Can Tungsten Be Used as a Solution for Yellowstone's Super Volcano?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vrbic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Volcano
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of using tungsten as a medium for energy transfer in Yellowstone's supervolcano project, which involves drilling and pumping water for energy generation. While tungsten has a high melting point and thermal conductivity, its cost is prohibitively high, making it an inefficient choice compared to water, which has superior heat capacity and convection properties. The estimated power output from tungsten would be minimal, around 3 kW, compared to the significantly higher output achievable with water. Additionally, alternative materials like iron offer lower costs and sufficient thermal conductivity, further emphasizing the advantages of using water. Overall, water remains the more practical and efficient medium for this energy transfer solution.
Vrbic
Messages
400
Reaction score
18
Hello,
recently I noticed an article about super volcano in Yellowstone and NASA's solution by drill and pumping water in there which will be a medium for energy transfer. I hope I have read good article with good informations. A price estimation was around 3.5 mld dollars. In my country we have build an nulcear power plant around 5 mld dollars so for me this aspect realable. Do you agree?
My main question is: Would be better to use as medium some kind of metal or alloy as a bar which would transfer thermal energy by thermal conducting?

Temperature of core is around 5000 C. A melting point of wolfram is around 4000 C so such materials exists. They have to exists, a borer has to resist such temperature. Also you need not to pump the water in there and spare energy. What is your oppinion?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Convection is much more efficient than conductivity, and water has a very high heat capacity. You can use the hot water to produce electricity - the system also works as power plant.

Tungsten has a thermal conductivity of 173 W/(m·K). A 500 m column at 500 K temperature difference between the ends (that is unrealistically high) will conduct 173 W/m2. It has a price of 200 million dollars per square meter. With 3.5 billions you can transfer about 3 kW. A negligible power. A single cubic centimeter of water per second, turned to steam, can do the same.
You could use other materials than tungsten, of course - iron has a lower thermal conductivity, but it is much cheaper. That gives you a factor ~30 mainly from the lower price. 100 kW is still a negligible power.
 
  • Like
Likes Vrbic
Thread 'Where is my curb stop?'
My water meter is submerged under water for about 95% of the year. Today I took a photograph of the inside of my water meter box because today is one of the rare days that my water meter is not submerged in water. Here is the photograph that I took of my water meter with the cover on: Here is a photograph I took of my water meter with the cover off: I edited the photograph to draw a red circle around a knob on my water meter. Is that knob that I drew a red circle around my meter...
Hi all, i have some questions about the tesla turbine: is a tesla turbine more efficient than a steam engine or a stirling engine ? about the discs of the tesla turbine warping because of the high speed rotations; does running the engine on a lower speed solve that or will the discs warp anyway after time ? what is the difference in efficiency between the tesla turbine running at high speed and running it at a lower speed ( as fast as possible but low enough to not warp de discs) and: i...
Back
Top