[andrewflnr]

Yellowstone is not just "a supervolcano", as mentioned it's a natural preserve and generally beautiful place. I'm pretty sure there are enough other geologically active sites closer to populations and with less history that there's no reason to bother with Yellowstone

[_Microft]

As I already said, I absolutely understand the concerns. That does not mean that it might not become inevitable to do something about it one day. In the long run, the choice seem to be that it either blows up right away (in the geologically-near future) or to extract enough energy to at least delay the disaster.

Edit, as reply to child comment: here is the NASA report that concludes that it is possible to cool supervolcanoes:

https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/sites/default/file...

[chrisco255]

It's naive to believe that you can extract enough energy from the earth's core to prevent supervolcanic eruptions.

[sdenton4]

Well, it's also native to believe that we could dunno enough CO2 into the atmosphere to affect global mean temperature, yet here we are.

Multiply any activity by a non trivial fraction of humanity and you get non trivial side effects.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Think bigger! Imagine it as the maintenance node and transportation hub for the new coast to coast hyperloop network! All subterran! Not only powered by renewable energy, but powering the entire network and nation by subterran HVDC also!

[grkvlt]

maybe, but if not, and (hypothetically) if it could solve the problem of carbon neutral energy and therefore halt global climate change, destruction of Yellowstone as a 'beautiful place' could well be a price worth paying in the long run. i don't think it's likely though, fortunately for Yellowstone!