Can you drill into a supervolcano to relieve pressure? (2016)(askageologist.blogspot.com)
askageologist.blogspot.com
Can you drill into a supervolcano to relieve pressure? (2016)
http://askageologist.blogspot.com/2016/03/can-you-drill-into-supervolcano-to.html
124 comments
My favorite National Park Service quip of all time. At the bottom of the page on Yellowstone's volcano [0] are a few questions and answers, and among them this gem:
>> What is Yellowstone National Park doing to stop or prevent an erruption?
> Nothing can be done to prevent an eruption. The temperatures, pressures, physical characteristics of partially molten rock, and immensity of the magma chamber are beyond human ability to impact—much less control.
In my head, some staff geologist, tired of answering dumb questions, was asked and finally snapped a little.
[0] https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/volcano.htm
>> What is Yellowstone National Park doing to stop or prevent an erruption?
> Nothing can be done to prevent an eruption. The temperatures, pressures, physical characteristics of partially molten rock, and immensity of the magma chamber are beyond human ability to impact—much less control.
In my head, some staff geologist, tired of answering dumb questions, was asked and finally snapped a little.
[0] https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/volcano.htm
This is a very clear distillation of the absolute lack of imagination that is endemic across the National Parks Service. It is this mindset that stagnating progress in the National Parks. 105 years and there have been no major developments in Parks technologies. No waterfalls running in reverse, no water-skiing bison, no Grander Canyon.
/s
When I visited Yellowstone, the only thing I wanted, literally the only thing, was for an enormous eagle to fly down and attack a bear, and then for both to fall into a hot/acid pool with a cry and dissolve. Is that too much to ask? What are my tax dollars being used for anyway?!
Well you'll have to settle for hanging around and watching foolish tourists trip, slip and dissolve.
You really had me until the very end, I even had a “parks don’t need disrupting” speech planned
Bison move surprisingly quickly and are very good at breaking things.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6511a5.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6511a5.htm
[deleted]
Sounds like a challenge!
(Seriously, I think Yellowstone is protected from geothermal power development precisely BECAUSE it could impact it.)
Re: the first paragraph's reference to nuking the Deepwater horizon's oil leak, Soviet engineers demonstrated that this was a viable technique back in the 60's. Plenty of wild non-war applications have been proposed for nuclear bombs over the years, but this is the only one I can think of that is actually somewhat of a good idea. Any fallout is minor and contained under 1km+ of bedrock, and the harm prevented is worth the cost. I am surprised that the author dismisses it so rapidly.
https://interestingengineering.com/soviet-engineers-detonate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S57Xq03njsc
https://interestingengineering.com/soviet-engineers-detonate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S57Xq03njsc
The author's logic is that only things comparable in scale to a volcano can cancel out the volcano by brute force, and nuclear detonations are thousands to millions of times smaller than volcanic eruptions. Proposals for things like this involve using nuclear detonations to make small but critical disruptions to systems, so the logic doesn't apply, but without actually digging into it you generally wouldn't know that's what the plan entails. Admittedly, it's unintuitive to think of nuclear detonations as a precise scalpel instead of a blunt cudgel. It also doesn't help that the well thought out proposals often get crudely parroted, so "collapse the well 1 km down to choke off the flow of oil" becomes "blow up the well".
I would think the biggest point about collapsing a well is that the well IS a human-made, human-scale object. It IS a blunt instrument not a pin prick in that case.
>Plenty of wild non-war applications have been proposed for nuclear bombs over the years
Yup, Project Plowshare (US) and Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy (USSR) looked a lot of interesting/crazy ideas for non-military applications for nuclear weapons.
Some of the ideas were just nuts for use on earth (like making bays) but if we ever do start setting up shop on another planet, like Mars, nuclear detonations could probably be used for construction efforts early on to get some serious work done quickly - Project Orion, especially if done with materials mined from the asteroid belt, could be an extremely viable option for interstellar travel even if just for probes.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Plowshare
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Natio...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsio...
Yup, Project Plowshare (US) and Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy (USSR) looked a lot of interesting/crazy ideas for non-military applications for nuclear weapons.
Some of the ideas were just nuts for use on earth (like making bays) but if we ever do start setting up shop on another planet, like Mars, nuclear detonations could probably be used for construction efforts early on to get some serious work done quickly - Project Orion, especially if done with materials mined from the asteroid belt, could be an extremely viable option for interstellar travel even if just for probes.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Plowshare
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Natio...
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsio...
Relatedly: apparently it would be a good idea to destroy the Martian moon Phobos before settling the planet. It's a fascinating proposal and makes sense; you can read about it here:
https://marspedia.org/Bringing_down_Phobos
https://marspedia.org/Bringing_down_Phobos
If we are going down that rabbit hole, I love the plan to create an artificial Martian magnetosphere by placing a magnetic field generating satellite between mars and the solar winds. Generating an atmosphere on mars is all well and good, but it will just blow away again without some protection. The generator would only require roughly 583.9 exajoules, or roughly the world's total energy consumption in 2020.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.06887.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.06887.pdf
>Generating an atmosphere on mars is all well and good, but it will just blow away again without some protection.
NASA estimates the Martian atmosphere is ~2.5e16 kgs[0]. Current estimate[1] is that the Martian atmosphere loses 2-3 kg/s. Presently losing something on the order of 1e-9 percentage per day. I think if humans ever have the ability to thicken the Martian atmosphere, we can cover the loss.
[0] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htm... [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.030
NASA estimates the Martian atmosphere is ~2.5e16 kgs[0]. Current estimate[1] is that the Martian atmosphere loses 2-3 kg/s. Presently losing something on the order of 1e-9 percentage per day. I think if humans ever have the ability to thicken the Martian atmosphere, we can cover the loss.
[0] https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.htm... [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2018.05.030
A man made denser atmosphere after terraforming would presumably loose more due to higher pressure.
A superconducting tape girdling the planet's equator would suffice, and require after startup only the power needed to keep it chilled at all times below 70K.
