Should We Build A Geothermal Power Plant In Yellowstone?

Yellowstone National Park is one of the most famous tourist destinations and nature reserves in the world. And it's also the perfect place for.... geothermal power plants? Let's talk about the weird reason why NASA is all for building a power plant in our favorite national park.

Hosted by: Hank Green (he/him)
----------
Support us for $8/month on Patreon and keep SciShow going!
Join our SciShow email list to get the latest news and highlights:
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Reed Spilmann, Odditeas , Garrett Galloway, Friso, DrakoEsper , Kenny Wilson, Lyndsay Brown, Jeremy Mattern, Jaap Westera, Rizwan Kassim, Harrison Mills, Jeffrey Mckishen, Matt Curls, Eric Jensen, Chris Mackey, Adam Brainard, Ash, Piya Shedden, charles george, Alex Hackman, Kevin Knupp, Chris Peters, Kevin Bealer, Jason A Saslow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?

#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------

[GSBarlev]

8:37 "Yellowstone could generate enough electricity to power the entire United States, basically indefinitely" is an *absolutely jawdropping* statement.

[MoonThuli]

If they're built with care geothermal plants don't really spoil a natural landscape. In Iceland the famous blue lagoon is actually just the waste water from a geothermal plant lol.

[Pez_Destroyer]

I did notice that there was no pause for a sponsored segment in this video! That means it was paid for by all you valuable Patreon supporters. Thank you all who can, and do support this channel and making it ad-free!

[briebel]

From what I understood of the original proposal, the geothermal plant would be built outside of the park itself. So it's not going to ruin anything. I don't think people grasp just how huge that magma chamber is, it extends well outside of what people think of as Yellowstone.

Edit: Seriously, people, search the initial NASA proposition from 2015. It had nothing to do with the park or the geyser system in the park. That's the one people should read for themselves, instead of relying on click bait like this.

[squireltag]

This makes me want to suggest a video topic: How some science is privately owned/withheld from the public. My sister was a geology major, and thru her I learned about how a lot of fossil fuel companies commision scientific studies, only for their benifit, withholding what was learned, as a business strategy. It makes sense from a business standpoint, but also always seemed ethically dubious. Its a messy topic, and hard to properly discuss. Itd be cool to here from a philosophy/ethics perspective on this too. Maybe you guys could even do a collaboration with Philosophy Tube channel here in yt.

[DeadbeatDuder]

Incredible video, got hooked up from start to finish. As a non native speaker, I found it extraordinarily easy to understand everything said (top enunciation) and it presented all the sides and views to the topic, without necessarily forcing or addressing the viewer towards one. As usual, quality content from this channel.

[disky]

I am extremely conflicted about this video because, having been to Yellowstone, I know that it is one of the most beautiful and special places on Earth and I don't want to diminish that with a power plant. However, I am just as concerned about that caldera as NASA is, and I've had the same idea. If the cost of a vast reservoir of desperately needed clean energy and staving off a global catastrophe is that we lose a beautiful park, I guess that's a bargain.

[elijahstarkey]

Small correction, but the most recent eruption at Yellowstone was not 600, 000+ years ago, but rather only ~70, 000 years ago. This eruption was also a lava flow rather than one of the massive 'super-volcanic' eruptions that most people associate with Yellowstone. Since the last caldera forming eruption there have been dozens of these lava flows. These eruptions, alongside millennia of erosion, are why when you go into Yellowstone National Park you don't enter a massive pit in the ground. These lava flows have filled in the caldera and covered the surrounding area, reducing the definition of the caldera's rim.

[vesvibes]

okay but can we talk about that EMBROIDERED PELICAN SHIRT??? absolutely slays, love it!

[JulieFox-hw]

The caldera is now under Yellowstone, but it was under Idaho for thousands of years. We have more hot springs than any other state. Access to the heat inside the earth is accessible in many places that are not high elevation, environmentally sensitive, and remote.

[philliprobinson]

Hi. I'm a Kiwi, and NZ's geothermal generation has been very successful. Yes, we lost our "pink and white terraces" in the 1886 eruption of Mt Tarawera, but we now market our stinking mud-pools which resemble plates of boiling porridge. The tourist market is not fussy as long as it's "different to home", the locals friendly, and the food and wine are good. "Another spoonful please." Had we had geothermal knowledge back then, we may have engineered to keep the terraces intact, so there's risk in doing nothing as well as risk in doing something.

At this stage I'd support NASA's idea for Yellowstone. If the big one blows then you not only won't have a Yellowstone, you probably won't have a USA either. As this affects the entire world, I'd suggest the rest of the world should be involved in the decision. Remember Krakatoa? Remember Tambora? Thanks for an excellent video. Cheers, P.R.

[Martinspire]

I think there's two things they could do:
1) have just one installation and have it run for x years to see the result. Start small, go bigger in a contained way. The results of the stories mentioned seem to be still rather quick so its not that difficult to monitor I'd assume.
2) build the installation itself in a mountain/hill so it doesn't hurt the landscape. Or in an area that isn't really visible. Yellowstone is big, surely they can find a few areas they could put this in without destroying it. To me this seems like a no-brainer for how much you could potentially extract in a rather stable way. But I can see why they might look for more research.

[fep_ptcp]

Enough electricity for the whole US? I'll be damned

[TCC]

I mean if we're just concerned with maintaining yellowstone, I think it'd be a lot more devastated by a super volcano eruption than the installations of powerplants....

[Glaudge]

There's non volcanic zones in the US that are warm enough to generate power but no one has tried drilling them yet (but you have to drill further to get to it)

[edwardlulofs]

The magma volume under Yellowstone is huge. A large plume trails way to the west. Start at the edge of the magma.
Any geologist comments?

[greentravels]

@1:25, gets hotter by 30 C (86 F)?! Sounds like a conversion error. An increase of 30 C would be 54 F, 0 C (32 F) to 30 C (86 F) would be 54 F; a straight temperature unit conversion would be right though.

[robthetraveler]

1:18 The temperature 30 C might equal 86 F, but a 30 C change is not an 86 F change. Every degree C = 1.8 degrees F, so a 30 C change is equal to a 54 F change. Still very hot!

[nichmaus]

I was an engineer for a geothermal power company. The resource at yellowstone is not ideal for geothermal. Most of the resource is not actually that hot as far as geothermal goes. Also it is very high in silica that would lead to premature failure of the equipment.

[DoktorApplejuceAbridged]

Shouldn't we focus on Naples before Yellowstone? Like, Yellowstone is only one of many caldera forming super-volcanoes on the planet. And the land beneath Yellowstone is still settling from the last eruption. Naples is rising. That means Naples will erupt again far sooner than Yellowstone.