opinion there. But I was under the impression that NASA stood for the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration." So I find all this research and involvement in climate issues and trying to defuse volcanoes rather puzzling: how exactly does that help with aeronautics and space? How does that fit in with NASA's purpose? (Sure, if the Earth is destroyed you won't see any space exploration. You won't see any taxation, either, but unless I'm missing something I have not heard reports of the IRS's anti-pollution initiatives.)
TANSTAAFL
They're more likely to cause the eruption they're trying to prevent. They think they know what they're doing but the really don't.
Is there enough cool water nearby to even consider this plan?
What could possibly go wrong? Probably a very large bang followed by a clueless, "We didn't see that coming."
Drill a 10 mile hole into a pressurized underground chamber _below_ a giant-ass pocket of molten magma? Sure, we've got it covered. We're NASA and we brought you Challenger. We're certain we can't miss with this one.
Jeez! I'm sure not gonna be standing around Yellowstone when this gusher blows!
You mean 21st century Americans?
...If we destroy it first
.. is a space agency working on a volcano problem instead of the USGS? Did someone get a job at the wrong agency?
Couldn't we use that mother of all volcanoes to launch our rocket to Mars, or something?
WE DISCOVERED GLOBAL WARMING FROM VENUS... NASA.
Nasa has all the top planetary physicists except for some schools.
Theory: NASA is more likely to make it to Mars in 2017 than pull this off by 2117.
250 Tm^3 of magma at ~1000C with a 35% delta (call it 350C and roughly 1.5kJ/kg*C) and magma at ~2600 kg/m^3
250 Tm^3 * 2600 kg/m^3 = 650 quadrillion kg (650*10^18g) * 350C * 1.5J/G*C = ~.34*10^24 J (.34YJ)
3.6 kJ = 1Wh so ~94 EWh (94,000 PWh) in thermal energy proposed being removed by NASA.
The world total primary energy supply is 155 PWh (wiki TPES). Do the math. What NASA proposes is significantly beyond the abilities of humans today, much less possible for a few billion $. Could we build a sizable power plant for a few billion? Probably! In fact, I think we should.
Who let the drooling idiots in the basement at NASA get on the interwebs again and post something though!??!?! This proposal is ridiculous.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Band aid's can be good but why not think of something more productive like actually triggering an eruption in a controlled manor to relieve pressure. If you have a blister sometimes it's best to prick it with a needle to preserve the skin when you know it's going to keep getting bigger and then rupture.
As can be seen from this list, Yellowstone is only one of many, and has been relatively quiet, unlike Tambora and Taupo which have both gone up comparatively recently.
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
They definitely should be certain before trying this. Maybe it is possible to simulate with a new type of computer or better to try it out on another spinning rock first if possible.
I can't resist after all the crap NASA got about that polar lander.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
NASA being stupid again. YSNP is a great source of energy. Tap into it, release/capture the heat and temperature. When a pot boils, do cool it down or open the lid?
I thought 'supervolcano' was another term for 45...
Yellowstone has erupted many times and has never caused an extinction event or "destroyed the climate". What rot this is.
Even though they're NASA and have nothing to do with geophysical stuff, the sad fact is that the population expects them to come up with the answers. Bruce Willis' conversation in Armageddon sums it up:
Harry Stamper: What's your contingency plan?
Truman: Contingency plan?
Harry: Your backup plan. You gotta have some kind of backup plan, right?
Truman: No, we don't have a back up plan, this is, uh...
Harry: And this is the best that you-that the government, the US government could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight Boy Scouts right here [gestures to USAF pilots], that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?
Truman: Yeah.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
If it happens every 100000 years, then logically it can't be a "greater threat to life on earth than any asteroid".
...which will defuse the volcano....OR cause it to erupt.
I'm not even sure where to begin with criticising this: is it that we're mucking around with forces we can barely understand, much less control? Or is it that the reason for this is ostensibly to protect the earth's climate - not the hundreds of millions of lives that might be lost in such a cataclysm?
Please, "scientists" don't do this.
-Styopa
From Wikipedia, the USGS has recently and repeatedly refused the assertion that Yellowstone poses any danger, saying they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future."
You say "not planning to prevent it would be foolhardy in the extreme".
Prevention may simply be impossible or cost prohibitive. It may already be too late to draw off the heat driving an eruption. It could be the right thing to do to deal with the Yellowstone disaster is to manage world population, migrate people away from the danger site, set up shelters with food caches, and wait out the environmental damage to the point where it makes sense to emerge and reconstruct. That may well be the necessary approach.
I like the idea of defusing the Yellowstone supervolcano by drawing the heat off and putting it to use powering North America. However, it's far from evident that it can work, or that the cost of making it work would be favorable compared to the 'shelter and deal' option.
My question is, why is it suddenly a concern? The last I'd heard, the experts said the caldera is not showing any sign of blowing out anytime soon. Now we're suddenly worried about this?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
and make it safe before someone drops a bunker buster nuke on it.
Who the fuck modded this 4, Interesting?!?
You people are such fucking sheep!!
You can't tell this is a joke? How the fuck are you going to keep the steam hot enough to prevent it from condensing into water? By burning coal? Oil/gasoline?
Come on!! Seriously, fucking Whoosh, already!!
Keystone = expansion of co2-emitting fossil fuel infrastructure = brain-dead (or clinically insane, hard to tell which) policy in the 21st century.
Deep geothermal power = avoided fossil fuel consumption and emissions. So most fossil-fuel expansion protesters will be fine with it.
These people who get "triggered" by fossil fuel capacity expansion projects are mostly triggered by the overwhelming stupidity and willful destructiveness of the projects. The maniacs (those continuing to scale up fossil fuel infrastructure) need to be stopped. If you don't believe me, come back and tell me what you think in 25 years, when you're getting most of your food from the mid-west (of Canada).
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It could be a terawatt-scale version of Hellisheiði: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... AS a bonus, it could supply hot water for the entire northern tier of states. No more mortgaging your soul for each winter's supply of heating oil in the Northeast.
I wonder why this hasn't been done before? Besides being a national park, are there any logistical concerns people haven't mentioned?
Finally, a good (helpful/positive) use for fracking technology.
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
"the maniacs ... need to be stopped".
It sounds like you've been triggered.