[deleted]
That sounds actually quite practical and like an amazing option! Are there papers about this you could please share the links to?
Just a youtube video.
21340 km of superconducting tape could take rather some time to fabricate. Then, of course you need to get it there, and lay it out, and construct 20k refrigeration plants. Then, extract enough nitrogen from the atmosphere (1.89% concentration) for refrigerant; you'll need about 4M tons of it. You also need 21340 km of cryo-safe piping bonded to the tape, which probably weighs another 4M tons. Plus heat insulation.
Leakage from 21340 km of tubing, even if just migration of single molecules through the walls of the tube, would require continuous injection of fresh nitrogen.
And, I guess, you had better protect it from meteorite strikes. A planet-sized magnetic field suddenly imploding would seem to release enough energy to vaporize your whole tape. Maybe you should have two of them, parallel, 100km apart so they are unlikely to both be taken out by the same meteorite.
21340 km of superconducting tape could take rather some time to fabricate. Then, of course you need to get it there, and lay it out, and construct 20k refrigeration plants. Then, extract enough nitrogen from the atmosphere (1.89% concentration) for refrigerant; you'll need about 4M tons of it. You also need 21340 km of cryo-safe piping bonded to the tape, which probably weighs another 4M tons. Plus heat insulation.
Leakage from 21340 km of tubing, even if just migration of single molecules through the walls of the tube, would require continuous injection of fresh nitrogen.
And, I guess, you had better protect it from meteorite strikes. A planet-sized magnetic field suddenly imploding would seem to release enough energy to vaporize your whole tape. Maybe you should have two of them, parallel, 100km apart so they are unlikely to both be taken out by the same meteorite.
>but it will just blow away again without some protection.
Not in any appreciable amount over human timescales.
Not in any appreciable amount over human timescales.
Just out of curiosity, do you know to what extent the various applications (from making artificial bays to sealing wells) depend on it being a nuclear bomb versus "a big bomb"?
> do you know to what extent the various applications (from making artificial bays to sealing wells) depend on it being a nuclear bomb versus "a big bomb"
Well, any of them where emplacing a million tons of TNT might be problematic
Well, any of them where emplacing a million tons of TNT might be problematic
They tried that in the excellent documentary The Core (2003) but as I recall they didn't all survive.
However a separate documentary (Armageddon, 1998) illustrated the successful use of nuclear devices on objects of a seemingly intractable scale with extremely few casualties.
The makers of the documentary also chose an excellent score to accompany their organic capture of a moving love story along with the antics of a plucky group of misfits that came together in a crisis. It's the sort of thing you can only shake your head at and say, "Only in reality!" because if you saw it in a movie you'd just think "Nah, that could never happen".
The makers of the documentary also chose an excellent score to accompany their organic capture of a moving love story along with the antics of a plucky group of misfits that came together in a crisis. It's the sort of thing you can only shake your head at and say, "Only in reality!" because if you saw it in a movie you'd just think "Nah, that could never happen".
> a plucky group of misfits that came together in a crisis.
The related 2000 documentary 'Space Cowboys' also provides excellent insights into how generation-Boomer skills can be invaluable when modern computer systems fail catastrophically.
The related 2000 documentary 'Space Cowboys' also provides excellent insights into how generation-Boomer skills can be invaluable when modern computer systems fail catastrophically.
You just can't make this stuff up!
Nuking BP's corporate headquarters could have prevented another disaster like Deepwater Horizon in the future.
Maybe they should have nuked Exxon's corporate headquarters in response the the Valdez disaster, which might have prevented the Deepwater Horizon disaster by teaching all the remaining oil companies a lesson.
Maybe they should have nuked Exxon's corporate headquarters in response the the Valdez disaster, which might have prevented the Deepwater Horizon disaster by teaching all the remaining oil companies a lesson.
I think the answer is good, but misses one important point - it is not like there is a thin barrier where there's a sharp pressure gradient, such that you can "pop" the volcano, or allow it to fizz like a shaken coke can with a tiny hole.
When you drill down into the volcano, the hole just collapses on itself and plugs itself back up. The closer you get to the caldera, the rock become viscous and hot. Not only does your drill bit melt, but it's like trying to a hole into warming ice-cream - you don't accomplish anything.
Geothermal energy plants function by drilling holes near magma chambers, and allowing some heat to radiate into the bore hole, and then up the shaft. ...and while this process extracts some heat, the energy withdrawn is orders of magnitude smaller than what is present.
When you drill down into the volcano, the hole just collapses on itself and plugs itself back up. The closer you get to the caldera, the rock become viscous and hot. Not only does your drill bit melt, but it's like trying to a hole into warming ice-cream - you don't accomplish anything.
Geothermal energy plants function by drilling holes near magma chambers, and allowing some heat to radiate into the bore hole, and then up the shaft. ...and while this process extracts some heat, the energy withdrawn is orders of magnitude smaller than what is present.
> the hole just collapses on itself and plugs itself back up
Same with modern day oil holes. They just reinforce the walls of the hole with concrete. Much harder problem is to prevent oil and gas from rushing up through the well, and breaking the rig (it always ignites afterwards). Imagine that with lava.
Same with modern day oil holes. They just reinforce the walls of the hole with concrete. Much harder problem is to prevent oil and gas from rushing up through the well, and breaking the rig (it always ignites afterwards). Imagine that with lava.
When you core a tree to look at growth rings you have to be fast because the wood will begin to swell almost immediately. If you get distracted then you lose the corer. The tree is stronger than the handle.
I would think rocks under high pressure would do the same thing. You’d either have to dig a conical hole to get a cylindrical bore, or the boring machine would have to have cutters on both the face and the sides to keep grinding away rock that expands into the void you are creating.
I would think rocks under high pressure would do the same thing. You’d either have to dig a conical hole to get a cylindrical bore, or the boring machine would have to have cutters on both the face and the sides to keep grinding away rock that expands into the void you are creating.
