Preventing Volcanic Eruptions

[nizmo]

From what i understand, large volcanic eruptions occur when the preassure below the surface is too great and the volcano blows it's top and spews out huge amounts of matter.

 

My question is, why can't we drill into the chamber and slowly release the preassure? The side benefit of this would be that we could use this preassure to generate huge amounts of electricity. So what's the problem?

[Leader Bee]

I guess your drilling equipment would melt?

[JohnB]

You know that oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

 

Now imagine something spewing out 50 times as much stuff, but instead of oil it's molten tock at 3,000 degrees. Things will get very bad, very fast.

[THEBRAIN]

I think that can be done, and it really doesn't copmare to the Gulf. Two very different scenarios. Plus you can find volcanoes in very remote locations, and they are going to errupt anyways, so you have the safety specifications to properly maintain the process. I mean, you could use yellowstone for sure. That would just be another example of us using our Earth's natural resources. That's what we have been doing forever and it is what we will have to continue to do, because we can not evolve and survive without the Earth's resources. So one day there will be nothing left to use. But that's down the road. For now we drill volanoes and start producing electricity and more. Think of the power you could harness at yellowstone. That is a great idea, that will probablly come to fruition eventually. Accidents will always happen, this is not the first oil spill in the Gulf. And I'm sure that we will have accidents with volcanic matter, but that's just the price we pay for the resources.

[Horza2002]

I suppose the main problem would be if you drilled down to release the pressure, you've just given the pressure a nice quick and easy route out of the volcano back up the shaft you just drilled. So instead of preventing the eruption you might actually cause it. Even if there wasn't a full eruption, then the magma may melt ur drill, be pushed up the shaft, cool and then just refil the shaft with solid rock again.

 

Using volcanoes to generate electricity has been done already. Geothermal power plants using thin areas of the crust to heat water into steam to drive turbines.

[Prince]

Volcanic eruptions can be controlled. The extent of the control of each individual volcanic eruption is different. To stop a volcano from erupting, or reducing its eruption, you don't drill where the volcano is active in order relieve the pressure deep down in the earth. That would be a waist of time.

 

In order to relieve the pressure that is backing up to a volcano, you would find out where the pressure is backed up from, and for volcanoes it's always behind them, just like any other creation of the Earth.

 

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say for instance there is a pond high on top of a hill that contains water. Farther down the valley from the pond is an artesian water well where the water from the pond above spurts out above the land further down hill. The only way to cut off the supply of water from the pond above is to block off the water coming from the pond above. Drilling around the artesian well is not going to block off the water, just as drilling around a volcano will not stop the supply of magma. End of example.

 

In order to control a volcanic eruption you find where the flow is backing up from. Magma is only exiting from a volcano because it is the route of least resistance. If you can make another route deep in the ground, the new route of least resistance, then the volcano will not explode. The only reason why a volcano explodes is because another route of least resistance has become blocked by an earthquake.

 

A man made earthquake is all that is needed in the regular route of such underground flow of magma. There are two ways to discover such underground routes of magma. One is simply to go to the volcanoes and aim a piezoseismic directional optical telescope down into the ground and follow the detected flow that is probably tens of miles below the earths surface. The other option is to learn where the volcanoes link is at, and then cause one or more man made earthquakes in the linked area that are known to be directly linked by timed observations.

 

You can view some of my videos on such matters on YouTube. http://www.youtube.c...MexicoGeologist I touched on the subject of how to control volcanic eruptions in one of my videos in 2009.

[OSHMUNNIES]

Aside from the problem of melting drill-rig equipment/workers, you must realize that the depths to magma chambers are enormous. This automatically equals tremendous drilling and maintenance costs. Another problem is that, because of variations in sub-surficial materials, magma flow is very dynamic and unpredictable, and trying to release gas pressure alone (since you probably don't want to release fluid pressure from a magma chamber) would be extremely complicated and dangerous. Even the most advanced remote-sensing techniques and fluid-flow algorithms would not be able to predict such conditions. Also, Horza2002 is right, geothermal power, which utilizes steam-power from magma-heated aquifers, is being developed globally, and is much safer and more cost-efficient.

Edited August 26, 2010 by OSHMUNNIES

[Ophiolite]

Prince,

how do you plan to initiate the earthquakes?

How can you ensure that the complex system of subterranean stresses is adjusted just so to cause this fault plane to move this amount, and not that fault plane by that amount?

What do you see as the difference between the eruption of magma at a well defined place by natural processes and the attempt to cause it to erupt at a different, less well defined spot, by means of initiating earthquakes? High risk strategy, is it not?

Or do you fully expect that the magma will all be constrained underground? If that is what you intend what evidence do you have to support such a concept?

O.

[antineutrino]

you got my hand on your shoulder, if you got a drill strong enough to dig 5 kilometres of the earth's crust, and dare to face the magma

[ewmon]

This is a difficult proposition. We're talking about releasing horrific amounts of energy with broad-reaching destruction and consequences that if, for example, they had been able to "burp" Mount St Helens, would the result have been worse than if they let it take it's natural course? There's never any "do over" or side-by-side comparison, so it'll be hard to say if intervening was better or worse.

