You can put it into aluminum production, for example, though at $0.10/kWh it's going to be an unprofitable business.
> If only 5% of your transmitted energy actually makes it to your buyer, without congestion, you're spending $0.10 / kWh but your buyer is paying $2.00 / kWh where the difference all goes to line losses.
You might get 95% loss if you wrapped your line around the globe, but for practical length of 1000 km, you can get as little as 3% with high voltage DC. Check out the Pacific DC Intertie, which is 50 years old instalation with over 800 miles of conductor spanning from Columbia River to Los Angeles.
I assume 350C isn't hot enough for aluminum which melts around 660C, but maybe there are other industrial processes that could take advantage of the heat. Maybe using the heat to kiln-dry wood or cure autoclaved aerated concrete blocks or something like that.
All practical electricity generation technologies do it through heating water just the same, and they produce hot water as a waste product too. So, if your industrial process can use heat directly, it might as well use waste heat from existing power plants.
Well, usually they run out of excess heating in the winter.
Perhaps, Yellowstone and Iceland ought to have some heavy industry.
Maybe build a massive seawater pipeline and create desalination plants that can then be redirected to California/Nevada
Isn't the typical transmission and distribution loss around 8% in the US? Why would it be 95%?
Haha, I'm picturing the pitch on their risk profile. "Yes, it's built on top of an active volcano. But hey, if it goes off, the entire american economy and a large part of the internet will be gutted. So it's unlikely to be your highest concern."
Assessing such a project would probably drive an actuary insane.
I think it depends on the type of volcano. There's some volcanoes that only go boom, and some that only go ooze, and some that are in the middle. And, IIRC, yellowstone is one that's big-boom or nuthin'. But it's been a while since sophomore geology class.
There is always a way to bleed off pressure relatively safely. There is not always a way to do it without bankrupting your entire economy. I don't even know how those balloon solutions translate to geology, but they feel like they could be expensive--from tens of billions to trillions of dollars.
High voltage + low amperage = high energy transfer efficiency.
According to Wikipedia, PV cells are 0.23/kWh.(1)
1-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...
Now THAT is interesting! Google is tying up hydroelectric dams with their centers currently, it seems quite feasible that massive geothermal energy could be put to work the same way. Deep-learning applications are seriously energy-hungry and they're going to need exponentially more in the future.
So instead of eradicating humanity by erupting, Yellowstone will eradicate humanity by powering Skynet.
If they plan on extracting 6GW they'll need to put it somewhere, what's a people hub near Yellowstone? ...
So they'll have to build out high capacity transmission lines which have associated costs for leases, construction, and maintenance.
Then finally you get into the real kicker: cost of transmission. If only 5% of your transmitted energy actually makes it to your buyer, without congestion, you're spending $0.10 / kWh but your buyer is paying $2.00 / kWh where the difference all goes to line losses.
Maybe building data centers nearby is a good way to mitigate the infrastructure problem.
Edit: I also forgot to mention the time value of energy infrastructure. What is the expected time horizon to break even at target rates of return? How do those returns compare to other forms of capital investment? What's the risk profile look like for power producers that require heavy upfront investment? (hint: not good)
Edit: Okay, the 5% figure was out of bounds, more realistic is 97% with proper build-out.