Thanks, I think yours is actually a much more relevant answer than the one in the article. Personally, I took the original question as a _geophysical_ one, not a logistical one. I mean sure it's geophysically interesting that our current drills are just orders of magnitude too inconsequential, but your answer actually corrects the implied intuition that both I and the question asker wrongly had, namely that magma is like coke in a can.
With volcanos, the more viscous the magma, the more energy gets stored before an eruption. Supervolcanos are the most viscous type, hence the massive explosion.
Think boiling water vs thick oatmeal vs boiling a pressure cooker until it explodes, but obviously worse.
So "relieve pressure" in this case isn't like a pressure release valve on a water heater.
You'd need to either cool the mass, remove the overburden, or create some sort of massive voids for expansion.
The US nuclear test done in Mississippi resulted in vaporizing the rock and soil and creating a large underground void, for whatever that's worth as a sort of proof of concept.
Think boiling water vs thick oatmeal vs boiling a pressure cooker until it explodes, but obviously worse.
So "relieve pressure" in this case isn't like a pressure release valve on a water heater.
You'd need to either cool the mass, remove the overburden, or create some sort of massive voids for expansion.
The US nuclear test done in Mississippi resulted in vaporizing the rock and soil and creating a large underground void, for whatever that's worth as a sort of proof of concept.
Yeah I don't see why we can't use nukes. We just need bigger nukes and more of them. How about we drill the largest borehole we can, then drop a chain of nukes down it. ie detonate a nuke every 100m. First few can be Tsar Bomba's.
Can I interest you in a pamphlet about careers in Strategic Air Command?
> The US nuclear test done in Mississippi resulted in vaporizing the rock and soil and creating a large underground void, for whatever that's worth as a sort of proof of concept.
Where did the vaporized rock and soil go?
Where did the vaporized rock and soil go?
>Where did the vaporized rock and soil go?
"What are you, the rock police? I put'em up on my a**. How's that?"
"What are you, the rock police? I put'em up on my a**. How's that?"
Forced into the surroundings making them more dense than the surrounding rock and soil.
I imagine it escaped as a gas.
It escapes . . . as a gas . . . in an already highly pressurized environment . . . that is already containing a large amount of high-pressure hydrogen sulfide that cannot escape as it is?
I'm pressing X to doubt.
I'm pressing X to doubt.
That just means you need a second nuke to blow a hole that allows the gas to escape & lave to flow in, and a 3rd nuke to collapse the hole before the lava gets too far. It's all there in my book, "How to nuke your way out of any problem"
Big "if", but hypothetically, at least gas flows in a way that the pressure could be relieved.
The whole reason supervolcanoes are what they are is that the material can't sufficiently flow faster than pressure builds.
Converting that material to an escaping gas at scale would be an unbelievably successful technological achievement.
The whole reason supervolcanoes are what they are is that the material can't sufficiently flow faster than pressure builds.
Converting that material to an escaping gas at scale would be an unbelievably successful technological achievement.
You could just create another bigger void and let the stuff vent into that
Alabama
I like that you felt you needed to point out that a supervolcano explosion would be worse than oatmeal on the wall.
Yea- the more pertinent take is that the magma involved "flows" more like room temp glass than liquid water.
It'd be like trying to suck a mix of layers of that boiling oatmeal and playdough through a straw.
It'd be like trying to suck a mix of layers of that boiling oatmeal and playdough through a straw.
I've often wondered if its possible to use a fault line as a waste compactor and recycling centre considering all our "man made" waste comes from this planet?
Most subduction zones are quite far underwater, so... the trash would probably just bob to the surface and float.
"PSA: Before drilling into a supervolcano magma chamber, please arrange to accept and dispose of at least 1000 cubic miles of superheated lava to be emitted at a flow rate of up to 1 cubic mile per hour. Thank you for your attention to this detail."
Yep- a rapid pressure release where the outlet is the surface of the earth is pretty much indistinguishable from a normal unplanned eruption. With, as a comment in the post suggested, a nice dose of nuclear fallout in the mix.
Also if you apply hydraulic equations to the lave through such a small diameter borehole, you quickly find that you would NOT be in control of anything and you'd probably do more to trigger a large eruption - the velocity of lava out of such a borehole would be hypersonic at least and quickly open the borehole to form a new vent equal to an actual eruption.
This could be used as an assist to space maybe :) sustainable Earth based lava launches
I always felt that space colonization was a semi-conscious way of giving up on sustainability on Earth. Purposefully erupting supervolcanoes to launch spaceships would be the ultimate illustration of that.
I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than Project Orion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
Well if it came out above the escape velocity maybe it would just shoot off into space ;)
On a related note: why not seriously tap these geothermal hot spots for energy? Doesn't stop at night or when the wind dies down.
We do, where it makes sense, like Iceland:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/iceland#energy-mix
But, as it being listed as 'other renewable' hints, it doesn't make as much sense elsewhere, where generally you can just install more solar and wind and save more carbon/money that way, and leave worrying about windless nights till you've picked the low hanging fruit.
For example, the current US plan is that after getting to 95% carbon free energy, to switch the focus to electrifying more things that currently burn fuel directly, rather than worry about that awkward last 5% before they need to.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/iceland#energy-mix
But, as it being listed as 'other renewable' hints, it doesn't make as much sense elsewhere, where generally you can just install more solar and wind and save more carbon/money that way, and leave worrying about windless nights till you've picked the low hanging fruit.
For example, the current US plan is that after getting to 95% carbon free energy, to switch the focus to electrifying more things that currently burn fuel directly, rather than worry about that awkward last 5% before they need to.
At least in the US, environmental activism has contributed to lack of geothermal development. While the US has large regions with high geothermal potential, such as the Great Basin area of the mountain West, much of this land is undeveloped and under Federal control. This allows activists anywhere in the country to make getting permission difficult and expensive, the effect of which has been to limit the practical size of the power plants to ~25 MW.
