h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The geological history of the Yellowstone caldera shows within
an order of magnitude how severe a volcanic eruption will be
and therefore what is needed to contain it.
I propose
a series of miles-thick tunnels be built to funnel lava and
gasses from the caldera toward unpopulated areas
nearby.
Upon completion pressure would be relieved above the caldera
in just the right spots such that a premature, less severe
eruption would occur and the lava and gasses would vent
along the tunnels.
It's been thought of.
http://volcanoes.us...ne_sub_page_50.html
Look at the bottom question. [MechE, Mar 28 2013]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
When I crudely extrapolate the numbers, that seems to mean bang go soon. Did you have an unpopulated area in mind? |
|
| |
Well, Yellowstone springs to mind. Not a whole lot of
populous 'round there. |
|
| |
//WP: //The three super eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago//// |
|
| |
WP: //The U.S. Geological Survey, University of Utah and National Park Service scientists with the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory maintain that they "see no evidence that another such cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable future. Recurrence intervals of these events are neither regular nor predictable."// |
|
| |
//Recurrence intervals of these events are neither
regular nor predictable."// |
|
| |
Why don't we just wait another 15-20 million years and
then it will be Canada's problem. If past motion of the
hotspot continues, it looks like it might end up just a
wee bit west of Winnipeg. Problem solved. |
|
| |
If we could communicate the idea of "wait 15-20 million years" to the caldera, then surely some Winnipeggers would immediately commence communicating "BOOM NOW! BOOM NOW!" |
|
| |
Um, if the caldera goes now, most likely so does
Winnipeg. Along with pretty much the entire US
west of the Mississippi and east of the Sierra Nevada. |
|
| |
Yes, so let's drill a hole into it already! Nothing relieves
millions of years of built-up volcanic pressure like making a
tiny little pinprick and letting it gently drain away. |
|
| |
See the link I posted. They've thought about it. |
|
| |
If you could bring the lava to the right places, we could use it to build highways and airports and such. If you promise to pave over Rock Springs, Wyoming, I'll give you a croissant. |
|
| |
I wonder whether it would be feasible and/or
(and/or orand) to build roads by fusing the
existing geology. |
|
| |
The latent heat of fusion of silica (sand) is
something like 200kJ/kg. If we assume that this is
the main energy input (ie, that the heat needed
to raise the sand to just below melting is
relatively much less), and if we want a glass road
50cm thick, then a square metre of road will
require us to melt about 1300kg of sand, needing
260MJ of energy. |
|
| |
Liquid fossil fuels give about 50MJ/litre, so it
would take about 5 litres of fossil fuel to produce
1 square metre of road. Call it 100 litres to allow
for inefficiencies. That, in turn, means about
$100 per square metre of road. |
|
| |
If a two-lane road is 8m wide, this means $800 per
linear metre of two-lane road, or about
$1m/kilometre. Normal construction costs for 2-
lane road are something like $5m/kilometre. |
|
| |
So, if you're laying a road across fusible rock or
sand, maybe melting the rock isn't such a bad
idea. |
|
| |