 

Burping a volcano or releasing pent up earthquake energy is a human-orchestrated event, not a natural catastrophe, so there's legal consequences as a man-made disaster instead of an "act of God". Think of the hoopla if Iceland had decided to "burp" their volcano ... such international, commercial and social consequences.

[daniel90]

What more can be done to preventing volcanic eruptions?

I thought we cannot prevent them, but at least we can avoid them?

[Hearts]

What more can be done to preventing volcanic eruptions?

I thought we cannot prevent them, but at least we can avoid them?

 

Yes, we can at least avoid them.

 

Anyway, I feel that if we are able to control where the magma will spill out, besides saving human lives and protecting property, we could create new land ( to relieve the population problem). I've heard that the ground near volcanoes are fertile...so if we do it just right, we could also make a few farmers happy, grow more food to feed us overpopulated humans. As for the problem of the melting drill, why not design it to be single use only? I don't imagine it to have much more of a lifespan anyway if its made to do such heavy work. The new fertile land could help justify the economical aspect of this undoubtly expensive project.

[Sighance]

Based on reading the above comments, I don't think that many of these contributors are thinking about the complete picture. If/When we suffer a super volcanic eruption or just a very large eruption anywhere around the globe, it could mean possible annihilation of a population inhabiting a vast amount of land, if not a continent. It is possible that given the right circumstances, a massive eruption could make the earth mostly uninhabitable for a long time. Maybe the natural progression of total earth development(meaning all inclusive), is for us to figure out how to safely, practically and ecologically correct, harness the volcanic energy all over the world. By somehow (there has to be a way) tapping into the pressures beneath the earth, we could create pores on the planet's surface, so it's skin could sweat, releasing balanced amounts of pressure. I always think of a volcano as similar to a pimple or boil on animal skin I am sure that we are smart enough creatures to devise how to drill down to a point in the earth's crust that doesn't quite reach the actual active molten lava but close enough to drain off some form of energy that will serving the purpose of killing two birds with one stone.

 

Based on reading the above comments, I don't think that many of these contributors are thinking about the complete picture. If/When we suffer a super volcanic eruption or just a very large eruption anywhere around the globe, it could mean possible annihilation of a population inhabiting a vast amount of land, if not a continent. It is possible that given the right circumstances, a massive eruption could make the earth mostly uninhabitable for a long time. Maybe the natural progression of total earth development(meaning all inclusive), is for us to figure out how to safely, practically and ecologically sound, harness the volcanic energy all over the world. By somehow (there has to be a way) tapping into the pressures beneath the earth, we could create pores on the planet's surface, so it's skin could sweat, releasing balanced amounts of pressure. I always think of a volcano as similar to a pimple or boil on animal skin I am sure that we are smart enough creatures to devise how to drill down to a point in the earth's crust that doesn't quite reach the actual active molten lava but close enough to drain off some form of energy that will serving the purpose of killing two birds with one stone.

[Greg Boyles]

I think that can be done, and it really doesn't copmare to the Gulf. Two very different scenarios. Plus you can find volcanoes in very remote locations, and they are going to errupt anyways, so you have the safety specifications to properly maintain the process. I mean, you could use yellowstone for sure. That would just be another example of us using our Earth's natural resources. That's what we have been doing forever and it is what we will have to continue to do, because we can not evolve and survive without the Earth's resources. So one day there will be nothing left to use. But that's down the road. For now we drill volanoes and start producing electricity and more. Think of the power you could harness at yellowstone. That is a great idea, that will probablly come to fruition eventually. Accidents will always happen, this is not the first oil spill in the Gulf. And I'm sure that we will have accidents with volcanic matter, but that's just the price we pay for the resources.

If you built your geothermal power plant near or on an active volcano it would have a very short lifespan and you would expend more energy replacing the infrastructure than you would ever extract from the volcano.

 

This is where you folks with little or no scientific education show extraordinary naivity in not moderating your ambitions for science with practicality and common sense.

 

 

 

As for releasing pressure in volcanos, your talking about vents hudreds of metres in diameter and / or kilometres long. And yet these are unable to release enough pressure quickly enough to prevent massive volcanic explosions.

What in the hell makes you believe that the puny human bore holes would make any noticeable difference to the enormous pressure exerted by massive upwellings of motlen rock from the mantle????????

 

In my opinion some of the general public has substituted their faith in god with faith in technology and now direct they're prayaers to scientists rather than priests. This ludicrous idea is little different from asking a god or gods to stop a natural catastrophe in my view.

 

The best that you can realistically expect of science is to be able predict a volcanic erruption with enough time to evacuate any communities from danger zone.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Greg Boyles

[Ophiolite]

Based on reading the above comments, I don't think that many of these contributors are thinking about the complete picture.

You are correct. However, I think you have fallen into the same trap.

For example, you say: " It is possible that given the right circumstances, a massive eruption could make the earth mostly uninhabitable for a long time."