Large-scale geothermal installations are not pretty and they cover large areas of land. The individual bore holes must be widely separated from each other, so if you are aggregating the energy of many bores, you are building giant pipe networks. It looks a bit like a large oil field. This gets attacked by environmental activists as despoiling the natural habitat/beauty etc of the formerly undeveloped land. In places like Nevada, which has a lot of geothermal power, there is nothing attractive or unique about this land, it is essentially volcanic badlands of the boring variety, but the campaigns against them use deceptive pictures from other parts of the country suggesting that they are paving over national parks and similar.
This propaganda against geothermal power generation makes it impractical at scale. Instead, the geothermal power plants that are practical to build in this regulatory environment are all solutions with small land footprints. The largest geothermal power plant in Nevada is <100 MW and most don't even do 20 MW.
Of course, there are similar challenges when trying to install solar power at scale in the same kinds of places. Too much of our "green energy" policy is dictated by activists that don't want to build any kind of power generation anywhere.
Large-scale geothermal installations are not pretty and they cover large areas of land. The individual bore holes must be widely separated from each other, so if you are aggregating the energy of many bores, you are building giant pipe networks. It looks a bit like a large oil field. This gets attacked by environmental activists as despoiling the natural habitat/beauty etc of the formerly undeveloped land. In places like Nevada, which has a lot of geothermal power, there is nothing attractive or unique about this land, it is essentially volcanic badlands of the boring variety, but the campaigns against them use deceptive pictures from other parts of the country suggesting that they are paving over national parks and similar.
This propaganda against geothermal power generation makes it impractical at scale. Instead, the geothermal power plants that are practical to build in this regulatory environment are all solutions with small land footprints. The largest geothermal power plant in Nevada is <100 MW and most don't even do 20 MW.
Of course, there are similar challenges when trying to install solar power at scale in the same kinds of places. Too much of our "green energy" policy is dictated by activists that don't want to build any kind of power generation anywhere.
There is plenty of geothermal power generation going on in the US, but it is not increasing.
That is not a triumph of ecoterror, but of economics: solar and wind are already substantically cheaper, and continue getting much cheaper, where geothermal, like nukes, stays just as expensive to build and operate as ever. So, pace baseload, a dollar spent today is overwhelmingly better spent on a solar panel or wind turbine, or, soon, storage for solar and wind, or production of H2 as feedstock for industrial processes and hydrocarbon synthesis from captured CO2.
There is never any need to install new solar or wind in wilderness. Both coexist productively and synergistically with current agricultural land use. A farm or pasture with solar is more agriculturally productive than the same without, and also generates clean power. In effect, the power output subsidizes construction of the shading infrastructure that reduces heat stress and evaporation.
A wind turbine displaces minimal ground area, and thus may be in the middle of a solar farm, both situated in current, productive cropland. Output may be used locally to produce ammonia when spot prices bottom out, useful on-site for both fertilizer and fuel.
That is not a triumph of ecoterror, but of economics: solar and wind are already substantically cheaper, and continue getting much cheaper, where geothermal, like nukes, stays just as expensive to build and operate as ever. So, pace baseload, a dollar spent today is overwhelmingly better spent on a solar panel or wind turbine, or, soon, storage for solar and wind, or production of H2 as feedstock for industrial processes and hydrocarbon synthesis from captured CO2.
There is never any need to install new solar or wind in wilderness. Both coexist productively and synergistically with current agricultural land use. A farm or pasture with solar is more agriculturally productive than the same without, and also generates clean power. In effect, the power output subsidizes construction of the shading infrastructure that reduces heat stress and evaporation.
A wind turbine displaces minimal ground area, and thus may be in the middle of a solar farm, both situated in current, productive cropland. Output may be used locally to produce ammonia when spot prices bottom out, useful on-site for both fertilizer and fuel.
Iceland generates 25% of their energy geothermically https://nea.is/geothermal/
There is plenty of geothermal. Where there’s not, it’s usually because another local form of generation is more attractive (e.g., hydro for volcanos near the sea) or the volcanic system is environmentally or culturally protected.
It's not a very efficient process. Firstly, you need to drill very very far down, unless you are near an active volcano. If it isn't very near the surface, most heat is lost traveling up the bore hole. Remember that you never drill INTO the magma chamber, because that would collapse/plug the hole, so companies drill adjacent to the magma chamber and allow radiant heat to rise.
It's also unstable and inconsistent. Ground water changes, magma movement, hole collapses, all make it an unreliable source of power.
It's also unstable and inconsistent. Ground water changes, magma movement, hole collapses, all make it an unreliable source of power.
It's a great idea and they do it, particularly in Iceland and Hawaii, iirc.
My recollection is that the big issue with geothermal is the minerals leaching out of the drilled rocks and fairly rapidly fouling the near/above-round equipment or depositing on the tubes/pipes closing them down. I understand that progress had been made; if anyone has more details handy, could you post links?
My recollection is that the big issue with geothermal is the minerals leaching out of the drilled rocks and fairly rapidly fouling the near/above-round equipment or depositing on the tubes/pipes closing them down. I understand that progress had been made; if anyone has more details handy, could you post links?
Here's a good "state of the art of geothermal drilling" article - https://austinvernon.site/blog/drillingplan.html
It's hard to drill in to hot things, bits melt.
You don't have to go all the way in to be able to obtain energy. Hawaii and Iceland both have geothermal power generation facilities; it's very doable.
Maintenance costs overrun any efficiency gains by using geothermal even under optimal conditions, so unless there's other reasons to use it, ideological or economic, most companies will stick to the local grid.
There are some really cool innovations with graphene coatings generating power as hot saltwater flows over it, simplifying power generation by basically creating giant linear convection flows(, as well as graphene coatings on bits to increase durability.) The technology has a ways to go to compete with solar or coal or gas if grid proximity isn't a problem.
There are some really cool innovations with graphene coatings generating power as hot saltwater flows over it, simplifying power generation by basically creating giant linear convection flows(, as well as graphene coatings on bits to increase durability.) The technology has a ways to go to compete with solar or coal or gas if grid proximity isn't a problem.
