Should we pump water into the Yellowstone caldera?

MayCaesar

The chances that the super-volcanic eruption will happen within the next 1,000 years are very slim, slim enough to not worry about it even in theory. And by then either our technology will be so advanced that preventing such an eruption will be very easy, or we will be gone as a species - either way, the eruption will not bother us.

Yellowstone is an amazing place. I was there in June, and, believe it or not, we had sub-zero temperatures and heavy snowfall - in June! The scenery is unbelievably grandiose and beautiful, and I cannot wait to visit again, hopefully when it is a bit warmer.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

There's no guarantee the Yellowstone calder won't erupt before you finish reading this post. It's not believed that the method of pumping water into the volcano will work instantly, it could take 1,000 years before the threat is diminished enough to only be considered a threat to the state of Wyoming. Your argument also isn't a good reason to not reap the benefits of creating cheap energy from the geothermal power plant that could be built. The energy created at that plant could easily be the most competitive energy plant on earth, and the income from that plant could pay for the costs of the entire operation very quickly.  

MayCaesar

@piloteer

There are no guarantees in life in general, but Yellowstone volcano eruptions are known to be separated from each other by many hundreds thousands years, so if we take a given 1000 year long window, the chance of eruption throughout it is slim. And most of the eruptions are hypothesised to be fairly minor, not enough to seriously affect life of people in western Wyoming and eastern Idaho.
Scientists are closely monitoring the situation, and the last major report I read (from 2014) stated that a super-eruption is not expected any time soon. There are always events preceding such eruptions, such as tremors, often lasting for centuries before the actual eruption occurs, and nothing indicative of anything like this was ever detected.
The media like to blow everything out of proportion, but in reality the statistical chances of Yellowstone erupting, given the information we have, are so slim, you should be more worried about being hit by a meteorite in the head randomly, than that happening.

As for building a geothermal plant, that would be neat, but geothermal plants usually generate fairly little power. As it stands now, I would prefer the caldera to remain a tourist attraction; I did not get to see it in my visit in June, and I surely would love to return and spend a bit more time in the Park. It is truly an outstanding place, grander than the Grand Canyon.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

NASA actually considers large volcanoes that are capable of a VEI (volcanic explosivity index) of 5 or larger to be more of a threat to humankind than meteorites or comets. Yellowstone is not the only volcano on earth that is capable of a massive volcanic eruption that could range as high as a VEI of 8, and the Yellowstone caldera is not the largest known volcano on earth. Although volcanologists don't like the term "super volcano", they do use it to relay to the public the dangers of the 20 or so known volcanoes that are capable of a super massive eruption that could potentially cause massive destruction and loss of life on a global scale. Maybe Yellowstone only has a super massive eruption every 600,000 years on average, but when we take into account all the other volcanoes on earth that are capable of a comparable eruption, it is estimated that a super massive eruption happens roughly every 100,000 years or less.  
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20170817-nasas-ambitious-plan-to-save-earth-from-a-supervolcano

It also wouldn't take a super massive eruption on the scale of Yellowstone or the Toba event to cause major crop failures globally. It is now believed that the global event that occurred in 535-536 AD was not a comet or meteorite as previously thought, but it was a massive volcanic eruption that took place in central America, and it could have instantly killed as many as 100,000 people. The ILopango eruption in El Salvador may have caused a sudden decrease in temperatures in the northern hemisphere, and it had a VEI of 7. The Tambora eruption that happened in 1815 is thought to be the culprit for the "year without a summer". That event caused major crop failures in the northern hemisphere. In northern Europe, and parts of Asia and north eastern America, there were freezing temperatures and snow storms throughout the summer. Both those events are considered to have been on the scale of a VEI 7. VEI eruptions on the scale of 7 happen 1-2 times every 1,000 years. The lower we go down the VEI scale, the more frequently those types of eruptions take place. Perhaps super massive eruptions are very infrequent, but eruptions that are considered global events happen far more often and they have the potential to cause food shortages on a global scale.

 It's worth noting that volcanoes do not erupt on a time scale that was devised by humans, they erupt whenever the hell they want to erupt, and our volcanic time scales are only estimations and can't be considered a guaranteed safeguard. Nobody knows when the next global event will occur, and NASA considers preparation now to be the best option. Even if geothermal power plants don't produce the same amount of energy as other methods of energy production, the potential to build geothermal plants over volcanoes could make that form of energy a more reliable and cheaper option.