Possible? No eruption in the hostory of the planet has rendered it uninhabitable. It is true that one ore more past major extinctions may have been wholly or partly the result of volcanic eruptions (plural) extending over thousands of years, but none rendered the planet uninhabitable.

 

You go on to say: "By somehow (there has to be a way) tapping into the pressures beneath the earth, we could create pores on the planet's surface, so it's skin could sweat, releasing balanced amounts of pressure."

Volcanic eruptions are more about transfering heat than reducing pressure. Unless you wish to find a way of stopping plate tectonics (Google Kardashev Type II civilisation to grasp what might be involved) then, despite your wishes, it just isn't going to happen.

 

That said, perhaps you would like to prove me wrong in this way:

 

Estimate the amount of heat to found in a typical magma chamber.

Calculate how much heat could be extracted by pumping water through boreholes in the vicinity of the magma chamber.

Deomonstrate that the magma can be cooled to the point of crystalisation in a practical time frame with a practical number of boreholes.

[granpa]

one could use an atom bomb to release the pressure before it builds up to dangerous levels

[Greg Boyles]

one could use an atom bomb to release the pressure before it builds up to dangerous levels

 

What is the difference between an atomic explosion and a volcanic erruption? In addition the surrounding land would be contaminated with fallout which would mean future generations of humans could not benefit from the rich new soils that eventually result.

[granpa]

obviously it would only be used for the biggest most destructive caldera volcanoes.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_strewnfield

 

The Australasian strewnfield, covering at least one-tenth of the Earth's surface, is the largest and the youngest of the tektite strewnfields. The 800,000 year-old strewnfield includes most of Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Southern China, Laos and Cambodia).

 

Also, some recent estimates suggest that the strewn field may cover 30% of the earths surface (Povenmire et al.).

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australite

 

The australites acquired their streamlined, aerodynamic forms when they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere while molten and travelling at high velocities.[1]

 

 

Edited January 9, 2012 by granpa

[Greg Boyles]

obviously it would only be used for the biggest most destructive caldera volcanoes.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ian_strewnfield

 

The Australasian strewnfield, covering at least one-tenth of the Earth's surface, is the largest and the youngest of the tektite strewnfields. The 800,000 year-old strewnfield includes most of Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Southern China, Laos and Cambodia).

 

Also, some recent estimates suggest that the strewn field may cover 30% of the earths surface (Povenmire et al.).

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Australite

 

The australites acquired their streamlined, aerodynamic forms when they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere while molten and travelling at high velocities.[1]

 

 

 

The biggest volcanic explosions are far in excess of the explosions that even our most powerful nuclear weapons can produce. They would make negligeable difference to the enormous pressures beneath such volcanos that produce such super volcanic erruptions.

[granpa]

what are you talking about?

 

the idea is to release the pressure before it builds to dangerous levels by blasting a hole into the crust

 

The biggest volcanic explosions are far in excess of the explosions that even our most powerful nuclear weapons can produce.

 

Thats the whole point.

[Ophiolite]

How do you plan that the atomic explosion will create a pathway for lava? Some decades ago the Soviets used subterranean nuclear explosions to kill blow outs on oil wells, not to facilitate production. Actually, they tried that too. Killing blow outs worked perfectly; trying to frac the formation didn't.

[Santalum]

what are you talking about?

 

the idea is to release the pressure before it builds to dangerous levels by blasting a hole into the crust

 

 

 

Thats the whole point.

 

He is right. Even the most powerful of our nuclear bombs would not come any where near being able to penetrate the crust to the magma chamber in order to relieve the pressure and there is most likely vastly more pressure in the magma chamber than could be relieved by a small hole that could hypothetically be produced by a nuclear weapon;

Edited January 17, 2012 by Santalum

[granpa]

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/aboutus/jlowenstern/other/LowSmithHill_RSL.pdf

 

Given the size of the caldera and the implied depths, it is reasonable to infer that at least 15 000 km3

of crystal-melt mush are located beneath the Yellowstone caldera, at depths from ca 8 to 18 km.

 

 

If melt fractions are 0.1–0.15, then sufficient melt exists to form the

mass for a super-eruption—if it can be extracted and accumulated into an

eruptible volume. Most geophysical images have insufficient resolution to define

volumes less than ca 10 km on a side. It is fully plausible that volumes with high

melt fractions (more than 0.6) exist within dikes and sills within the greater

magma chamber, and could erupt as moderate-volume (less than 100 km3) lavas or

pyroclastic flows.

Edited January 18, 2012 by granpa

[questionposter]

Drilling small holes in a volcanoes is simply not enough to vent the pressure, and drilling big holes and blowing it up is basically just making it happen early or at the very least releasing a bunch of toxins and smoke into the atmosphere. The best we can do is prepare for when things like Yellow-Stone or Sumatra do erupt.

[pink_trike]

Before we start attempting to prevent volcanic explosions we might want to give some very serious thought to whether volcanic explosions in some way serve to protect and renew the ecosphere upon which life (all life, not just human life) depends. The processes that take place within Earth are much more than just inconveniences to human beings (who myopically perceive themselves as the center of all existence).