One thing not considered in TFA is the idea of drilling a hole and then using nuclear explosions to pulverize the surrounding rock to effectively increase the size of the hole. This might also punch through the last (how many?) meters of rock that are too hot to drill through. I still doubt it would work, and if it did that might be really bad too.
Both Cold War superpowers considered some variant of using nuclear weaponry for subterranean engineering in their "peaceful atom" projects. For example soviets actually used a nuke to put out a gas well fire: https://interestingengineering.com/soviet-engineers-detonate...
Yep, the US had a program called "Project Plowshares" dedicated to their use in, primarily, construction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
The quiet-part-out-loudness of naming a project designed as a propaganda measure to leverage peaceful applications of nuclear technology (including explosions) to build acceptance of (/ mitigate opposition to) nuclear weaponry qua weaponry so as to invoke Joel 3:9-10 (“Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: / Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong”) is, well, pretty amazing.
Neat, now I have a counter quote for “swords into ploughshares”
The cynicism is dizzying.
I mean, tbf, they probably intended people to read it as a reference to Isaiah 2:4 (“And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore”) which is a somewhat more popular passage.
Follow up question: if you were able to meaningfully release that heat, would it be enough to affect the global climate?
Generally no. Heat on earth is radiated out to space quite quickly.
When Mount St Helens exploded, it released about 1.0e11 MJ of energy. The earth receives 21MJ of energy from the sun, per day, per square meter. So MSH in total released as much energy in total as a square of land 70km on a side receives in a single day from the sun. Which isn't tiny, but is a relative drop in the bucket compared to the whole planet.
Considering that this hypothetical heat source would be very concentrated and so would radiate to space efficiently and not spread out as much, I wouldn't expect it to have much of any effect on the climate.
When Mount St Helens exploded, it released about 1.0e11 MJ of energy. The earth receives 21MJ of energy from the sun, per day, per square meter. So MSH in total released as much energy in total as a square of land 70km on a side receives in a single day from the sun. Which isn't tiny, but is a relative drop in the bucket compared to the whole planet.
Considering that this hypothetical heat source would be very concentrated and so would radiate to space efficiently and not spread out as much, I wouldn't expect it to have much of any effect on the climate.
The heat will be getting out one way or another.
As far as I know, nothing has been releaseed from one of these major calderas at scale in recorded history
That's like saying humans don't have to eat because you haven't been hungry in the last minute.
No it's like asking the question: "how would it affect it" because I don't have any data. I'm not arguing that it's never happened.
I'm quite aware of the fact that the earth is older than written records of the earth.
I'm quite aware of the fact that the earth is older than written records of the earth.
Poke it with a giant straw like a juice box and suck the lava out. Straw should be made from non-stick ultra-high-temperature ceramic. You just need to find someone large enough to use the straw.
It seems like there's a mistaken assumption here. Suppose you had a cheat code for the drill problem (starship Enterprise is in orbit, it fires its phasers and ablates a huge hole down to several kilometers). The only way to relieve the overpressure is for a sufficiently large volume of hot, liquid rock to rush up through that hole to the surface - that is to say, an eruption. Which is precisely what you were trying to avoid.
The difference would be (very simplified) the one between poking a controlled hole with a needle in an only somewhat inflated water balloon now, causing a small but steady stream of water to push out, vs. waiting until it fills up and bursts completely, one is way more violent than the other.
Supervolcanoes generally aren't violent, though. They're just really, really big. It's the ash and gases that do the damage.
>Supervolcanoes generally aren't violent, though.
Yes, they are. You're probably thinking of pyroclastic flow, which is also quite violent on its own. It's the waterfall of everything in the eruption column falling back to earth, and contains solid and molten rock, ash, deadly chemicals, and superheated gas, all traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.
>>A supervolcano is a volcano that has had an eruption with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 8, the largest recorded value on the index. This means the volume of deposits for such an eruption is greater than 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles).
The most recent supervolcano eruption was what formed Lake Taupo, New Zealand:
>>The Oruanui eruption of the Taupō Volcano was the world's largest known eruption in the past 70,000 years, with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8. It occurred around 26,500 years ago and generated approximately 430 km3 (100 cu mi) of pyroclastic fall deposits, 320 km3 (77 cu mi) of pyroclastic density current (PDC) deposits (mostly ignimbrite) and 420 km3 (100 cu mi) of primary intracaldera material, equivalent to 530 km3 (130 cu mi) of magma.
>>Modern Lake Taupō partly fills the caldera generated during this eruption. Tephra from the eruption covered much of the central North Island with ignimbrite up to 200 m (660 ft) deep.
Yes, they are. You're probably thinking of pyroclastic flow, which is also quite violent on its own. It's the waterfall of everything in the eruption column falling back to earth, and contains solid and molten rock, ash, deadly chemicals, and superheated gas, all traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.
>>A supervolcano is a volcano that has had an eruption with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) of 8, the largest recorded value on the index. This means the volume of deposits for such an eruption is greater than 1,000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles).
The most recent supervolcano eruption was what formed Lake Taupo, New Zealand:
>>The Oruanui eruption of the Taupō Volcano was the world's largest known eruption in the past 70,000 years, with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 8. It occurred around 26,500 years ago and generated approximately 430 km3 (100 cu mi) of pyroclastic fall deposits, 320 km3 (77 cu mi) of pyroclastic density current (PDC) deposits (mostly ignimbrite) and 420 km3 (100 cu mi) of primary intracaldera material, equivalent to 530 km3 (130 cu mi) of magma.
>>Modern Lake Taupō partly fills the caldera generated during this eruption. Tephra from the eruption covered much of the central North Island with ignimbrite up to 200 m (660 ft) deep.
I do not get your point, as where do those ash and gases from if not said super volcano erupting due to high pressure - which can mean both higher pressure than previously or less pressure resistance of the chamber, or a combination of that, which could be reduced by letting out a steady magma flow earlier which itself doesn't mean there has to be lots of ash or gases getting spewed out (i.e., the violent part).
"People who think a nuclear device is comparable to the energy released by a volcano just haven't seen a restless volcano up close. They are a whole lot bigger than they seem to be in the films. Mount St Helens is a relatively small volcano, yet it still took me nearly 6 hours to walk out of the center crater."
I can well attest to that. A year or so after the major eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, I had business in both Portland and Seattle and on that occasion I drove from Portland to Seattle rather than fly, as I'd normally do. (I'd been to Tektronix to whinge about ongoing problems we'd been having with a PAL 625 TV sync pulse generator—an interesting story in itself but I'll leave that for another time).
I live an ocean away—thousands of miles from Portland but I had an ulterior motive for renting a vehicle in Portland and driving to Seattle, as this time I wanted to visit and drive over the 'renewed' Tacoma Narrows bridge which replaced the infamous Galloping Gertie that failed in 1940—of which I'd learned so much about years earlier in structures and physics. Having a vehicle made that possible. Visiting Mt St Helens wasn't on my agenda—and I'd already seen it post the 1980 eruption from a commercial SFO/SEA flight although I did expect to see it in the distance to the east from the I5.
It was somewhat latish afternoon, 3:30–4:00 pm, when I arrived at my nearest point on the I5 to Mt St Helens and unexpectedly nearby there was a small airfield. Signs on the highway indicated that a company was offering joy flights to Mt St Helens, so on-the-spur-of-the-moment I decided to take the flight. Unfortunately, I was the only one wanting a flight at that time and the pilot told me that it was uneconomic to take only one person (two being the minimum) so I'd have to wait until additional sightseers turned up—and if that didn't happen soon (within 15 or so minutes) then it'd be too late in the day to fly! Anyway, I struck a deal at somewhat less than the amount for two people and we were on our way.
I don't need to describe this remarkable scene except to say it was spectacular—much more so than the somewhat limited view from the commercial jet; and anyone who's interested will already be familiar with the wonderful photos in National Geographic and elsewhere. However, one point I must comment on is that for mile after mile in this desolate lunar-mud-like landscape the remaining trunks of the flattened pine trees were all facing radially away from the exit point of the explosion like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, it was one of the strangest sights I've ever seen. There was no doubt that this was an extremely huge explosion.
After doing the standard joy flight, the pilot suggested that seeing I'd paid much more than the normal fare would I like him to take me closer to the crater. Gleefully, I agreed and we not only got closer to the crater but we actually flew around inside it — right, the crater is truly huge when one's actually inside it! When the author says it took him nearly 'six hours to walk out of the center of the crater' he not exaggerating one iota.
'Tis a damn shame photos aren't allowed on HN, otherwise I'd post some of my old slides taken from inside the crater (they're truly spectacular).
I can well attest to that. A year or so after the major eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, I had business in both Portland and Seattle and on that occasion I drove from Portland to Seattle rather than fly, as I'd normally do. (I'd been to Tektronix to whinge about ongoing problems we'd been having with a PAL 625 TV sync pulse generator—an interesting story in itself but I'll leave that for another time).
I live an ocean away—thousands of miles from Portland but I had an ulterior motive for renting a vehicle in Portland and driving to Seattle, as this time I wanted to visit and drive over the 'renewed' Tacoma Narrows bridge which replaced the infamous Galloping Gertie that failed in 1940—of which I'd learned so much about years earlier in structures and physics. Having a vehicle made that possible. Visiting Mt St Helens wasn't on my agenda—and I'd already seen it post the 1980 eruption from a commercial SFO/SEA flight although I did expect to see it in the distance to the east from the I5.
It was somewhat latish afternoon, 3:30–4:00 pm, when I arrived at my nearest point on the I5 to Mt St Helens and unexpectedly nearby there was a small airfield. Signs on the highway indicated that a company was offering joy flights to Mt St Helens, so on-the-spur-of-the-moment I decided to take the flight. Unfortunately, I was the only one wanting a flight at that time and the pilot told me that it was uneconomic to take only one person (two being the minimum) so I'd have to wait until additional sightseers turned up—and if that didn't happen soon (within 15 or so minutes) then it'd be too late in the day to fly! Anyway, I struck a deal at somewhat less than the amount for two people and we were on our way.
I don't need to describe this remarkable scene except to say it was spectacular—much more so than the somewhat limited view from the commercial jet; and anyone who's interested will already be familiar with the wonderful photos in National Geographic and elsewhere. However, one point I must comment on is that for mile after mile in this desolate lunar-mud-like landscape the remaining trunks of the flattened pine trees were all facing radially away from the exit point of the explosion like the spokes of a bicycle wheel, it was one of the strangest sights I've ever seen. There was no doubt that this was an extremely huge explosion.
After doing the standard joy flight, the pilot suggested that seeing I'd paid much more than the normal fare would I like him to take me closer to the crater. Gleefully, I agreed and we not only got closer to the crater but we actually flew around inside it — right, the crater is truly huge when one's actually inside it! When the author says it took him nearly 'six hours to walk out of the center of the crater' he not exaggerating one iota.
'Tis a damn shame photos aren't allowed on HN, otherwise I'd post some of my old slides taken from inside the crater (they're truly spectacular).
> "People who think a nuclear device is comparable to the energy released by a volcano just haven't seen a restless volcano up close. They are a whole lot bigger than they seem to be in the films. Mount St Helens is a relatively small volcano, yet it still took me nearly 6 hours to walk out of the center crater."
Maybe volcanologists who don't think a nuclear device is comparable to the energy released by a volcano just haven't seen a peeved hydrogen bomb up close.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/
USGS estimated the blast from Mt. St. Helens was 7 megatons and 17 megatons of other thermal energy released (I guess most of that is magma flowing out).
The early large fusion bombs are comparable to that, actually bigger. The largest one ever tested was 50 megatons and had a design capable of 100 megatons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCTzbh4mNQ.
Maybe volcanologists who don't think a nuclear device is comparable to the energy released by a volcano just haven't seen a peeved hydrogen bomb up close.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/
USGS estimated the blast from Mt. St. Helens was 7 megatons and 17 megatons of other thermal energy released (I guess most of that is magma flowing out).
The early large fusion bombs are comparable to that, actually bigger. The largest one ever tested was 50 megatons and had a design capable of 100 megatons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCTzbh4mNQ.
"Mt. St. Helens was 7 megatons and 17 megatons of other thermal energy released..."
Well, at minimum, that's still between 400 and 700 times the energy released during the Hiroshima explosion. That's over two magnitudes more energy and I'm glad I wasn't anywhere near it at the time. ;-)
The Tsar Bomba (which I remember as a kid) had to be made to prove a point but as Kurchatov, Sakharov etc. seemed to realize at the time, making the 100 megaton bomb wouldn't add much to the argument (presumably other than additional cost). There was no point making a bigger bomb as the additional energy essentially would have been blown out into space thus not substantially increasing the blast area.
Anyway, that's not the point which is that even on piddling little earth nature has ways of producing huge amounts of destructive energy. As for supernovas, etc. except by way of mathematical calculations, I don't think the average human can actually contemplate or imagine energy on such a scale.
Well, at minimum, that's still between 400 and 700 times the energy released during the Hiroshima explosion. That's over two magnitudes more energy and I'm glad I wasn't anywhere near it at the time. ;-)
The Tsar Bomba (which I remember as a kid) had to be made to prove a point but as Kurchatov, Sakharov etc. seemed to realize at the time, making the 100 megaton bomb wouldn't add much to the argument (presumably other than additional cost). There was no point making a bigger bomb as the additional energy essentially would have been blown out into space thus not substantially increasing the blast area.
Anyway, that's not the point which is that even on piddling little earth nature has ways of producing huge amounts of destructive energy. As for supernovas, etc. except by way of mathematical calculations, I don't think the average human can actually contemplate or imagine energy on such a scale.
It was the point of the sentence I was responding to, which claimed that nuclear bombs were not comparable to volcanoes in terms of energy released. They are, at least volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens.
The Americans made bombs larger than St. Helens too.
The Americans made bombs larger than St. Helens too.
That sounds amazing!
I hiked up to the rim of MSH a couple decades ago, but didn't go down into it. I can attest that it's pretty big in there. And the sight of the giant blown-down trees for miles around is incredible.
I hiked up to the rim of MSH a couple decades ago, but didn't go down into it. I can attest that it's pretty big in there. And the sight of the giant blown-down trees for miles around is incredible.
I'm a long-time hiker too, and that Mt St Helens hike I'd have loved to have done.
(When a kid, my parents' home was within five minutes walking distance of a national park: https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/blue.... In effect, it was our backyard and in those days we could get into all sorts of trouble without helicopter parents bothering us or cramping our style, (back then it was common for us kids at the age of 10 or 11 to go roaming in those valleys without supervision). However, there were no active volcanoes, the nearest to my home being about 20 miles away and it has been dormant for millions of years: https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/moun....)
When you mentioned that you were hiking at MSH several decades ago, it suddenly dawned on me that that flight of mine was 40 years ago (hell those years seem to have disappeared quickly). As I said, what I saw was nothing but destruction and desolation, but presumably by the time of your visit some 20 years later you would have seen new growth starting to take hold everywhere. Even so, from some pictures I've just seen on the web, 40 years still isn't long enough for nature to hide the event.
(When a kid, my parents' home was within five minutes walking distance of a national park: https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/blue.... In effect, it was our backyard and in those days we could get into all sorts of trouble without helicopter parents bothering us or cramping our style, (back then it was common for us kids at the age of 10 or 11 to go roaming in those valleys without supervision). However, there were no active volcanoes, the nearest to my home being about 20 miles away and it has been dormant for millions of years: https://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/visit-a-park/parks/moun....)
When you mentioned that you were hiking at MSH several decades ago, it suddenly dawned on me that that flight of mine was 40 years ago (hell those years seem to have disappeared quickly). As I said, what I saw was nothing but destruction and desolation, but presumably by the time of your visit some 20 years later you would have seen new growth starting to take hold everywhere. Even so, from some pictures I've just seen on the web, 40 years still isn't long enough for nature to hide the event.
External links to your photos are definitely on topic. Please post them for us!
Yeah you're right. But I think I spoke too soon. I've been looking and I've still not found them yet (but I know that I still have them). I have over 30,000 slides in those little yellow Kodak boxes and a similar number of color and B&W negatives and to date I've only managed to scan about 1% — 2% of them!
I shouldn't be allowed to sort and cull my own photos as I'm too possessive of them and I don't trust other members of my family or friends who are in the photos to do so either (as they've been known to spirit away technically excellent photographs of themselves that don't show them in a flattering light).
Then there's the entropy problem: in say a bracket of photos the ones with the best focus, composure etc. don't necessarily have the best exposure, color balance etc. so I can't decide what to discard and so keep putting off the hard cull (at least 3/4 of them need to go).
However, in the interim, I found this site (and I'm sure there are many more with a bit of looking): https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/eruption-mount-st-helens-19.... This site has some excellent photos and many of the aerial shots are very similar to mine. (If anyone else has found similar sites then post links here.)
I draw your attention to the photos with descriptions that begin the following commentary:
• 'Aerial view of timber blowdown, destroyed by the May 18 eruption...' and the two images (one removed) underneath it.
• 'Mount St. Helens, shortly after the eruption of May 18, 1980.' — compare this with the first two images of the volcano before it exploded and you'll get some idea of how much of the side of the volcano blew out during the eruption.
• 'The slopes of Smith Creek valley, east of Mount St. Helens, show trees blown down by the May 18, 1980 lateral blast.'
• 'Denuded trees lay like matchsticks in the changed landscape around Mount St. Helens, shown two days after the eruption, on May 20, 1980.'
• The last image 'Satellites in orbit and scientists on the ground still monitor the mountain and track the recovery of Mt. St. Helens.' puts it all into perspective. Imagine me in the plane flying out of the crater (through airspace that had been previously solid rock) and been confronted with the 'matchstick' alignment of tree trunks radiating out from the new 'mouth' of the crater. The 'spokes of the wheel' alignment I mentioned was very obvious at this point.
Unfortunately, the panorama I saw from the plane's window was not be easily captured at the time by me or others as most of us didn't own cameras that could take panoramic images. The 4:3 aspect ratio of old camera images somewhat detracted from this amazing spectacle.
...Back to searching. :-)
I shouldn't be allowed to sort and cull my own photos as I'm too possessive of them and I don't trust other members of my family or friends who are in the photos to do so either (as they've been known to spirit away technically excellent photographs of themselves that don't show them in a flattering light).
Then there's the entropy problem: in say a bracket of photos the ones with the best focus, composure etc. don't necessarily have the best exposure, color balance etc. so I can't decide what to discard and so keep putting off the hard cull (at least 3/4 of them need to go).
However, in the interim, I found this site (and I'm sure there are many more with a bit of looking): https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/eruption-mount-st-helens-19.... This site has some excellent photos and many of the aerial shots are very similar to mine. (If anyone else has found similar sites then post links here.)
I draw your attention to the photos with descriptions that begin the following commentary:
• 'Aerial view of timber blowdown, destroyed by the May 18 eruption...' and the two images (one removed) underneath it.
• 'Mount St. Helens, shortly after the eruption of May 18, 1980.' — compare this with the first two images of the volcano before it exploded and you'll get some idea of how much of the side of the volcano blew out during the eruption.
• 'The slopes of Smith Creek valley, east of Mount St. Helens, show trees blown down by the May 18, 1980 lateral blast.'
• 'Denuded trees lay like matchsticks in the changed landscape around Mount St. Helens, shown two days after the eruption, on May 20, 1980.'
• The last image 'Satellites in orbit and scientists on the ground still monitor the mountain and track the recovery of Mt. St. Helens.' puts it all into perspective. Imagine me in the plane flying out of the crater (through airspace that had been previously solid rock) and been confronted with the 'matchstick' alignment of tree trunks radiating out from the new 'mouth' of the crater. The 'spokes of the wheel' alignment I mentioned was very obvious at this point.
Unfortunately, the panorama I saw from the plane's window was not be easily captured at the time by me or others as most of us didn't own cameras that could take panoramic images. The 4:3 aspect ratio of old camera images somewhat detracted from this amazing spectacle.
...Back to searching. :-)
Nukes tiny on the geological scale:
https://youtu.be/hSjratvNGmo
https://youtu.be/hSjratvNGmo
>Can you drill into a supervolcano to relieve pressure?
Yes, but I'm going to need a bigger drill . . .
Yes, but I'm going to need a bigger drill . . .
TLDR: No.
But RTFA anyway, it's a good read, and a little unsettling how many problems people think could be solved with just a bit of nuclear bombing.
But RTFA anyway, it's a good read, and a little unsettling how many problems people think could be solved with just a bit of nuclear bombing.
Lol. Yeah that totally sounds like a great idea that is going to end super well and not backfire at all!
Would not that have massive CO2 footprint? It would be very expensive to pay for it. Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count, but man-made emmisions require permit.
>>Vulcanic eruption is natural and does not count,
I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmoshphere is physically incapable of differentiating between man-released CO2 and naturally released CO2.
>> man-made emmisions require permit
Whose permit? On what authority? Even if such permit would be required, who would deny it if the alternative was literally the destruction of a large portion of the United States(if we are talking about Yellowstone exploding)?
I'm pretty sure the Earth's atmoshphere is physically incapable of differentiating between man-released CO2 and naturally released CO2.
>> man-made emmisions require permit
Whose permit? On what authority? Even if such permit would be required, who would deny it if the alternative was literally the destruction of a large portion of the United States(if we are talking about Yellowstone exploding)?
This would be an issue of national security. I would not want to be the person who spends money to set up drilling toward the Yellowstone Supervolcano without alerting the US Department of the Interior of the plans.
I can only imagine that such a massive enterprise would be entirely conducted by the US Government, probably any of the military branches(is Engineers Corps still a thing?)
The Army Corps of Engineers is a thing... their civil works authority makes them the final authority on water management (changing river flow, dams, anything related to water management.) Not sure about supervolcanos though, couldn't find that on their website.
I am sure that a minimum of the US Geological Survey and ACE will be involved in any supervolcano remediation plan. And probably FEMA but hopefully they won't need to act. ;)
I am sure that a minimum of the US Geological Survey and ACE will be involved in any supervolcano remediation plan. And probably FEMA but hopefully they won't need to act. ;)
[deleted]
There is Paris Agreement, most countries signed including Italy and US. Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano.
Naturally released CO2 is harmless. There is a difference!
Naturally released CO2 is harmless. There is a difference!
>>Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano.
Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly?
>>Naturally released CO2 is harmless.
Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.
Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly?
>>Naturally released CO2 is harmless.
Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.
How is that not positive? Drilling means gigatons of new CO2 emmisions.
Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!
Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!
Ah, so you were being facetious then. Should have said at the beginning, would have saved us some time and you the downvotes.
> Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future.
I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.
I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcan...
Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.
Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.
Is this like where people are tricked into believing “sea salt” in the diet is somehow healthier than “table salt”?
You wouldn't want to drill into the magma chamber to relieve pressure, instead you would drill next to the magma chamber to cool the rocks on the edge, shrinking the chamber. Every few decades after the chamber had shrunk, you'd drill a new set of boreholes closer. The expense would be substantial, but well within the range of major government projects, and if you use the heat for power generation you can recover some of that cost - indeed if you subsidize the initial logistical setup, the long term operation can likely be fiscally self sustaining.